Thursday, 30 May 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Pensions: Assets Test To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Governments failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: They adversely effect the small and the medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; The Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; Any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ''windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; The owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 119 citizens). 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 Harradines's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 294 citizens), Chipp (from 301 citizens), Cooney (from 380 citizens), Hamer (from 323 citizens), MacGibbon (from 1,004 citizens), Messner (from 209 citizens), Missen (from 336 citizens), Primmer (from 345 citizens), Robert Ray (from 481 citizens), Richardson (from 222 citizens) and Zakharov (from 369 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth; That the proposed Human Embryo Experimentation Bill is a retrogressive step which could deprive thousands of couples of the chance to have children. The planned prohibition on experimentation on a human embryo would have the effect of ending the breakthroughs made in the study of infertility. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should seek the prevention of the passage of the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 65 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That the functions of local government involve assessing local demand for services and either providing, or facilitating the provision of, those services; 2. That a transfer of responsibility for the provision of services from one level of government to another must be accompanied by a corresponding transfer of funds; 3. That local government in Victoria is becoming increasingly involved in the planning and provision of human services in particular; 4. That the level of services currently provided by or through local government cannot be maintained, and certainly cannot be increased, if the funds made available to local government through the personal income tax-sharing arrangement are not maintained at the present level; 5. That we are totally opposed to any reduction in the percentage of personal income tax allocated to local government. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the funding of local government without the consent of representatives of local government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from nine citizens). Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 3, standing in my name for today for disallowance of certain words in the Supervision of Offenders (Community Service Orders) Ordinance 1985. I seek leave to make a statement to explain the position of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on this matter. Leave granted. Senator COATES —Under this Ordinance, an authorised officer can 'as far as practicable' take a person's 'religious beliefs' into account when directing community service work to be performed in lieu of some other punishment. The Committee considered that the authorised officer should not have the personal discretion implied by the words 'as far as practicable'. The Committee also objected to the apparent exclusion of 'genuine conscientious beliefs' from those matters to be taken into account in directing what kinds of community service should be performed. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) has agreed to delete the words 'as far as practicable' and thus remove the objectionable discretion. He has also agreed to include in the Ordinance a requirement that an authorised officer shall consult with an offender before giving directions and to take into account any matters raised by the offender in the course of that consultation. The Committee understands that this will ensure that a person is not exposed to the legitimate moral distress that might arise from a genuine conscientious objection to a direction. The committee was able to discuss and accept the Minister's undertaking only this morning and thus I was unable to give notice of intention to withdraw yesterday. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, the Committee's and the Minister's letters in order to record for the information of honourable senators the issues which were discussed between us. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA. THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES 14 May 1985 Gordon Scholes, M. P. Minister for Territories Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 At its meeting on 9 May 1985, the Committee again considered the Supervision of Offenders (Community Service Orders) Ordinance 1985 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 10 of 1985) and your letter of 9 April 1985. The Committee thanks you for the advice you have given. However, the Committee remains of the view that the expression ''as far as practicable'' in paragraph 6 (3) (a) of the Ordinance, referring to the directions which an authorised officer may give to an offender, does leave open the possibility that an offender could be required, by the authorised officer, to work in circumstances contrary to his or her genuine religious beliefs. Further, the Ordinance does not make allowance for genuine conscientious beliefs to be taken into account. Such beliefs might include a genuine conscientious objection to performing work- (a) for a voluntary organisation, such as a church, the beliefs or policies of which he or she disapproves; (b) on a day on which a person's trade union is engaged in lawful industrial action; (c) on a day on which the trade union of other persons, whose paid work is performed on the premises where the community service is to be performed, are engaged in lawful industrial action; or (d) at a hospital performing or not performing medical procedures which may be the subject of genuine conscientious (rather than religious) objections (for example abortions, electro-convulsive therapy or experimental biological research with human embryos). The Committee's concern is with genuine conscientious objection which would compel a person to refuse to comply with a direction or which would cause a person to experience legitimate moral distress if he or she did comply with the direction. In the context of conscientious beliefs, the Committee notes the comment made, in the last paragraph of your letter, in relation to the expression ''as far as practicable''. A court could consider religious beliefs prior to making a community service order. It is, however, a matter of interpretation whether the expression ''work of a suitable nature'' in paragraph 5561 (1) (c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.) in its application to the A.C.T. could exclude the categories of work described in (a) to (d) above. In any event, a discretion appears to remain with the authorised officer to take religious beliefs into account, but only to such extent as that officer perceives is practicable with reference to the performance and supervision of the work. The Committee is inclined to the view that such a discretion should not exist. In the light of these considerations, the Committee remains committed to its attitude which led to its decision to give the notice of motion. The Committee intends to amend the notice to limit it to disallowance of the expressions ''as far as practicable'' and ''religious'' where occurring in sub-section 6 (3) and paragraph 6 (3) (a) respectively, so that the substance of the Ordinance is not affected. However, your agreement to amend the Ordinance would be an outcome preferable to any disallowance and the Committee would welcome your acceptance of its proposals. John Coates Chairman 24 May 1985 Senator J. Coates Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator I refer to your letter of 14 May 1985 concerning the Supervision of Offenders (Community Service Orders) Ordinance 1985. Having considered the matters raised in your letter I would be agreeable to the removal of the words ''as far as practicable'' from sub-section 6 (3) of the Ordinance. I also accept that there may be other kinds of conscientious belief that should be taken into account by the authorized officer but it seems to me that it would not be realistic to expect that in every case the authorized officer would have the competence to make a judgment about whether the offender entertains, to use the Committee's words, a ''genuine conscientious objection which would compel a person to refuse to comply with a direction or which would cause a person to experience legitimate moral distress if he or she did comply with the direction''. It occurs to me that the same result could be secured if the Ordinance were to contain a provision imposing an obligation on the authorized officer to consult with the offender before giving directions under section 6 and to take into account any matters raised by the offender in the course of that consultation. I have asked my Department to arrange the preparation of amendments to the Ordinance to this effect. Your sincerely GORDON SCHOLES Senator COATES —The Committee commends the Minister for his decision to accommodate the Committee's concerns about the Ordinance. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade has completed its Reports on the Re-examination of the Closer Economic Relationship between Australia and New Zealand, the Committee may send the Reports to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event- (a) the Reports shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Reports is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Reports; and (d) the President or Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the Reports upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the failure of the Government to provide efficient postal services in the Australian Capital Territory; and (b) urges the Government to sell the former Canberra City Post Office valued at about $2.5m and utilise these funds towards the development of adequate mail exchange facilities and amenities for mail sorters. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) aware that uranium is a relatively common metal and widely distributed around the world; (b) well aware that Australia is not the only source of uranium and a policy of non-supply to the world market will not stop nuclear power stations being constructed or operating; and (c) convinced that more and more countries will move into the nuclear field over the coming decade because of environmental and other reasons, is of the opinion that a policy of restricting development of uranium mines within Australia is a policy out of touch with reality, and one which can only damage the economy of Australia. The PRESIDENT —Order! I advise the Senate that I have received a letter from the solicitors for John Fairfax and Sons Ltd forwarding a letter from the chief editorial executive of that company relating to the recent report of the Committee of Privileges. For the information of honourable senators, I table a copy of that correspondence, together with a copy of my reply. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. New Directions-Report of the Handicapped Program Review-Together with an associated summary of recommendations-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Community Services relating to the report. 2. Operations of the Curriculum Development Centre-Report 1984-Together with a report on financial statements by the Auditor-General-Pursuant to section 5 and 6 of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Act 1984. 3. Review of Tariff Classification Amendment procedures-Report. 4. Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee-Report 1983-84. 5. Working relationship between the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, and the Australian Customs Service-Paper. 6. Independent Schools (Loan Guarantee) Act 1969-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools Loan Guarantee Act 1969. 7. Commonwealth Teaching Service-Annual Report 1984-Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972. 8. Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I seek leave to have the statement on the report of the Handicapped Programs Review incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I am pleased today to table the report of the Handicapped Programs Review with an associated summary of recommendations. I seek leave to make a statement regarding the report. Honourable senators will recall that in September 1983 I launched a review of the Commonwealth Government's program of special services for disabled people. The Handicapped Programs Review has been the most comprehensive public examination ever attempted of any aspect of an Australian Government's social policy and programs. The Review received some 1700 submissions. Over 5,000 people participated in an unprecedented program of open public consultation entailing public meetings, seminars, site visits, drop-in sessions and interviews. This extensive consultation process covered sixty-five cities and provincial centres throughout Australia. The Review Report outlines the major concerns and options raised in submissions and consultations and makes recommendations arising from extensive consideration of these issues, indicating possible future policy directions relevant to the needs of people with disabilities. The report is called 'New Directions', reflecting the positive approach of the Government in setting up the Review and of the community in responding to it. Its primary focus is the aspirations of people with disabilities who want independent living options, realistic training and employment opportunities and better access to generic or mainstream community services. Moreover, it challenges both governments and service providing agencies to re-examine their objectives and outcomes in the light of these aspirations. The Review Report makes 52 recommendations on a variety of issues including human rights, education, income maintenance, transport, sport, recreation and leisure and prevention of disability as well as those relating more directly to my particular responsibilities as Minister for Community Services. Too many people with disabilities are still confronted with limited or no choice in housing, employment or training. Many have no choice in securing accommodation other than that provided in institutional settings which are isolated from the general community. As a result, a disproportionate number of disabled people are accommodated in institutions. Physically disabled young people frequently have no options other than nursing homes designed for dependent elderly people. There is currently a significant lack of respite care and other home-based support services for severely disabled people and their families. Of those who manage to gain access to services which purport to provide independent living, vocational skills or training programs, many are forced to rely on outdated or unrealistic training methods and environments. Very low wages, poor working conditions and limited work options are characteristic of too many sheltered workshops. There is a lack of appropriate training, placement and support programs for disabled people capable of entry into open employment. Many activity therapy centres are unable to provide necessary training in independent living and social integration because they are inappropriately staffed and funded. The poor co-ordination of related Federal and State Government programs was a matter for adverse comment all over Australia. Added to this is the absence of clearly specified program objectives for clients of services and a lack of consumer involvement in planning and review of services. Positive consumer outcomes should be a mandatory focus for all funded programs, but at present this is simply not achievable. These shortcomings are exacerbated by the restrictive nature of the existing legislation which prevents funding of many worthwhile programs, especially those designed to achieve greater integration in the community. Although the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 was designed to assist people with disabilities, in practice it served to channel government funding to larger organisations which generally saw their role as developing institutional and program care. The Review has identified the need for a major revision of this legislation to allow for significant changes and improvements in the provision of services so that they respond more flexibly to individual needs and promote better integration of people with disabilities into mainstream community activities. It is my intention to develop as a matter of urgency new funding and program directions identified as necessary by the Review. Program planning and administration will be changed to focus on the needs of disabled people rather than on the needs of funded organisations. This means we will have to develop ways of enabling people with disabilities to live independently within the community, of improving their access to mainstream community services and ensuring that better and more realistic training and employment opportunities are opened to them. Among the key reforms that will aim at achieving these objectives are: Providing more resources for community based accommodation and support services with particular emphasis on relocating people inappropriately housed in institutional settings; Providing transitional funding to establish a network of post-school independent living and training programs in and through TAFE colleges; Revamping the sheltered workshop program to develop two main tiers of service, one focussing on extending competitive employment training and placement for those able to move into open employment and the other focusing on improving options in special employment services for those unable to be employed elsewhere; and Funding a number of new special service models for disabled people such as citizen advocacy, information services, community education and recreation. Finally, we will strengthen our commitment to ensure that the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS) makes itself more accessible to disabled people needing such services through a community outreach approach. In particular, the regional network will be further developed to focus more strongly on the greater participation of disabled people in community life. A range of demonstration project grants will be provided to establish new programs to examine the feasibility, effectiveness, and relative cost of the new consumer outcomes approach to services for people with disabilities. In addition, program development grants will be provided to existing services in accommodation, respite care, employment, training and special support service areas to assist with restructuring programs to conform to the consumer outcomes approach. The new specific support service types to be developed will include initiatives in information services, citizen advocacy, self help and recreation. To bring about these reforms, it will be necessary to develop new Disability Services Legislation to replace the existing Handicapped Persons Assistance Act and Part VIII of the Social Security Act covering the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. I propose to introduce this legislation during the Autumn Session of Parliament next year. This Disability Services Legislation will reflect the new directions identified by the Review and provide a basis for the provision of a more flexible range of services and associated funding arrangements designed to improve opportunities for disabled people in community based settings. The new legislation will emphasise the development of a needs based planning approach and a service delivery structure involving closer co-operation with State Governments. Particular attention will be given to involving consumers/clients in planning as well as program delivery and review. The legislation will require clearly defined consumer outcome objectives as the basis for program development, implementation and review. An individual can expect to see programs designed in terms of a place to live, paid employment, ability to live independently, community participation, security and choice of lifestyle. A number of the recommendations contained in the Report refer to the need to provide personal and social support services. This will need to be addressed not only in the new Disability Services Program, which will be closely linked with the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, but also in the Home and Community Care Program which has always been intended to cater for younger disabled people as well as the elderly. In addition I intend to initiate discussions with the State Governments to explore the possibility of a joint Commonwealth/State Government programs of special services for people with disabilities. These discussions will be aimed at enabling us to develop, where appropriate, complementary legislation, cost sharing and effective co-ordination with generic or mainstream community services. Within the new Department of Community Services, the Office for Disability, together with the Disability Advisory Council of Australia, will be handling arrangements for continuing the consultation process started by the Review. Consumers of services, their families and representatives of service provider organisations will be asked to assist in elaborating and refining the wide range of developmental objectives put forward for consideration in the Report of the Handicapped Programs Review. Clearly the major reforms I have outlined will not be achieved overnight but will require much consideration, negotiation and hard work by everyone concerned with disability matters. I look forward to initiating action and achieving results on these matters, in consultation with my government colleagues, State Governments, non-government organisations and community groups and, in particular, disabled people themselves. Finally, I wish to record my appreciation of the contributions made by the Review Steering Committee, members of the Disability Advisory Council of Australia and Professor Tom Bellamy of the University of Oregon, all of whom assisted in developing the actual proposals made in the Report. In particular, I am grateful for the efforts of the members of the Review Secretariat, headed by Mr Brian Luby, all of whom have worked hard over a long period and have maintained a consistently high standard of performance with an unfailing enthusiasm and commitment. Above all, I want to thank all those individuals and organisations who so readily assisted the Review by making submissions and participating in the Review's consultations around Australia. Without their support it would not have been possible to produce this New Directions Report on behalf of all those concerned about disability and opportunity in this country. Motion (by Senator Elstob) agreed to: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Social Welfare has completed its Report on children in institutional and other forms of care, the Committee may send the Report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the Report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Report is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Report; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the Report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Motion (by Senator Coates) agreed to: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has completed any of its Reports, the Committee may send the Reports to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the Reports shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Reports is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Reports; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the Reports upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement. The purpose of my statement is to clarify the position with regard to the handling of the report of the Handicapped Programs Review. Leave granted. Senator MESSNER —I must say that I was apparently misinformed this morning by the office of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) as to the procedures for handling this very important report that was to be tabled today. In fact, I expected a ministerial statement to be made by the Minister with regard to the tabling of this document on the Handicapped Programs Review. That procedure was not followed. As a result, I am unable to respond to the statement that has been tabled with the document. This is a very important issue, one on which I think all of us in the Senate will have something to say. Consequently, I now seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the statement. Senator Haines —It's coming on in papers. Senator MESSNER —Would the honourable senator mind if I handle it my way? The PRESIDENT —Order! Is leave granted for Senator Messner to move such a motion? Senator Grimes —No. Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on the same subject. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —I share Senator Messner's view that the report of the Handicapped Programs Review is an important document. It is very important not only to the Opposition but also to the Government. We have introduced it as a paper which will be able to be debated this afternoon in the debate on the presentation of papers. It is item No. 1. The statement Senator Messner refers to was brought down in association with the paper, I think it is sensible that we treat this paper like other papers and that Senator Messner move that the Senate take note of the paper this afternoon and initiate debate then. It is an important statement for the Government and for me, as I said. I would be perfectly happy to get up and read a very long document, but in the circumstances of our being near the end of the session, I thought that this was the reasonable way to handle it. I apologise to Senator Messner if he thought he was misled. I can assure him that no member of my staff intended to mislead him. We intended to handle the tabling of this document in this way for some time, because of the log-jam that we have now. I just do not see why this paper should receive special attention above other papers, despite the fact that I would be perfectly happy for that situation to apply. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —by leave-There is no question that, as Senator Messner and the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, have both said, the statement relating to the report of the Handicapped Programs Review is an important statement. The establishment of the Review was long overdue. There are a lot of recommendations contained in it, and I would certainly appreciate being given until this afternoon to have a look at the details instead of having to go straight into it this morning. I think that this matter is too important just to deal with it on an ad hoc basis on the run. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Messner sought leave to move a motion. That application for leave is still before us unless Senator Messner seeks to withdraw it at this stage, or does he seek to proceed? Senator Messner —Mr President, I really believe that the Government is mishandling this issue and avoiding its responsibilities in this matter. I believe that the Minister's statement should be debated. The PRESIDENT —Order! Does Senator Messner still seek leave to move that motion? Senator Messner —Yes, Mr President, I do. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for Senator Messner to move that motion? Senator Grimes —Do you intend to have a full scale debate now on this matter? Senator Messner —Yes; that is why I want to move that motion. Leave not granted. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(10.14) —I move: That Business of the Senate, Notices of Motions Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name for the disallowance of the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations 1985 and the Credit Ordinance 1985 be postponed until a later hour this day. The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has considered these matters at its meeting this morning, and has been doing so for some time. There are still some negotiations to be held with Ministers in the hope that it will not be necessary to proceed with the disallowance, and it may be necessary to meet for a short time this afternoon. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(10.15) —by leave-Mr President, I have already explained this matter in my previous statement. I move: That leave be granted to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances to meet during the sitting of the Senate this day. Motion (by Senator Macklin for Senator Chipp) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. General Business Motion (by Senator Macklin for Senator Chipp) agreed to: That General Business be considered after consideration of Government Papers this day in the following order: Notices of Motion Nos 44 to 99 standing in the name of Senator Chipp for the Introduced Bills. Debate resumed from 22 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.17) —The Opposition supports the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) although we will be moving amendments in the course of the Committee stage. I do not propose to detain the Senate at any length during the second reading debate. However, this legislation appears to me to be getting somewhat out of hand. When this Government came to office it made a statement in relation to the original purpose of this legislation which is a feature of each sitting period of the Senate. In fact, two such Bills are introduced each year. The purpose to which the Government adhered originally was to provide a convenient way of making a number of very technical amendments to legislation. Certainly these were to be amendments which could not be controversial in nature. It appears now that the scope of such legislation-this Bill embodies some examples-is expanding every year. Such legislation is rather losing sight of some of the limitations originally intended for it. This Bill contains a series of amendments to a great many Acts of Parliament. I have not actually counted them all but probably 60 or 70 Acts are amended by this legislation. Amendments of a very significant nature are proposed, for instance, to the composition of the Trade Union Training Authority. Also there is an amendment proposing the implementation of a treaty. I think that these important policy decisions, even if in fact they do not result in controversy, demand further consideration and time should be provided for that consideration to be given properly to them. This type of legislation is a vehicle for making nuts and bolts amendments to other legislation. Such amendments are necessary because of the great volume of legislation which this Parliament has been passing over the last 10 to 15 years. It really is a sorry commentary on the extent of that legislative activity over so many years that it is necessary to have legislation of this sort at all. Regrettably it is necessary. Mistakes are revealed and technical matters have to be changed or adapted for one reason or another. Clearly, the Government is now using this legislation as a vehicle for implementing amendments-some of which are substantial-on the assumption that they are not controversial. I suppose that in that sense the Opposition will support them. On the other hand, even though the Parliament may be prepared to support the amendments, the fact is that they deal with subjects that ought to be debated and this legislation is not a convenient form for that sort of debate. When this legislation was being considered in another place under a guillotine, the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), wished to debate important amendments to the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act and the Australian Citizenship Act. He was able to speak for a short while on them, but that prevented further debate and prevented the amendments which the Opposition wished to move to the Public Works Committee Act and the Defence Act from being moved. I think that reveals the fact that too many legislative provisions are included in one omnibus Bill of this kind. Too many subjects are dealt with in it. I think the time has come when the Government ought to be giving further consideration to just what its policy is in relation to measures of this kind. I do not propose to go through this legislation in any detail, as was done in the House of Representatives. I simply point out that, from the Opposition's point of view, this legislation is not in a satisfactory form. It should be able to be passed without any debate at all because it deals with just technical matters. However, once the Government seeks to use it as a vehicle to make amendments to a whole lot of Bills simply because they seem to be useful and ones which are not likely to cause controversy, it rather misses the point. Even though the legislation will be supported, it may well need to be debated. It is a pity that we do not have time now-we are in the dying hours of this session and we have a lot of other legislation to consider-to consider this Bill and give it the attention that it properly deserves. I do not propose to talk in this second reading debate about the specific amendments that the Opposition proposes to move. I will deal with them at the Committee stage. However, the Opposition certainly supports the measure. The vast majority of the contents of the legislation gives the Opposition no concern; but, as I have said, the Government's policy as a whole is giving us some concern. Unfortunately, it is preventing debate in this Parliament on a number of important matters. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.24) —I will refer to one aspect of the proposed amendments and comment on the remarks of Senator Durack. Having a Bill such as the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985 to fix mistakes and technical matters is bad enough and ought not to be encouraged. However, in one respect at least in which I am interested, the Bill is much more than that. I refer to the second reading speech as it relates to the amendment of the Defence Act 1903 and that portion which states that the purpose of the amendment is to bring the conditions of Service personnel into line with those applying to other Commonwealth employees. I think that comment needs to be addressed. There are very significant differences between the serving conditions of Commonwealth employees and defence personnel. I am not suggesting that this legislation ought not to be brought in as long as it has the amendment which will be moved, but this is the worst possible reason for suggesting that it be introduced. I have no doubt that someone will suggest that this amendment would benefit defence personnel in that they could borrow money more easily if their wages could be garnisheed. That may be appropriate in a few cases. But the amendment as presented to the Senate has no regard to the fact that frequently defence personnel are away from home and unable to attend to their own affairs, as other people are. They could be on ships, in war zones, on a peace-keeping mission, or on a goodwill trip somewhere. Events could go wrong within their family finances for a whole variety of reasons. It may be because of a mistake made by their bank, or by their pay officer within the Services, or by their wife at home who for very good reasons indeed did or did not get round to doing something. The marriage may even have broken up during the time the serving officer was away and unable to attend to his own affairs. Not to pay some regard to that fact shows a total disregard for the life of Service personnel. But to suggest that they be brought into line with other Commonwealth employees gives some indication of this Government's attitude to defence. It shows a total lack of comprehension for the lives of defence men and women and a total lack of concern for their welfare and care. I do not intend to take up too much time this morning. I shall refer particularly to some of the conditions that are quite different between service personnel and other Commonwealth employees. Other Commonwealth employees have their entitlements and needs and they need to be addressed. It is offensive to suggest that when defence personnel have some other benefit or facility, it should be reduced to that of Commonwealth employees. It does not always work that way. I can give an instance relating to work at the Fairbairn air base where Commonwealth employees who work in what is regarded as an out-of-the-way place are paid a travel allowance to get to work. But serving personnel who also live out in Canberra, in places such as Wanniassa, Giralang or Charnwood and who have to travel to Fairbairn, get no travel allowance to go to the same place to work alongside a person who is a Commonwealth employee and not a defence person. I am not suggesting that it is not appropriate, as there is not a bus service to that area, for a Commonwealth employee to get a travel allowance, but it is not made available to the defence employees. They are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are expected to turn up for flood and fire, and they are happy to do so. They do not get overtime or penalty rates and there is no appeal system; they are subject to regular transfers every two years or so, frequently with little notice. Many times one finds people who live in the Services, especially those in the Army and Air Force, who have spent fifteen years in the Services and who have lived in 12 different homes, their children having attended 12 different schools. They are not the same conditions as those applying to most other Commonwealth employees Defence personnel frequently live in what could be described as sub-standard rental accommodation, in houses that have not been properly maintained for many years, and they have no choice but to do so. They finish up being 20 years behind in attempts to purchase their first home compared with others in the community who have different types of jobs. Such personnel do not get sick leave on the same basis and have deductions made from their pay. Their position is totally different from that of Commonwealth staff. They are not able to form the same sort of friendships and stable relationships, although perhaps the Government may not think that important. Their children are not able to form the same sort of friendships as other children who stay in one place for a long period of time. Defence personnel wives are not able to pursue the same sorts of careers as other wives who live in a particular place for a long time. The conditions are different. I am not suggesting that this amendment should not be made, apart from the specific aspect to which I have referred, but to put in a second reading speech that the reason for so doing is the fact that Defence Force employees should be subject to the same conditions as other Commonwealth employees is, I suggest, totally unacceptable. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.29) —I did not intend to speak in this debate at the second reading stage on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill but, in view of Senator Reid's comments, I think it is necessary for the Australian Democrats to do so and to state our position. I have had some consultations with ex-service organisations on this matter, and it is not quite as simple as Senator Reid has presented it. The basic problem is that if ex-servicemen are not placed on much the same basis as other public servants, when it comes to the position of their incurring debt-that is, obtaining a loan, hire purchase and so on-they will be disadvantaged. I spoke to a group of wives of ex-servicemen at Holsworthy camp only a couple of weeks ago and they raised this very matter with me. Because they were married to servicemen they found that the banks would say: 'We cannot let you have this money because there are limitations on the extent to which it could be recovered from you in the event of default'. The Australian Democrats, however, respect what the Opposition is trying to do. The Opposition is trying to say: If servicemen are placed on the same basis as public servants, what will be the situation of a man if away fighting in a war? I think the Opposition has raised a valid and legitimate point there, one which, at this stage-as it has been raised by Senator Reid in this second reading debate-I ought to draw to the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) so that he can give us some sort of commitment, perhaps in the Committee stage. I think the Government ought to try again on this provision. We will not support the amendment of the Liberal Party of Australia for the reasons I have stated, but we respect the principle. The Government should look at that amendment to see if it cannot do something in this area in the future. I would like the Minister to give us some sort of undertaking that in a situation where a soldier is away fighting at war his family will not be knocked around in Australia because of this provision. I do not really think the Liberal amendment covers that point. What is needed to cover that point I suggest, will be a good deal more complex and it will have to be thought out. It will have to take into account the other aspect that I have raised, which is a very real one to service men and women. The last thing this Senate wants to do is to place servicemen and their families in a position where they cannot get the same reasonable access to credit as to other members of the community, and certainly other public servants. I ask the Minister at this stage to take that on board and to give us some idea of what can be done in the Committee stage. Within reason I would like some undertaking from him that that matter might be looked at in a realistic way so that that protection is given to ex-servicemen and their families without any deleterious effect. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.32) —As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Durack, has pointed out, this Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985, which has been brought into this chamber in the dying stages of this parliamentary session, contains a lot of matters which deserve a great deal of debate. Aspects of the amendments incorporated in this Bill which relate to the Citizenship Act are matters which obviously are topical and of very great concern to the Australian community generally. Yet we are denied the opportunity of a wider debate on the issues concerning citizenship because of the way in which the Government is handling this piece of legislation. The amendments to the three citizenship Acts are fairly minor. The point that I would like to make in respect of the amendments to section 15 of the Australian Citizenship Act is that whereas currently the oath or affirmation of allegiance must be taken before a citizenship certificate is conferred, it is at that time that citizenship is being deemed to have been granted. The amendment will alter the time at which citizenship is deemed to have been granted to the date the certificate was conferred or the oath of affirmation made, depending on which is later. While we can see the administrative convenience that is involved in such a decision it seems clear to me that a change of that kind can have a far wider effect unless it is handled with sympathy and concern by the Government. I hope that the way in which this new legal provision will be administered will lead to that situation. The second point that I want to make relates to the requirement that those people who will be administering the oath of citizenship must be Australian citizens. Many local government bodies conduct citizenship ceremonies but ratepayers may elect a mayor who is not an Australian citizen. Ratepayers are allowed to vote in local government elections these days and they do not have to be Australian citizens. The point I make is that, while this amendment sounds reasonable-that is, to make it mandatory that those people administering the oath are Australian citizens-we ought to have respect for the fact that it is the office, rather than the individual, which is administering the oath. I believe that point ought to be remembered, insofar as we are not dealing with individuals one by one, but rather with the nature of the office itself. Finally, I simply make the point that it is a shame that due to the shortness of time we are unable to have a far wider debate on the question of citizenship generally, which is raising very considerable concern and interest in the community today. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.36) —Since we appear to be doing in the second reading stage what I thought would have been undertaken in the Committee stage, I too raise a problem with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) with regard to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act which is being amended under the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I say, firstly, that it does seem rather extraordinary that, in a Bill which is supposed to be non-controversial, we have an amendment to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act which is six pages long and which has raised some concern in the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, particularly in relation to the proposed new sub-sections in section 11, which will be repealed by this Bill and replaced with a new section relating to duty to report certain incidents involving oil or an oily mixture, which is the heading of the section. The Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has raised a quite lengthy concern about the reversal of the onus of proof which occurs in this amendment. New sub-sections 11 (2) and 11 (4) and sub-sections 22 (2) and 22 (4) each impose on the defendant in a prosecution under sub-sections 11 (1), 11 (3), 22 (1) or 22 (3) for failure to notify incidents involving the discharge of oil or other liquid substance, the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the court on the balance of probabilities the defences made available under those sub-sections; namely, that the person was unable to comply, that the person was not aware of the incident, or was not aware that the master of the ship was unable to comply with the relevant obligation. The Senate Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has pointed out that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, in its report entitled 'The Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings', urged that such a persuasive onus should not be placed on defendants, but rather that they should merely be required to bear an evidential onus; that is, the onus of adducing evidence of the existence of a defence, the burden of negativing which would then by borne by the prosecution. The Committee drew to the attention of the Senate, under principle 1A (1) of its terms of reference, the effect of new sub-sections 11 (2) and 11 (4) and 22 (2) and 22 (4). Those sub-sections, by imposing a persuasive onus on defendants in criminal proceedings, might be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) did respond by pointing out that because the House of Representatives had risen, which of course was the case at the time, the making of any amendments to the Bill in the Senate as a result of the Committee's comments would have the effect of postponing the amendments to the entire Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill until the Budget session. That was clearly something that at that stage no one wanted, since, as is usual with this Bill, a lot of necessary amendments are being made. I simply ask the Minister to consider the Committee's comments in this area and make some sort of undertaking with regard to the impact this amendment, if passed, is likely to have on the civil liberties of the people concerned, and to ask whether or not there is some way around this predicament, other than the one which is before us today. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.40) —Schedule 1 of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985 contains amendments to the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980. Perhaps unlike other senators, I wish to compliment the Government on these amendments and to draw attention to some of the history of this matter. My colleague Senator Puplick is not in the Senate but has asked that we draw these few points to the attention of the Senate. These amendments in part put into the operation of Australian domestic law, insofar as it applies within the Australian Antarctic Territory and to Australian citizens, the provisions required under the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. I want to say a couple of words about that Convention. Between 1959, when the Antarctic Treaty was negotiated and signed, and 1972, when Australia added its signature, Australia was under Liberal Party government. During that time we had a proud record in the Antarctic. Australia took a lead in dealing with all matters of wildlife and animal conservation. I notice that Australia signed the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals on 5 October 1972. This legislation also fits in with the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980, which again was another notable piece of Liberal Government legislation. Both these measures had bipartisan support in the Parliaments of the day. The legislation was for the preservation of the environment of the world's most fragile continent. This legislation also complements the Whale Protection Act 1980, another notable achievement of the Fraser Liberal Government following the report of the Frost Inquiry into Whales and Whaling. Again, it was a measure which attracted wide support in the Parliament in extending protection to threatened and endangered Antarctic species as part of the fragile ecosystem of animal life on the Antarctic continent. Finally, it should be noted that this Act and these amendments give some application to a Convention which is itself a real tribute to the continuing success and international value of the Antarctic Treaty regime. This regime should be preserved from threats being made against its continued existence by forces within the United Nations. I hope that this country, which has done so much to promote, advance and extend this regime, will take a strong stand for its preservation in the United Nations. Both political parties in Australia are proud of the treaty system and have until now been, and I hope still will be, united in seeking the preservation of this Treaty in its current form when it comes up for renegotiation in 1991. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.43) —It was my impression that the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills as we receive them from time to time were designed to dot the i's and cross the t's, to correct technical problems and difficulties in legislation. That being so, I threw my copy of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985 into the waste paper basket because I had plenty of other things to do. Senator Haines —Don't we all. Senator HARRADINE —We certainly do. I was in the process of doing some of those other things when wafting across the air waves came Senator Durack's mellifluous voice. He raised the point that the legislation included very substantial amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. I then retrieved my document from the wastepaper bin and had a look at it. Indeed, this legislation does contain very substantial amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. In fact it contains 60 amendments to that Act, no fewer than nine of which are quite substantial in character and go to the rights and responsibilities of individuals and groups within the Trade Union Training Authority. I make this point in the second reading stage because I am still examining the legislation. I have made certain notes as to how the rights and responsibilities of these individuals and groups will be substantially altered by this measure. I believe this measure is not appropriate for this purpose. It was never designed as such and I believe it is a misuse of the measure. I acknowledge that it is probably not designed to pull the wool over anybody's eyes, but if the Department concerned wanted to have these measures dealt with, it should have included these 60 amendments in a Bill to amend the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. Then the measure could have been properly debated and considered on its merits. I gather that 90 per cent of senators would probably not have done the same thing with the Bill as I did. Senator Macklin —They probably would have filed it. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, they probably would have filed it. I am very concerned that this legislation contains 60 amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act, at least nine of which I have so far detected are very substantial amendments indeed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.46) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate, particularly one or two of them, such as Senator Peter Baume who had something favourable to say about the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985). I say at the outset that it is a longer miscellaneous provisions Bill than usual. It amends some 164 separate Acts and that makes it quite a substantial mouthful to bite off on this occasion. Some 65 Acts are amended to remove obsolete provisions relating to the rights of Commonwealth public servants. About 10 of those Acts related to the citizenship clauses which were mentioned by Senator Messner and are purely consequential. Twenty-five Acts have been amended purely as a consequence of changes to the machinery of government allocation of responsibilities between departments and so on following the election last year. But it is the case that in addition to there being many amendments, a number of them are quite substantial and lengthy. Senator Harradine has pointed to one such example in referring to the amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority legislation. I think the Government has acknowledged the force of these sorts of criticisms, that perhaps matters of excessive length are starting to creep into the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I am pleased to be able to tell the Senate that this matter has been addressed in the last couple of weeks by the Government and the relevant Cabinet committee has endorsed some changes to the guidelines to reflect that point, and in particular the desirability of not having matters of excessive length or complexity cluttering up this Bill in the future. I further mention that there is nothing in those guidelines in their original form or their revised form which undermines our commitment not to put forward in this Bill anything of a contentious nature. It may be that from time to time matters emerge which nobody thinks will be contentious but which, in fact, prove to be. It is certainly not the Government's intention to use this Bill in any way for that purpose. Perhaps for the record it would be appropriate for me to table and incorporate in Hansard, with the leave of the Senate, the revised guidelines which the Government will be using for the next one of the Bills in this series. Leave granted. The guidelines read as follows- Proposed New Guidelines for Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills (a) Only matters that deal with tidying up, correction and up-dating (including modernisation of style), with routine administrative changes or, with the approval of the Prime Minister, with changes of minor policy significance may be included. (b) No matter that is contentious, or is closely related to a contentious matter, may be included. (c) Matters that involve lengthy and complex drafting (particularly of a kind that may hold up the Bill) must not be included. (d) Matters that involve substantial policy issues (including legal policy issues) must not be included. (e) If the amendments proposed to a particular Act are of such a lengthy nature that they ought fairly to be the subject of a separate Bill (whether or not such a Bill is likely to be included in the legislative program for the sittings in which the relevant Statute Law Bill is to be introduced), the amendments must not be included in the Statute Law Bill. (f) No matter that would constitute a change to the National Companies and Securities legislation may be included. (g) No matter that imposes, abolishes or varies a tax, or varies the incidence of a tax, may be included. (h) No matter involving an appropriation may be included (except the repeal of a ''spent'' appropriation power). (i) A decision on whether a matter falls within the guidelines as being suitable for inclusion in the Bill should be made in the first instance by parliamentary Counsel after consulting, when appropriate, with the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (j) In addition, if Parliamentary Counsel consider that the number or nature of some amendments proposed for inclusion in the Bill would result in the Bill becoming unduly lengthy, Parliamentary Counsel should have a discretion to require the amendments to be deferred for inclusion in the Statute Law Bill proposed for a later sittings or to be dealt with when the relevant Principal Act is next being amended by a separate Bill. (k) If a Department seeking the inclusion of a provision in the Bill is dissatisfied with a decision of Parliamentary Counsel, the matter should be referred to the Attorney-General for decision and, if the Attorney-General considers it necessary to do so, to the Legislation Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is another gesture in the direction of open government which I know will win the heart and soul of Senator Durack, and no doubt lose me more favour with my colleagues. Senator Durack —Do you take account of the point that even though something may not be contentious, it may be of such importance that it ought to be properly debated? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think one has to tread rather delicately on that. If one is to take the point raised by Senator Messner that there is nothing at all contentious about the citizenship amendments but he would like an opportunity to debate the whole question of citizenship, I think that might well be said of about 50 or 60 areas that are traditionally incorporated and incorporated again in this legislation. It would continue to be more appropriate for other forms of this House, such as the first readings of Bills and so on, to be used as the vehicle for simply raising matters of general public interest. However, I take into account what the honourable senator says. It is to do with the question of the complexity or length of the amendments. If there are substantial changes, albeit uncontroversial ones, being made to some piece of legislation, I accept that it is probably not appropriate, except in some exceptional circumstance, for them to be incorporated in a Bill of this kind. We want to avoid a situation where we get into lengthy debates of this kind on this Bill. We would much prefer such Bills to be able to go through rapidly. As to the points made first by Senator Harradine about the TUTA amendments, let me say that these amendments had the approval of the National Labour Consultative Council, combining the forces, of course, of government, trade unions and employers. It was on that basis that the Government took them to be uncontroversial in character. Although there is a relatively large number of amendments to the TUTA Act, as Senator Harradine has pointed out, they do not alter the powers or functions of the Authority itself. They are concerned simply with the internal structure and the internal allocation of functions within the organisation. As such, we believe that they are properly described as technical and administrative changes and, in the Government's view, are therefore appropriate for inclusion in the Statute Law Bill. That being the case, there was no need, we thought, to incorporate them in a separate piece of legislation. If there is any suggestion that incorporating these changes in the Statute Law Bill was nonetheless some kind of device to conceal their significance from public gaze, let me again state for the record that there can be no foundation for any such suggestion. On 7 May this year, two days before the Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, issued a news release drawing attention to the fact that the amendments were included in the Bill and outlining what the amendments were and the reasons for them. I guess that Senator Harradine must have let that slide into his waste paper basket too. Had he responded to that not very well reported news release, it may have been possible to have avoided his intervention here today. On the previous day, 6 May, the Minister also wrote to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), informing him that the amendments were to be included in the Statute Law Bill. So there was an intention, certainly, to put the matters out for public gaze. I hope that as a result we can avoid further contention on that matter. Senator Harradine —I didn't suggest at all- Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not want to suggest that Senator Harradine was making any such imputation. However, there was a general impression of pain and angst wafting across the chamber about this matter. I thought that perhaps I might have been able to deal at least with some of the concerns that the honourable senator might otherwise feel about the legislation. Two other matters were raised which it is appropriate to deal with at this stage, although arguably they are properly matters for the Committee stage. Hopefully, we can get rid of them now and avoid a Committee stage debate as a result. The first matter was the question of the amendments to the defence legislation, a question addressed critically by Senator Reid and much more favourably by Senator Mason on behalf of the Australian Democrats. What is in contention here is one small part of a significant amendment to the Defence Act which is designed to put the payment of defence personnel on a proper basis and, as the second reading speech said, a similar basis to that prevailing for other public servants. The particular matter that causes concern here apparently is that which enables, under certain constraints, the pay of defence personnel to be garnisheed to satisfy a judgment debt. I make clear that the scope of this provision is limited and is motivated by exactly the consideration that Senator Mason adverted to, that is, the desirability of putting defence personnel on the same basis as other public servants, or as close as possible to that basis, in order that they will not be disadvantaged in competing for funds in the private loan market. Defence personnel have in the past had difficulty getting credit because lenders have been doubtful about their ability to enforce judgments against salary. This provision is designed quite specifically to cope with that problem. There are some safeguards in the way the provision will operate which are important to understand against the argument that people overseas, in particular, will be in difficulty as a result of this provision. In the first place, the procedures apply only in relation to judgment debts. A member will accordingly have had the prior opportunity to defend the claim leading to the judgment in the court proceeding, whatever it is. Further safeguards are built into the proposed section to the extent that a member must have the opportunity to state his case to his paying officer before the deductions are actually proceeded with. Further, it is the case that deductions are limited to 20 per cent of net salary each pay day. There is an argument that in the absence of that provision-if it were taken out, as apparently is sought to be done by the Opposition-servicemen would be rather worse off. Senator Reid —Why didn't you express it in that way in the second reading speech? Why didn't you say you were conferring an advantage? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did not write the second reading speech. I am sorry if Senator Reid misunderstood it. But when one is dealing with amendments to 164 different pieces of legislation, necessarily the second reading explanation will be cursory. I would have thought that Senator Reid, as a trained lawyer-I understand that she was one who kept body and soul together during her practising days-would have been able to read the actual text of the legislation for herself and would not have been misguided by any too cursory an explanation of it in the second reading speech. The point that I am making is that the other provisions introduced here giving servicemen the right to sue for their wages mean that in effect they have a legal, quite explicitly set out right which they have not had previously to receive pay. It is certainly arguable as a matter of law that, because there is now the legal right to receive pay, the full amount of that pay so receivable could be attached by a judgment creditor. So, instead of being able to garnishee nearly 20 per cent of that wage, in accordance with this statutory limitation, a much higher percentage of the wage would be exposed to attack if this amendment were to go through. I hope that some thought will be given to that point by the Opposition before it goes to the point of moving an amendment in the Committee stage. It also has to be said, although I will not labour this point unnecessarily at this stage, that there is a technical difficulty with the amendment as it is presently drafted insofar as the definition of war service, which is here relied upon, will be repealed when the Defence Force (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 comes into force in the near future. However, picking up the point made by Senator Mason, who sought an undertaking from the Government to keep this provision under review, I am certainly happy to give an undertaking on behalf of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) that the section will be very closely monitored in its operation and that if it proves to be the case that members are being disadvantaged, in particular by reason of overseas service which is the preoccupation of the Opposition, the section will be revised. I cannot be much more explicit than that. The final point that was raised in the second reading debate was by Senator Haines, again in anticipation of a Committee stage argument. Again, maybe we can avoid that at this stage by dealing directly with her concerns now. Her point relates to that part of the Bill which amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. Senator Haines was reflecting the concern which had been expressed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills that there were provisions in the Bill that unacceptably reversed the normal persuasive burden of proof. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has taken the view, on advice from the Attorney-General's Department that to the extent that there is a reversal of the normal persuasive burden of proof with some aspect of that being located on the defendant, that is justifiable by the particular circumstances of this legislation. The main point to be appreciated, which does not seem to have been appreciated in any of the discussion to this point by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee or anyone else, is that although the language of these sections is being changed in some respects, the persuasive burden is not being relocated by these provisions. The crucial sections so far as the burden of proof is concerned are identical to the present sections 11 (2), 11 (4), 23 (2) and 23 (5), of the 1983 Act in respect of which the very same Committee had no comments at all to make in its Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest report No. 2 of 11 May 1983. Senator Haines —I acknowledge that it slipped through then; but I do not think we can let it slip through again. Senator GARETH EVANS —As I said the other day in answer to Senator Crichton-Browne who raised this whole question of reversal of onus of proof, I was one of the authors of that Senate Committee report that expressed a very strong concern with the continued existence of persuasive burden reversals in legislation and I was one of those who penned the paragraphs in that report saying that it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that such can be justified. For the record, and without going through it because it is a long argument, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a one-page summary of the advice which was received from the Attorney-General's Department by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and which satisfied the Minister, at least prior to the debate on this Bill on this issue, in order that the Senate may be aware of the reasoning which lies behind the provisions in their present form. Leave granted. The summary read as follows- Summary of Points Amendments of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983: Advice from the Attorney-General's Department The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has commented that new ss. 11 (2), (4) and 22 (2), (4) of the Act reverse the normal persuasive burden of proof and that thus ''they may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties''. The Attorney-General's Department has advised the amendments are justified because there were three possible alternatives which are neither viable nor practicable. The Department of Transport has accepted this advice. Alternative One Repeal the new sections: This is not viable since it would result in a failure to comply with the reporting of incidents provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (as amended). Alternative Two Lay on the prosecution the burden of disproving the defences created in the new sections by making these matters elements of the offence: This is not practicable since the prosecution would face considerable difficulties in disproving the defences created in the new sections since those would be matters known exclusively to the defendant and that compliance with Article 4 of the Convention would be seriously obstructed. Alternative Three Amend the new sections so that only the evidential burden of proof is reversed: For reasons similar to the objections to Alternative Two this procedure would also be impracticable. Finally, the Department points out that the Committee's objections to the new sections are difficult to reconcile, so far as burden of proof is concerned, with the present sections of the Act about which the Committee had no comment when introduced. Senator GARETH EVANS —However, having said all that and having said that in the view of the relevant Ministers there is justification for these provisions, I am also advised by the Minister for Transport that he is perfectly prepared to re-examine this question in the light of the concerns that have been expressed not only in the original Scrutiny of Bills Committee report but now again in this chamber by Senator Haines. The Minister undertakes, and I repeat that undertaking, so we undertake not to proclaim into effect the provisions of this particular amendment until some time into the Budget session of the Parliament, to enable further consideration to be given to this matter and, if necessary, further discussion to take place with the Australian Democrats and others on the Committee who may be concerned about this matter, in order to see whether there may not be some ability to convert these into evidentiary reversals rather than persuasive reversals and so on. Attention has been given to it, but more attention will be given to it and the provision will not be proclaimed into effect until that occurs. Senator Haines could not get a nicer response than that. What will be the quid pro quo for today for that? Under the circumstances we may, hopefully, have a very short Committee stage for this Bill, since it seems that most, if not all, of the matters that were sought to be raised have now been raised. Senator Peter Rae —Not all. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Rae mutters some threatening noises over there. Senator Peter Rae —I just showed some restraint which wasn't shown by everybody else. Senator GARETH EVANS —Under those circumstances, I just commend the Bill and hope that it gets the speedy passage which it so obviously deserves. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.05) —The Opposition proposes an amendment to the amendments to the Defence Act, which are at page 31 in Schedule 1. It has been circulated. The problem addressed in the amendment has been referred to by Senator Reid. The proposed amendment simply deals with the power to garnishee pay of Service personnel. That has already been the subject of debate in the second reading stage and I do not propose to go over that again. Senator Reid has made the point very strongly that this matter is of concern to the Opposition. The Opposition's amendment is designed to protect Service personnel who are in fact engaged on overseas service. The amendment covers broadly war service, special service or duty with an authorised peacekeeping force. It is an attempt to protect the interests of Service personnel who are overseas and who traditionally have not been subject to the harassment of garnishee proceedings being taken against them. Senator Peter Rae —Particularly when their very overseas service may prevent them from being able to defend garnishee proceedings. Senator DURACK —There is certainly that question as well, even though it is said that it will apply only to a judgment debt. Nevertheless, a Service person may wish to contest that for some reason or other and obtain some stay of execution. There are many other steps people may wish to take. It is the particular area of overseas service that concerns us. We are concerned, broadly, for the reasons Senator Reid has mentioned, and we are concerned certainly about the attitude of this Government to the rights of Service personnel which was debated earlier in this session; therefore, I do not propose to raise that matter further. That is the object of the amendment and I move it accordingly. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —Do you wish to move the three amendments together? Senator DURACK —Yes. I seek leave to move the three amendments standing in my name. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —I move: (1) Schedule 1, proposed amendments of the Defence Act 1903, page 31, proposed section 120B, at the end of sub-section (15), add the following word and paragraph: 'or (c) who is assigned for war service, special service or assigned for duty with an authorised peacekeeping force.'. (2) Schedule 1, proposed amendments of the Defence Act 1903, page 31, proposed section 120B, sub-section (16), before the definition of ''salary'' insert the following definition: ' ''peacekeeping force'' has the same meaning as in section 107J of the Repatriation Act 1920;'. (3) Schedule 1, proposed amendments of the Defence Act 1903, page 31, proposed section 120B, at the end of sub-section (16), add the following definitions: ' ''special service'' is service that is prescribed for the purposes of this section; ' ''war service'' is service that is prescribed for the purposes of this section.'. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.08) —I will speak only briefly on this matter. I heard what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) said at the second reading stage. He gave a very clear undertaking there and I am going to take the liberty of seeing that through our mailing lists we circulate that undertaking to all ex-service organisations so that there is no doubt whatsoever about the undertaking given on behalf of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). On that basis, while we still respect the principle that Senator Durack has brought forward, I think that we have there at least a move towards a situation where ex-servicemen will be protected when on overseas service. On that basis the Australian Democrats will not support the Opposition's amendments. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.09) —I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat the arguments and the undertaking I gave before; but, to the extent it is necessary, I do so. I do not believe that Senator Durack further advanced the argument in the light of what I had to say earlier. I believe that the Senate ought to reject the amendments at this stage. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E.Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Townley, M.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W.Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Hearn, J. M.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R.Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J.Cooney, B. Primmer, C. G.Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M.Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F.Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A.Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Vigor, D.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N.Carrick, Sir John Gietzelt, A. T.Short, J. R. Grimes, D. J.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Button, J. N.Missen, A. J. Ryan, S. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.15) —I move: Schedule 1, page 99, proposed amendment of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, add the following: ''Section 18- Add at the end the following sub-sections: '(10) A public work, the estimated cost of which exceeds $2,000,000 but does not exceed $6,000,000 shall not be commenced unless the Committee has been advised by notice in writing by the Minister of the proposed work. '(11) If the Committee is advised pursuant to sub-section (10) by the Minister of a proposed work and the Committee- (a) does not advise the Minister by notice in writing within 14 days that it wishes to inquire into the matter-the proposed work shall be proceeded with, or (b) within 14 days advises the Minister that it wishes to inquire into the matter-the proposed work shall be dealt with in accordance with sub-sections (1) to (7).'.''. This amendment, which was circulated in the name of the Opposition, is a measure to take account of inflation. The last amendment to the Public Works Committee Act was made in the very early 1970s and this amendment proposes to increase the discretionary area to $6m. It is also a means of ensuring that departments cannot escape the scrutiny of the Public Works Committee by staging work on various projects, which is something the Committee has been concerned about. This amendment will make departments, and the Government generally, more directly answerable to and subject to scrutiny by the Parliament. As I understand it, this amendment is supported by the majority of members of the Public Works Committee. It has been moved by us to provide a desirable addition to the scrutiny of public works being carried out and to the role of the Public Works Committee. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.18) —The difficulty with the Opposition's amendment is that we have not had anything from the Public Works Committee stating that it supports it. As I understand the problem, the Public Works Committee has said the exact opposite. There is a conflict as to whether it actually supports the proposed change to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1). The difficulty is that we need really to have a statement from the Public Works Committee on this matter. I would have thought the way out might be for the Government to undertake to make sure that it continued to refer to the Public Works Committee all works the estimated cost of which exceeded $2m, as it has done to date, pending some further discussion by the Public Works Committee on this matter and a clear indication from that Committee as to whether or not it agreed to increase the threshold from $2m to $6m. If the Government were to give some kind of indication along those lines, it would be possible to pass this Bill without the Opposition's amendment; otherwise, we will be forced to support the amendment, pending further advice from the Public Works Committee. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(11.20) —I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Works. As Senator Foreman, the Chairman of that Committee, is not here at the moment, I can reassure Senator Macklin that it is the wish of the Public Works Committee that this amendment be passed. As Senator Peter Rae said, it is an updating, an incremental measure, which will bring the work of the Public Works Committee into line with what was intended under the original Act, which I think was introduced in about 1904. The amendment will not preclude any work from coming before the Public Works Committee. In fact, anyone can refer any public work to the Committee for inspection and analysis. Therefore, if Senator Macklin is happy to receive the reassurance of at least one of the newer members of the Committee, I can tell him that it was a unanimous decision that the Public Works Committee recommend this amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.22) —The difficulty I have with Senator Sheil's contribution is that it is diametrically at odds with the briefing I have from the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) who tells me that he has consulted with the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Works and that the position is that the former Public Works Committee initiated the question of raising the $2m limit to $6m and that the current Public Works Committee has actually agreed to the $6m threshold. As to the question of a discretionary zone beneath the $6m, I am advised by the Minister that it is his understanding that the former Committee had considered requesting the Government to amend the Act to allow the Committee a discretionary power to examine projects costing between $2m and $6m but that it has not proceeded with any actual request for any discretionary power. That has been debated and that may be where the misunderstanding, if there is any, has come in. What the Committee has said and, apparently, has resolved-again this might be an area of possible misunderstanding-is that it wishes to be informed of proposals below the $6m threshold. I think the way through this at the moment is to accept the course proposed by Senator Macklin. My understanding is that the Minister and the Government are perfectly happy to go on referring matters of $2m or more to the Committee, in the sense of informing the Committee that these proposals are on foot. To the extent that the Committee, in the immediate period ahead, wants to request a formal reference to deal with any matter in the $2m to $6m range, the Minister will accede to that request. This is pending some further consideration by the Committee and some further formal advice to the Minister over the next two or three months as to how everyone wants the system to operate. Obviously there is a need for further consultation between the Minister and the Committee to work out ground rules which are acceptable to everyone and where the guidelines are clarified. What we are saying is that it is not a matter in which we can defer the proclamation of this because, as I understand it, the enabling legislation of the Public Works Committee requires that any amendment made by the Parliament be proclaimed into effect within 28 days. It comes into effect automatically. We cannot react to this matter in the way we reacted to the marine pollution matter by putting it on hold. What we can say is that we will operate on the basis that the legislation thus amended would allow us to operate under, that is to say that the Committee can be advised or make a request in respect of any particular matter and the Minister will honour that request. If it is felt after this further process of consultation over the next couple of months and the beginning of the next session that it is desirable to formalise the arrangement in the way proposed by the Opposition, the Government no doubt will accede to that. At the moment the Government does not feel that that consultative process has gone far enough. I believe that that is a satisfactory way of keeping the thing on hold. I hope that Senator Peter Rae will accept that. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.24) — As we have in the chamber a member of the Public Works Committee who has given an assurance to the chamber that the Committee wishes the amendment to be made, I do not see any reason why we should not accept the word of that member that it is the unanimous view of the Committee that it request this amendment. If the Government has no objection to it I do not see any reason why we should not pass it. If it turns out that there was some misunderstanding, that can be corrected by some negotiation later. In other words, I am saying that we should accept what the member of the Public Works Committee said the Committee wants, if the Government is happy about that. If it turns out at some later stage that some honourable senator might seek some other variation, let that be done by way of further amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.25) —I make it clear that I am not making any imputation whatsoever about Senator Sheil. I suspect, since this matter has been considered in a number of ways, there may well have been some misunderstanding; whether on the part of Senator Sheil or on the part of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), I am not sure. However, I am simply not prepared, as Minister representing the Government, to go further than I have. I am advised by the Minister that there are policy difficulties, as seen by the Minister and his Department, in relation to this matter. It is not simply a matter of saying we have no objections to it and that we want just to formalise the machinery. It is a matter of wanting to talk through and resolve perceived policy difficulties that presently exist. In the circumstances, although it is late in the session-it is not late in the day, but late in the session-I would have thought Senator Peter Rae might, despite his disposition to aggression on these matters, have been prepared to adopt a more conciliatory path on the basis that nothing will be lost in the interim period because if the Committee wants to have anything referred to it in the cost range we are talking about it will have it referred to it. I give that undertaking on behalf of the Minister. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.26) —The situation now appears to be quite the opposite from when I spoke earlier. According to our information this amendment was not the wish of the Public Works Committee. The Australian Democrats are not prepared to proceed down the path I indicated since we have now had indicated to us in the chamber, in very clear terms, that there is unanimous agreement by members of the Public Works Committee to the contrary. The Chairman of the Public Works Committee is not in the chamber to say the opposite. In those circumstances I do not think there is any alternative for us other than to accept the amendment, to proceed with the status quo as it is, and then at a later stage see whether this needs to be accepted in another report. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.27) —It seems to me that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has already accepted the amendment in principle. Senator Gareth Evans —I told you that he had not in words of one syllable. Senator JESSOP —Yes, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) did say that. He said that the Minister for Housing and Construction would accede to any request of the Public Works Committee within the limits suggested by our amendment. Having accepted it in principle, having acceded to what Senator Peter Rae has put to the Senate and having heard Senator Sheil assure us that this is the unanimous view of the Committee, it seems to me to be quite stupid for the Minister for Resources and Energy to start talking about policy issues when we can pass the amendment, which is quite reasonable. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(11.28) —I have not been listening to the debate but as Chairman of the Public Works Committee I must say that the Committee has discussed this amendment and made a decision. It supports the proposition that all projects coming before it costing between $2m and $6m should be dealt with as priority matters by the Government. As a matter of fact the Public Works Committee and the Department of Housing and Construction expressed reservations about this provision. The Department of Housing and Construction and the Public Works Committee do not support a change to the fundamental principle which has applied since the Act came into being; namely, that a decision on whether to refer a work not normally subject to the Act is ultimately one for government. That is the feeling of the Department of Housing and Construction and the Public Works Committee. It is considered that difficulties are seen in the orderly planning and execution of works of an essentially routine nature and the achievement of expenditure targets if non-planned events, such as requests by the Public Works Committee for referral of particular projects, have to be incorporated at some later date, particularly projects well advanced in the design phase. The Public Works Committee Act-- Senator Haines —Just tell us whether the Public Works Committee wants the Government amendment or the Opposition amendment. Senator FOREMAN —I indicated that at the outset. Senator Haines —But what? Which one? Are you with the Government or with the Opposition? Senator FOREMAN —With the Government. Senator Macklin —And that's the unanimous view of the Committee? Senator FOREMAN —That is right, and that is what I am saying. Senator Haines —This is becoming like something out of Alice in Wonderland. We have a member of the Public Works Committee saying one thing and the Chairman saying another. Can we not adjourn this debate until a later hour of the day? The CHAIRMAN —If you move such a motion it will be in order. Senator Haines —I suggest that progress be reported. Senator Gareth Evans —Before any motion is moved may I suggest that, as we have to deal with matters that Senator Harradine wants to raise in relation to another part of the Bill, we continue this Committee stage later. There is obviously some misunderstanding or lack of communication here that can no doubt be very quickly resolved by Senator Foreman consulting, presumably, Senator Sheil, both of whom are members of the Committee. We have some quite recent correspondence from the Committee. I suggest that they will probably be able to resolve the matter in minutes. Perhaps Senator Harradine could continue and we need not move any formal motion. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee that consideration of the amendment moved by Senator Rae be postponed until after consideration of Senator Harradine's matters? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.32) — I draw the attention of honourable senators to pages 112 to 117 inclusive of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985. Therein honourable senators will see 60 amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975 and, as I have said, at least nine of them are substantial. I believe that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) inferentially acknowledged that these were very substantial amendments. In mitigation of their being placed within the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which, incidentally, is generally regarded as legislation which dots the i's, crosses the t's and fixes up some minor technical problems, he inferentially recognised that this is not the place to have them. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) issued a Press statement-incidentally, I did not see it; I do not think it hit the Press, which must have had other things on its mind at that time-indicating that the amendments were approved by the employers and the unions in the National Labour Consultative Council. So what? Do we have to lick its boots because it does something? Are we going to bow down every time the NLCC says something? The only explanation for the substantial amendments is that the NLCC says we should have them. I have been on State NLCC committees which have later regretted certain decisions that they have made. The NLCC committees are not infallible; I do not think that the NLCC is infallible. The Parliament deserves better treatment than the Government giving no reason at all for these amendments other than the fact that the NLCC has agreed to them. There has been no other explanation. The second reading speech states: These amendments abolish the present Australian Council for Union Training and the Authority's Executive Board replacing them with a new Australian Council for Union Training responsible for formulating TUTA's policy. A smaller Executive Committee, responsible for implementation of the Australian Council's policy, will be appointed from the Council. Incidentally, where is this said in this legislation? The speech continued: State Councils for Union Training will be re-named Regional Councils for Union Training and be given responsibility for ensuring that TUTA's training activities in their State or Territory accord with the policy of the Australian Council. What this second reading speech does not say is that the State councils will be abolished as a result of this Act. Senator Robert Ray —They are to be called regional councils. Senator HARRADINE —They are to be called regional councils and their constitution is being amended. Senator Robert Ray —Slightly. Senator HARRADINE —Slightly amended. Senator Gareth Evans —They are not being abolished. Senator HARRADINE —We are getting into the argument of the merits or otherwise of the case. It is not appropriate for this measure to be included in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Had it been done the right way-that is, by an amendment to the Trade Union Training Authority Act-honourable senators would have been able to propose other amendments that they thought desirable to the Trade Union Training Authority Act. Because the Government has brought in this measure in this manner honourable senators are prevented from moving amendments to the Act which might, in their view, be necessary after consideration of these measures. Let us go through the measures one by one. There are 60 of them. As I have said, I do not want to go into the whole 60 of them because some of them are of a consequential character. However, at least nine of them are not. Let me deal with some of those. Honourable senators may not have the Trade Union Training Authority Act with them but Part IIB establishes an Executive Board of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority. Part IIB establishes by statute the Executive Board's constitution, the Executive Board's authority and the provisions for the meetings of the Executive Board. All of that Part is being omitted by this legislation. We will have an Executive Committee whose constitution, functions, meeting times, et cetera will not be governed by statute. This kitchen cabinet of the Australian Council for Union Training will be appointed by the Australian Council and, as I read it, it will run the week to week operations of the Authority. Will it still be called 'the Authority', because there are redefinitions of what the Council will be? Let us call it 'the Authority'. Previously Parliament decided that there would be an Executive Board, Parliament decided the constitution of the Executive Board, Parliament decided its functions and Parliament decided the question of meetings of the Executive Board. Now, through this legislation, all those decisions of Parliament are sought to be wiped out. No reasoned explanation has been given as to why that should be. It might have been a different matter had it been thought that the Australian Council-the statutory body established by this Parliament, whose functions and meeting procedures are established by this Parliament-should be reduced in size and considered to be able to manage the affairs of the Trade Union Training Authority. One sees from the amendments in this Bill that the Australian Council, far from being reduced in size, will be expanded. How will the Council be expanded? There is a provision in section 14 of the Trade Union Training Authority Act for two members of parliament to be on the Authority. Section 14 (1) (j) refers to 'one member of the Parliament appointed by the Prime Minister' and paragraph (k) to 'one member of the Parliament appointed by the Leader of the Opposition'. Under the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) the Parliament will be deprived of its membership on the Council. That is slipped in through a statute law miscellaneous provision. Surely it is a substantial matter whether the Parliament is to be represented on the Council or whether it is not. I might happen to agree that it should not be represented, but that is beside the point. The point is that Parliament is being asked, through this back-door method, to approve of its membership on the Trade Union Training Authority being taken away. If nothing else convinces members of the Parliament to vote against this particular provision, that should convince them. Here we have representation from the Parliament on the Council being removed by a Bill which seeks to remedy technical defects. Parliamentarians have a lot of defects, but I do not think they are necessarily technically defective. That exemplifies how ludicrous it is to place such substantial amendments in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. This provision may well have been okayed by employers, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock)- Senator Gareth Evans —But it certainly has not been okayed by you. Senator HARRADINE —No, but it has not been okayed by the Parliament, and I believe that the Parliament should not okay it by simply remedying a technical defect. Was it a technical defect to put members of parliament on the Australian Council in the first place? If it was, then of course I agree that it should come to us via this legislation. But it was not a technical defect. It was deliberately decided by the Interim Council at that stage-I remind the Senate that I was a member of the Council at that time, and we deliberately included the provision, probably for reasons of smooth relations and so on-that two members of parliament be appointed to the Australian Council to oversee trade union education and the like. Let me deal with what else is done to the constitution of that body. Two members of parliament are taken off that body and three more members from the Australian Council of Trade Unions are slipped in under paragraph 14 (1) (d)- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(11.45) —There are two issues running through this debate in the Committee stage of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I support the amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act, which I think are commendable, but, unfortunately, what has arisen in this debate is whether they are appropriately placed in this Bill. I agree with Senator Harradine that there is no way that this is the appropriate mechanism by which these provisions should have appeared in this Parliament. However, I do not want to see the efficiency and good name of the Trade Union Training Authority sacrificed on this occasion simply because we now no longer have an opportunity to put through separate legislation on this matter to be dealt with today. I think that would be a pity. There is no doubt that these amendments are not aimed at just correcting technical defects; I concede that. Given the remarks of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) earlier and the new guidelines that are to be issued, it would appear that amendments of this kind will not appear in future in this sort of legislation. They should have been included in separate legislation. The amendments themselves will do a lot to lift the performance of TUTA. The Senate had an unexpected and extended debate on this organisation some weeks ago, courtesy of Senator Lewis, who provided the Senate with a couple of hours of debating time on the subject. The amendments relate to two or three areas. Firstly, they restructure the Australian Council and give a wider representation to the trade union movement; secondly, they reduce the size of the Executive Board; and thirdly, they create regional rather than State councils. The idea behind it is to try to get a more efficient running and overseeing of TUTA, which has not been the case in the last few years. Unfortunately, the Australian Council has, at best, met twice a year, and the Council, given its composition, has had difficulty in getting a quorum for its meetings. What has tended to happen is that the Australian Council has met in the morning, discussed broad issues, and then the same type of issues have been discussed by the Executive Board later that morning or in the afternoon. It is possible to assert that that sort of administration and duplication that has occurred was not beneficial to the Trade Union Training Authority. Senator Harradine was probably right to say that just because the National Labour Advisory Council has approved something does not mean that Parliament also has to approve it. That body makes as many mistakes as, or more mistakes than, any other organisation. Nevertheless, it is a broad indicator of the support for these amendments. Senator Harradine drew attention to the fact that the Bill will remove the two parliamentary members from the Council. That is true, and one of the ostensible reasons put up was the non-attendance of parliamentarians at its meetings. I assure honourable senators that parliamentarians representing the Labor Party have attended all the meetings; perhaps Opposition members on the Council had more pressing commitments at the time and were unable to attend. That gave us problems with quorums and meeting times. Nevertheless, removing the parliamentarians from trade union training in no way diminishes parliamentary control over that organisation. I faced the somewhat ironical situation when I served on the Australian Council of discussing issues there and then, twice a year, when I sat as Chairman of an Estimates Committee, of hearing the Council explaining what it had done throughout the year. There is no doubt that such a body can be made properly accountable to this Parliament via the Estimates Committee. The Council appears here, in common with similar bodies, and is able to be cross-examined as to its activities. I think the presence of parliamentary representatives did not add a lot to the original organisation. The provision was there originally as an inducement or persuasion to both political parties that at least they would have one friend in court when the future of the body came up. Senator Harradine will realise that from the time of its inception and a change in government its future was in doubt for several years. I think the Liberal Party often considered whether the organisation should continue. To its credit, the coalition Government continued that organisation, continued to fund it properly, and to oversee its growth. The Liberals are to be congratulated on that. As I have said, we have two conflicting issues before us in this chamber. One is that these amendments should not have been in this Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; I think we on this side of the chamber concede that. But to reinforce that principle and to make this an example will hurt the organisation itself. We do not have time now to bring in the changes. Very shortly, if it has not already been announced, we will have a new director of this organisation and new directions for it. I would like to see them operating under the new guidelines rather than their being delayed for six months. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.53) —If I can reply on behalf of the Government along the same lines as Senator Robert Ray, it may be on reflection that this is a measure which, because of the substantive structural changes involved, should have been the subject of separate legislation. I do not protest too strongly against that ground of the criticism that has been advanced by Senator Harradine. I think Senator Ray addressed that point. As to the actual substance of the changes, I think it is necessary to say a word or two because the matter has been raised now by Senator Harradine. The problems that were experienced with the previous structure of the organisation were pretty much as Senator Robert Ray has described them. More than half of the members of the Council will also serve on the Executive Board and there has been considerable duplication in matters considered by the two bodies. It is said that those who serve only on the Council feel that they have only a limited opportunity to contribute to the Trade Union Training Authority particularly in the area of policy development. It is proposed now to vest basically the policy responsibility of the Executive Board in the Council itself. Again, it has been increasingly difficult to secure a quorum on the Council, perhaps because of the limited opportunity that the members have had to contribute to the character of the organisation's development in their role as Council members. Again, State Council members have been concerned about their limited role in developing TUTA's programs and there has also been some misunderstanding within TUTA about the responsibilities and relationship between the positions of Director of Studies and the National Director. All these questions are addressed in these amendments. The restructuring of the various Council bodies has been done to provide a broader representation by the inclusion of elected staff representatives and, on the regional councils, an officer or employee of the Authority nominated by the National Director. The additional positions for representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on the Australian Council were provided to allow for the inclusion, amongst those representatives, of persons from the State trades and labour councils. This is intended to strengthen the link between the Australian Council and the regional councils and so facilitate co-operation and understanding between them. As for the regional councils, the representation of the relevant trades and labour councils was increased to maintain the existing ratio of representation and it reflects the inclusion on those councils of elected staff representatives and an officer-employee of the Authority nominated by the National Director. As to the accountability of the body to parliament, again the situation is as was very succinctly put by Senator Ray. The Authority is and will remain responsible to the Parliament through the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I might also mention that section 8 of the Trade Union Training Authority Act expressly provides that the Authority is to comply with the directions, if any, given by the Minister to the Executive Board in relation to the performance of a function or the exercise of a power by the Authority under the Act. Except that the reference to the Executive Board will not be changed to a reference to the Australian Council, that provision will be quite unaltered by these amendments. I conclude by saying that, although one can well argue-Senator Harradine has chosen understandably to do so-about the vehicle for these amendments-they really ought not to be regarded as contentious or controversial. They are designed to improve and streamline the administration. They are compatible with continued parliamentary accountability. They have been approved, for what that is worth, by the National Labour Consultative Council representing government, employers and trade unions and I hope that they can now be approved by this Parliament in order that, as Senator Robert Ray has said, the Trade Union Training Authority can very quickly now, under its proposed new direction, in the next few months become the viable organisation that it needs and deserves to be. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.55) — I do not want to delay the Committee but the fact that we are now into a full-scale debate on the merits or otherwise of what are now conceded to be substantial amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act indicates that this is certainly not the appropriate vehicle for those amendments. I feel that I need at least to insist upon going forward with the amendment which I now foreshadow, that as far as pages 112 to 117 are concerned, leave out proposed amendments up to and including proposed new section 29. I have listened to what Senator Robert Ray and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) have said. What has been said in effect is that this is an attempt to improve the efficiency of the organisation. I would dispute that in certain respects; I acknowledge it in some respects but I dispute it in other respects, and I will deal with that matter in a moment. The Government has said that this legislation will improve the organisation's efficiency, it will increase the size of the Australian Council, it will reduce the size of the Executive Board and it will establish regional councils. It will not reduce the size of the Executive Board; it will actually abolish the Executive Board. The Executive Board has been established by statute. There may have been some problems about forming quorums as far as the Australian Council was concerned, but as far as the Executive Board was concerned that was not a problem. There may have been other problems in the operation of the Executive Board. I am aware of those problems and they are quite serious problems. But what the Government is doing by this measure is abolishing the Executive Board whose constitution, functions, meeting procedures, et cetera, are laid down by statute. But that does not give to a statutory body the authority for the day-to-day running of the Council. What it does do is state that the Executive Board will be called the Executive Committee. I ask the Minister and the Government to tell me where, in this legislation that is before us, does this measure give power to the Council to establish an Executive Committee? Who will constitute that Executive Committee? Let us face it, it will be the Executive Committee that will have the responsibility for the day-to-day operation and the week-to-week operation of the Trade Union Training Authority. The Australian Council will be called together only once every three months or six months. The Executive Committee will have the authority. Will the Minister please tell me where, in this piece of legislation, there is provision for the constitution and the functions of the Executive Committee? We are really talking about the running of the Trade Union Training Authority. It will be the Executive Committee that will do that whereas previously it was the Executive Board. We have heard from Senator Ray that the Australian Council could not get quorums. In fact, it was run by the Executive Board and I know the problems there. We are now saying: 'Abolish the Executive Board'. It was actually some of the membership of the Executive Board that was the problem, not so much the statutory constitution and the functions required by statute. The operation of the Executive Board was at fault. It was the failure of the Australian Council to get quorums and to take the leadership in that area that was at fault in at least one case. What the Government is asking us to do now is to remove from the statute the strict provisions which would operate as far as the Executive Board's constitution and functions are concerned, and simply to abolish that Executive Board and to establish an Executive Committee which, under this statute, will have no constitution and no functions. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —Senator Harradine, I am somewhat confused by your amendment. You have talked about the Executive Committee, which is covered by proposed new sections 29A through to 29D. Your amendment refers only to proposed new section 29, pages 112 to 116. Will you please clear that point up for me? Senator HARRADINE —I do not think I can be blamed for the situation in which we find ourselves. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I am not suggesting that. Senator HARRADINE —We are dealing with a major matter. Senator Macklin —We have to go to page 117. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, we have to go to page 117. I did say '117', although it is written as '116'. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Yes, you did mention it. That is why I wanted to be sure about it. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry, Mr Temporary Chairman. I have floated that amendment in trying to respond to Senator Robert Ray's concern. I acknowledge that there is a need for efficiency, but I certainly do not accept that the changes to the State councils will contribute to efficiency. That is one area at which we ought to be looking. I will certainly be proposing an amendment, if to nothing else, to the constitution of the State councils. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.01) —I do not want to prolong this debate unduly, but it has to be said that there has been possibly some misunderstanding on the part of Senator Harradine as to what is going on here. The Executive Board is being abolished. Its policy making functions are being totally combined in the Australian Council, which hitherto had limited functions when it came to policy, many of which were vested in the Executive Board. The Executive Board will disappear and be replaced by an Executive Committee, whose functions and composition are defined with some precision in proposed new section 29A, on the bottom of page 116 running over to page 117. The Executive Committee is formed wholly from the membership of the Australian Council. It exists essentially as a small management committee, of a kind which any organisation has to have to deal with non-policy matters between meetings of the larger body. It is an entirely familiar organisational arrangement, which I imagine Senator Harradine would have come across a thousand times in his diverse career up until now. It is not intended to vest any policy responsibility in the Executive Committee; it is simply there to keep the wheels turning between meetings of the Australian Council, which will be the proper policy making body in a way that has not been able to be established so far. Against that background, if Senator Harradine reads carefully what is in proposed new sections 29A and 29B, against the functions which will be vested in the Australian Council, he will see that it is not as draconian or difficult as he imagines. I understand the difficulty he is having because he is trying to respond to all of this on the run, but I can only suggest to the Senate that there is nothing justifying contention in this particular matter. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.03) — I acknowledge what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) said. I am not trying to interfere with a proposition which would affect the efficiency of the organisation. I know that there have been problems, and I acknowledge what the Minister has said-I have seen that here. The Australian Council, however, is now to be changed by taking off the two members of parliament and increasing by three the membership from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It can be argued whether it is appropriate to take off the two members of parliament. We can all see that this shows that this is not the appropriate place to deal with that. The Minister said that the reason for the extra three members from the ACTU being appointed is to ensure that there is representation from the State trades and labour councils. Of course, there are six State trades and labour councils. Senator Gareth Evans —They can rotate. Senator HARRADINE —They will be rotated? Senator Gareth Evans —Some concept like that, to get a continuous flow of input from your old stamping grounds. Senator HARRADINE —I understand that that would be desirable, but again that is not a matter which will remedy a technical defect. Senator Gareth Evans —This legislation is about not only technical defects, but also small administrative matters. Senator HARRADINE —They are not small, and many of them are not administrative. Senator Macklin —They are policy. Senator HARRADINE —Policy, as Senator Macklin said. Senator Gareth Evans —Uncontentious policy matters. Senator HARRADINE —Let me go to one matter about which I can see some contention arising in all of the States, that is, the situation of the State councils which will be removed and called regional councils for the State. What is the difference between regional councils and a regional council for a State? Is it envisaged that there will be a number of regional councils within the State and a regional council for a State? That is one question. The key issue is this: The functions of the State councils are clearly defined by this amendment. The functions of the State councils are to advise and make recommendations to the Australian Council in relation to matters of trade union training in the State or Territory and to ensure that the training provided by the Trade Union Training Centre for State or Territory is in accordance with the policy formulated by the Australian Council. Now I come to the constitution. At present the constitution of the State councils is as follows: One person appointed by the Minister, one officer of the Department appointed by the Minister, five persons appointed by the relevant trade union organisation, one person to represent the branch of the Confederation of Australian Industry and one person appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of technical and further education in the State. The original legislation says 'promote', and this amendment omits that and inserts 'represent'. That is a technical matter; that is fair enough. The amendment adds another three members to the State councils. In my view, one could argue that the presence on such a body of two of those members was not entirely appropriate. The amendment of paragraph 20 (1) at page 114 provides for the alteration of the constitution to add certain persons to the State Authority by inserting after paragraph (c): one person, being an officer or employee of the Authority, appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the National Director; one person, being an officer or employee of the Authority, to represent the officers and employees of the Authority-- has one ever heard anything so incestuous-- elected in accordance with the regulations by the officers and employees of the Authority employed in the State and appointed by the Minister. We are talking about a council for trade union training. The effect of this would be to give the club-that is to say, the people who are running the show-the real power. I do not think that that is a good idea. That is not an efficient way of going about things. If this is to be a council for trade union training, it should respond to the wishes of those in the area, that is to say, the industrial officers, the rank and file members and the like. But here the proposition is to appoint a person nominated by the National Director. By the way, it need not be the State Director. There might have been some sense in it if it were the State Director, although I do not agree with that, because the State Director is present at all of these meetings. Additionally, it refers to a person from the staff. In fact, we will have a small State trade union training centre with two people from the staff on the committee deciding what ought to be done in the area of trade union training in that State. I do not think that is entirely appropriate. I am generally in agreement with staff-elected representatives, but not on the type of advisory body that these State councils are. I make it clear that these bodies are not executive bodies; they are advisory bodies. Why should members of the staff of the Authority be on those bodies so as to influence unduly the area advice to the Australian Council? They can put their advice to the Australian Council through their bureaucratic means. If there is great concern about this matter, I am prepared to propose an amendment for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that the Government's amendment to paragraph 20 (1) (c) will not increase the efficiency of the organisation. Secondly, I am concerned that the current councils will all be abolished. On page 113 it is proposed that section 9 be repealed and that the proposed new section read: Upon the commencement of this section, the councils established by sub-sections 9 (2) and (3) . . . as in force immediately before that commencement cease to exist. They will just go out of existence. What will happen? Will they have to have new elections? Senator Gareth Evans —No. Senator HARRADINE —They do not? Senator Gareth Evans —No. It is a change of name from State to regional to allow for the Territory councils which are proposed to be established by regulations, as it says in proposed sub-section 9 (4). That is the sole reason for the change of name. Senator HARRADINE —But it is adding to those councils? Senator Gareth Evans —Adding to their composition. Senator HARRADINE —But it significantly changes the composition. I accept that the change of name can well be a technical-- Senator Gareth Evans —It is designed to cope with the reality of the Territories; that is all. Senator HARRADINE —I acknowledge that it is a technical matter, but I do not acknowledge that the change in composition is a technical matter in any shape or form. Therefore, I move: Page 114, Schedule 1, proposed amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975, leave out amendment to paragraph 20 (1) (c) and proposed new paragraphs (d) and (e). The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Can we have the amendment in writing? Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.14) — While Senator Harradine is putting that in writing I will take a little time to return to page 99 and Schedule 1, and the amendment proposed to the Public Works Committee Act 1969, consideration of which was deferred earlier. As a result of the discussion which has taken place, it appears that it will be best if the Joint Committee on Public Works puts to the Senate in writing, clearly and formally, what it wants and then the Senate can deal with what has been placed before it formally by that Committee. In the meantime, I accept the undertaking given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in relation to the procedure which will be adopted until such time as that other procedure has been followed and the matter comes back before us. I also understand that the Minister will co-operate in ensuring that the business is listed if any amendment needs to be made. On that basis, I withdraw my proposed amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.15) —I am grateful to Senator Peter Rae for reacting in that way. I am a little puzzled that he did not fully clarify the record by saying that he was acting on behalf of Senator Sheil. As I understand it, Senator Sheil misunderstood what had transpired in the Joint Committee on Public Works; there had been no resolution by that Committee to endorse the Opposition amendment. I make no imputation whatsoever against Senator Sheil in that respect but simply say that, in a rather confused flurry of circumstances, it was evident that there was some misunderstanding. Senator Foreman's account to the Senate was, accordingly, correct, as was my briefing. That having been said-- Senator Peter Rae —I tried to avoid this. Senator GARETH EVANS —I just think that, since so many allegations about misunderstanding were thrown around by people in various parts of the chamber, it is as well to clarify the record. Senator Peter Rae —I still do not have the foggiest idea what Senator Foreman was talking about. Senator GARETH EVANS —I accept what has been said by Senator Rae and I think that that is an appropriate way of doing it. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.17) —I do not withdraw what I said about Senator Sheil; nor do I accept that Senator Sheil was wrong. I simply believe that it is in the interests of this chamber that we proceed on a sensible basis by withdrawing this matter until the Joint Committee on Public Works places before us in writing what it wants done. That is what I propose to do. I do not propose to get into an argument with Senator Evans over his lack of grace in wanting to lay blame on one person and his saying that somebody, who I consider made an absolutely unintelligible speech, was correct. Amendment (Senator Peter Rae's)-by leave-withdrawn. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine has now submitted his amendment in writing. The question now is: That the words proposed to be left out by Senator Harradine's amendment be left out. Those of that opinion say aye; the contrary, no. I think the noes have it. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Senator Harradine —Mr Chairman, I seek leave to call off the division. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted to call off the division? There being no objection, leave is granted. Amendment negatived. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.22) — I want to make very clear what has just happened. Despite all the arguments that have been presented on this matter, despite the very substantial amendments which are included in this legislation, which are not of a technical nature at all-including amendments which withdraw representation from this Parliament on the Trade Union Training Authority, including amendments which change the constitution of the Trade Union Training Authority-and which have been acknowledged by both sides of the chamber to be very substantial amendments indeed, the Liberal Party of Australia has agreed to support the Government in getting these amendments through by this means. Admittedly some of the measures contained in these amendments are appropriate, but they are not appropriate to be included in a Bill which is designed simply to correct technical deficiencies. I defy anybody to say that this is a proper exercise. But Liberal Party members supported the Government, presumably because these amendments have been rubber stamped by the National Labour Advisory Council. I do not care that the employers and the NLAC believe that just because they agree with something it ought to be rubber stamped by the Parliament, but of course I care about and consider what the trade union movement says and what various employer groups say. I have studied carefully what they have said and am in fairly regular contact with them. As far as I am concerned, what we have seen here has been really an exercise by the Liberal Party deliberately not to understand, accept or acknowledge the validity of arguments that have been presented in this chamber about matters that come before us. As it has been told by the employers that it is okay by them, so it is okay by the Liberal Party. As far as I am concerned that is a retrograde way for the Liberal Party to act. It is quite contrary to what ought to be the approach adopted in this chamber to matters of very grave character indeed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.26) —I have listened, as we all have, for a long time to Senator Harradine speaking on this particular aspect of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I was hoping that the debate on this legislation, which already has been prolonged excessively, might have been brought to a close, but I cannot let Senator Harradine's remarks go unanswered. When this debate commenced I pointed out the fact that the Opposition did not believe it was appropriate that there should be so many and such important amendments as those to the Trade Union Training Authority legislation, included in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and I also referred to one or two other examples. The Opposition is opposed to that sort of policy. However, when the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), responded, he expressed the Government's agreement with that view and also tabled guidelines which indicated that the Government would accept that view in the future. I am glad of that as the criticism which the Opposition had on this matter has been met by the Government. We studied the legislation in detail and decided that although there were some aspects of it that we wished to amend-those amendments have been moved to other areas such as to the Defence Act and, although there has been some confusion about it, to the Public Works Committee Act-there were other provisions of this Bill to which, although we believed they should not have appeared in this legislation, we were not opposed. That is why we took the course we did, unlike Senator Harradine, who had not studied the legislation at all and who came into this chamber only because he had heard me speaking during the second reading debate and saying that the Bill contained substantial amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act. Senator Peter Baume —He had thrown it in his waste paper basket. Senator DURACK —Yes, I think he said he had thrown it in his waste paper basket. That is how little attention he, as a member of the Senate, has paid to a whole range of major amendments to legislation. Now he has the gall to get up and accuse the Liberal Party of not acting in a parliamentary manner. The fact is that we had studied this legislation and formed views about it, and it was only because I mentioned some aspect of it which interested Senator Harradine that he came in here at all and spent an hour or more debating the matter. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.29) — I cannot let that matter go past without saying that I acknowledge that I had assumed that the normal guidelines would be observed by the Government in dealing with the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I believed that the Bill was simply a measure to rectify technical defects which had been created in legislation and which had emerged as being such. That is why any person in my position would say that if they are technical matters they ought to be dealt with as technical matters. With all the other major pieces of legislation being amended I took the view, which I believed was the correct one, that the Government had acted properly, and I assumed that it had included in this legislation only amendments of a technical nature. When I heard what Senator Durack had to say in the debate I hurriedly retrieved the legislation and found that in fact there were 60 very substantial amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act. It did not take me long to study the legislation because I was a member of the interim council of the Trade Union Training Authority and have had a great interest for many years in developing trade union training in this country. I believe that the Opposition has not acknowledged the validity of the arguments that have been presented on the merits of the case. The very fact that arguments had to be presented on the merits of the case shows that the clauses are not of a technical character. There is no dissent in any shape or form by the Opposition with the arguments I put forward, particularly as they relate to the composition of the various councils. The shadow Minister, Senator Durack, still acknowledges that the matter had been predetermined by his Party. The Opposition is not susceptible to reasoned argument when the matter comes before the chamber. We have had plenty of occasions in the last week when the Liberals have not listened to the arguments. They have said: 'This is the Government's legislation. The sitting of the House of Representatives is suspended. We will let the Government change the laws as it proposes. It can live with it'. I believe that the Senate is a House of review, although I acknowledge what Senator Durack has said. He attempted to amend these provisions so far as they relate to the defence legislation. I listened to his arguments, understood them and supported them. However, I would have hoped that the same courtesy would have been applied to my arguments and that the Opposition would not have voted in accordance with some predetermined position for a Bill which contains provisions which alter principal legislation very substantially when the form of this Bill is designed solely to correct technical defects. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.32) —I indicate that Senator Harradine does not stand alone on this matter. The Australian Democrats made it quite clear that we were willing to vote with him, principally because we believe that a message should be sent to the Government that it is not acceptable practice for the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985 to contain changes of direction in policy. The areas to which Senator Harradine has referred are matters of substance which reflect the Government's policy and they should be in a separate Bill which can be debated appropriately in this place. I also agree with the comment made by Senator Harradine that this week we have seen a new coalition in the Senate. It is rather disappointing to see the Government, the Liberal Party and the National Party voting together so frequently and ignoring, in the case of the Opposition parties, their responsibilities to represent people who will be affected adversely by the legislation which has been passed this week. This may well be another example of that practice. However, the main reason for my speaking is to ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to take on board the very real concern of the Senate that this type of legislation is not acceptable in the format of Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.35) —The Opposition welcomes this package of Bills-the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1985, the Broadcasting and Television (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1985, and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1985. It agrees with the purpose of the Bills, which is to remove the confusion and complexities which presently exist, and lends its support to what the Government is doing. Because we support the Bills I will not speak at length. I remind the Senate that the initiatives we are seeing are in line with initiatives which were being developed under the Fraser Government. Accordingly, the majority of these initiatives, which we were developing in government, now appear in this legislation. They are in line with the direction intended to be taken by Liberal and National Party policies and by the coalition during the later stages of its term. Therefore, we have no disagreement with the thrust of the four pieces of legislation which make up the package although some matters will be raised, I believe, by the Australian Democrats in the Committee stage. We will be interested to hear the response of the Government to particular concerns. It might have been better, because of the great complexity of these Bills, had the Government laid them on the table to provide the opportunity for all interested parties to give them more scrutiny before they were passed. However, the Opposition is not unsympathetic to the Government's need to resolve the question of licences for remote areas of Australia and to the need for the Government to be able to go ahead immediately with the issue of these licences when the Acts are proclaimed. So, although we would have preferred more time for those with interest and concern to have examined and responded to the legislation, nevertheless we understand why the Government has pursued the course it has. There was no need for urgency, in a sense, as the regulations and proclamation may not occur for six months. However, again we understand that the Government has a timetable which it wishes to follow. The legislation proposes to change the way in which broadcasting and television licences are granted. Instead of a body being licensed to operate a transmitter as at present, licences will now be required to provide a service to a specified area. So people will now be able to get licences for certain areas rather than licences to operate one transmitter. One point of controversy is the associated provision for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to hold an area inquiry into the adequacy of all the services in the service area as a supplement to, or possibly as a substitute for, individual licence renewal hearings. This will be a considerable change from what occurs at present. We have no real understanding as to how it will operate on the ground. We just hope that the hearing of inquiries regarding the adequacy of services to an area will work effectively. The Bills will implement a number of recent Government decisions regarding, among other things, first, the revision of the broadcasting legislation to relate it to services rather than to technologies, and secondly, the licensing of services to outback areas utilising the satellites of Aussat Pty Ltd. This will be either the remote commercial television service or the remote commercial radio service. The Bills also relate to changes to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's inquiry procedures additional to those passed in 1984. I believe that when Senator Vigor speaks he may raise a matter in relation to this part of the legislative package. The legislative package includes the extension of some rights of appeal against decisions made under the Broadcasting and Television Act and the deletion of some obsolete provisions of the Act. One consequence of this Act to which the Senate's attention should be drawn is that the legislation will prevent in an effective way the major networks from providing a service to remote areas by way of incidental reception of their program relays. Honourable senators will be aware that there has been considerable argument for the last two years as to what is the role and the place of the major networks in providing services to non-metropolitan Australia and there has been an equal concern by rural networks that they should be able to survive with the new technological capacities which will be conferred by the existence and operation of the satellite. In fact, the major networks will be prevented effectively from providing a service to remote areas by way of incidental reception to their program relays unless they are specifically authorised by a remote area licence. The major networks will be required to seek an area licence for incidental reception to become allowable. Honourable senators may wish to consider whether that is the best resolution of the problem. As I say, the Opposition supports the legislation and supports what the Government has decided to do. The discretionary powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal have been widened in this legislation insofar as it will have greater freedom to determine the parties to a hearing as well as restricting participation by any party at a hearing. In relation to particular clauses of the legislative package, the Opposition's spokesman, the Hon. John Moore, drew attention in another place to problems in relation to clauses 8, 10, 12, 19, 23, 42, 65 and 92 of the principal piece of legislation. I do not intend to canvass these again. The Opposition supports this legislation and will vote with the Government in securing its passage. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(12.43) —I begin by thanking Senator Peter Baume for his lucid explanation of the Opposition's position on this matter. As appears from his remarks, the Opposition agrees with the general thrust of this legislation, though there are some details about which it has some reservations. Firstly, the legislation, as Senator Baume pointed out, provides for a new means of licensing radio and television services. Until now the stations from which the transmissions have been made have been the subject of the licensing. From now on, areas to which the transmissions will be made will be the features that will be licensed. There is a change in that respect and that should help the technical advancement of the stations and their ability to update and to keep viable the services they provide. Secondly, this legislation introduces licences for transmission to remote areas. The remote commercial television and radio services will provide a mechanism which will give people quality viewing and listening services which until now have been available only to people in more settled areas. It is in the area of remote licences that most controversy over this legislation has arisen, although not so much perhaps in Parliament as outside it. Thirdly, this legislation grants additional power to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Tribunal will be empowered to have an area inquiry; that is, an inquiry into a particular area in which a particular station broadcasts or puts its television signal. The Tribunal will be able to assess whether that particular area is being properly serviced by the stations involved. Tribute in this matter is due to the considerable skill and determination of the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, who has guided this legislation to its success. He has acted as a Minister should-with great determination-and has brought this legislation to its fruition. Debate interrupted. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: 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. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.46) —In his reply to a question without notice last Monday the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) referred to the edited remarks of the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, Mr Tuxworth, in the Australian Financial Review of 27 May. The Chief Minister was reported as saying that the Territory is 'provided with no more, no less than the States' in the level of financial assistance from the Commonwealth Government. I would say that with remarkable prescience Senator Walsh gave a prepared reply which has since been tabled in this chamber. Senator Walsh pointed out that the Commonwealth payments to the Northern Territory in 1984-85 are estimated to be some $932m and that this represents a level of funding five times larger than equivalent payments to the States on a per capita basis. Unwittingly or otherwise the Minister has misinterpreted the Chief Minister's remarks, for the only reasonable interpretation of what the Chief Minister said in the Financial Review article is that he considers the Territory to be provided by the Commonwealth with a level of assistance which enables the Territory to provide a range and level of government services broadly on a par with those provided in the States. The memorandum of understanding which was negotiated between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory at the time of self-government-I have referred to it several times before-sets out the basis for Commonwealth- Territory financial relationships. The memorandum is designed to allow the Northern Territory Government to function by reasonable effort at a standard not appreciably below the standards of the States. This is in line with the principle of fiscal equalisation, a principle which has been fundamental to Federal financial relationships in the Commonwealth for over 50 years. In simple terms this principle means that all Australians, regardless of where they may happen to live in the Commonwealth, are entitled to some basic level of government services. The Territory's level of financial assistance from the Commonwealth has been assessed in considerable detail on a regular basis since self-government by the Commonwealth's own advisory body on Federal financing arrangements; that is, the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Up until its most recent report the Grants Commission has always found that, first, the level of Commonwealth funding was justified and, secondly, supplementary assistance above and beyond the normal funding arrangements was justified; for example, in its 1981-82 report the Grants Commission recommended a special grant of some $17m. It is interesting to note that in its most recent report the Commission assessed the Territory to have been overfunded by $13m or about 1.5 per cent of total Commonwealth payments to the Northern Territory. The Territory has approached the Commonwealth to bring funding arrangements back into line with the States following this assessment. The essential point to be grasped is not that Territorians are being accorded privileges at the hands of the Commonwealth Government which the States do not enjoy, but simply that it costs five times as much on a per capita basis to provide basic government services in the Territory as it does for Australia as a whole. These higher per capita costs arise for a number of reasons. Principally, they are because of the Territory's isolation from the main centres of population and economic activity in Australia. Secondly, they arise from the dispersion of the Territory's population into small, widely scattered population clusters and the smallness of the population relative to geographical size, for the Northern Territory has a population of around 140,000 people scattered over an area that is 20 per cent larger than that of New South Wales and Victoria combined. Thirdly, there is the distinctive composition of the Territory's population, particularly the fact that Aboriginals constitute approximately one-quarter of the Territory's population. To illustrate the implications of this for the provision of government services, I point out that approximately half of the total cost of health services provided by the Territory Government equals nearly one-third of the cost of education services after services to Aboriginal people. The population of the Northern Territory is some 0.8 per cent of one per cent of the total for Australia. Total net payments by the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory represent about 1.5 per cent of the total of all government spending in Australia. Viewed in that light, Senator Walsh's claims of substantial overfunding for the Territory have a hollow ring. His attacks make much of the per capita level of Commonwealth funding to the Northern Territory, but he has failed to look at the other side of the coin. For example, he fails to acknowledge that the growth rate of the Northern Territory is the fastest of any State or Territory in Australia, at 3.2 per cent against a national average of 1.2 per cent. He also fails to recognise that the Northern Territory's per capita exports for 1983-84 amounted to some $4,080, or more than three times as much as the $1,510 national average, and more than four times as much as New South Wales which managed $970 per capita. It is regrettable that Senator Walsh's zeal for economy and matters affecting the public purse, laudable enough in itself, has developed in this instance to a somewhat less than magnificent obsession about the level of Territory funding, one that reveals, I believe, a serious misunderstanding of the Territory situation. I have here two scales; one is the dollar values of exports on a State by State basis for 1983-84, which shows that the Northern Territory-the lowest-need not be ashamed with its $567 billion. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Dollar values of exports on a State by State basis for 1983-84. $billion New South Wales 5.228 Victoria 4.708 Queensland 5.431 South Australia 1.636 Western Australia 5.060 Tasmania 0.767 Northern Territory 0.567 Australian total 23.511 Australian exports on a per capita basis State by State. $ New South Wales 970 Victoria 1,160 Queensland 2,170 South Australia 1,120 Western Australia 3,660 Tasmania 1,750 Northern Territory 4,080 Australian National Average 1,510 Senator KILGARIFF —The table also sets out Australian exports on a per capita basis State by State, and shows that the Northern Territory, on $4,080 per head, is the highest in the Commonwealth against, as I have said before, the Australian national average of some $1,510. Very briefly, I think that Australia should be heartened about the development in the north and in the interior. Indeed, we have heard over the years the story of the empty north, the undeveloped north, but now it is expanding and we are seeing young people from Australia moving to the north, to the north coast; we are seeing that the population of the Northern Territory is the fastest growing area in Australia. We are seeing the various industries which are attracting employment, including the pastoral and mining industries which have tremendous potential. We see the enormous development of tourism with international and national companies coming in, building up tremendous capital structures and bringing about immense employment. There was a criticism, of course, by the Minister about the amount of money that is spent on advertising. Might I say that this amount of money that has been spent on advertising is bringing handsome returns in the way of capital investment and the development of the Northern Territory. In closing I raise one matter that concerns me. I mentioned this in Hansard of the Senate of 22 May during the adjournment debate, when I was talking about the possibility of indirect taxation and the effect on the people of the north and in the interior. At that time I was speaking of the implications for the Northern Territory of a retail sales tax and it is not my intention to go through that again. All I am warning the Commonwealth, the Parliament and the people of Australia is this: If you want the continued development of the north, which is so essential for security, and all those things that the people of the south and of Parliament say are most highly desirable, please do not forget the people who live up there now and are living under extremely difficult circumstances. I have illustrated the cost of living in Hansard of 22 May. If these young people are to be encouraged to continue coming to the north, please do not think that the people of the outback are being overfunded. It is over to the Commonwealth, it is over to the people. The growth is tremendous up there and I believe I have indicated the other day and today that there is no argument to support the Commonwealth Minister who claims that the funds going into the Northern Territory bring about a situation where there is overfunding. What I am saying is that the Commonwealth and the people of Australia must spend more to encourage the development of the north and the interior. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(12.56) —Mr Deputy President, I want to use this debate very briefly to bring to the attention of the Senate a very worthwhile suggestion that has been made to me which would increase the number of blood donors, especially women blood donors. The blood transfusion service is, as everybody knows, concerned to attract more women donors because of the stricter rules about donors arising out of the spread of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Many more donors are needed, many more regular donors. The suggestion is that child care facilities be provided for a specified few hours each week at each Red Cross blood bank. This would involve the employment of a graduate child carer on specific days and times, identified as suitable by transfusion service staffs. In large cities, the graduate could be mobile and could service five centres a week. As a backup, undergraduate child care students from technical and further education colleges could use the transfusion centre casual care as an applied skills placement. I understand this would be in line with the national core curriculum now in place in most TAFE colleges. There is an urgent need to increase the numbers of women blood donors and this concept would allow people with children-women in particular-to donate blood knowing that their children were well supervised. As an incentive, perhaps an extra hour or two of care could be allowed after the donation of blood to allow the donor to go shopping or indulge in some other respite activity. This proposal comes from Joan Fitz-Nead who is head of the Child Care Department at the Hobart Technical College and it is supported by Dr Young, the Medical Director of the Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service in Hobart. I think it is an exciting idea which I have already discussed with the Minister for Health, Neal Blewett, and the Minister for Community Services, Don Grimes, who have both reacted encouragingly to it. I urge them to bring it into fruition as both a child care project and a health project. It is possible that there are funds available under the allocation for dealing with AIDS. It does involve co-operation amongst the Government, the Red Cross and TAFE colleges, and I trust that the necessary co-operation will occur and that the proposal will be implemented as soon as possible. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.59) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I want to draw the Senate's attention to the urgency to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act to uphold the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal over standards in Australian content. I wish to raise the context in which the need to do something straight away has arisen. For a long time experts in communication law have known that the Broadcasting and Television Act probably would not survive any court challenge in this area. As long as the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal did not do anything to assert their powers under the legislation, everybody was content to leave things be. But as soon as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal moved to assist the Australian film production industry there were challenges which appeared from all sides. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Vigor, you have on the Notice Paper the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Tribunal's Powers) Bill which has been adjourned. You are not entitled to anticipate that debate. I have not got the Bill before me; I have not got your second reading speech. You may not initiate that debate now. You may carry on with other unrelated material. Senator VIGOR —This is related to the Bill and brings up a problem which the Bill attempts to solve, but I was not going to bring up the Bill itself in this debate. There has been an enormous debate within the community and the Bill mentioned was an attempt to handle this matter. I believe that this legislation should be taken up by the Government. There has been a lot of debate in the media concerning the control of standards for children's television. I would like to quote from an article in the Hobart Mercury of Thursday 23 May 1985 concerning the controlling of standards for children's television. It states: The standard of television for children has come under greater scrutiny in recent years as concerned parents and educators have worried about the often distorted images of society to which children are continually being exposed. Improving the quality of children's television is obviously a difficult task requiring adequate funding and greater co-ordination of professional advice. However, the recent quashing by the High Court of an attempt by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to vet samples of children's television before they go to air shows how inadequate the law is in this area. In what is a victory for the commercial television networks the decision enforces the ludicrous situation whereby the Tribunal will only be able to check the suitability and adequacy of children's programs after they have been screened. This is a really serious problem which was addressed as early as 14 February by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). In a Press release on 14 February 1985 the Minister said: The Government will amend broadcasting legislation to remove any threat to film and television production in Australia flowing from doubts about the validity of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal standards. The Minister for Communications, Mr Michael Duffy, said today the Tribunal standards, both qualitative and quantitative, were crucial in supporting the local film and television industry. Without a firm commitment through legislation to these standards, industry employment and the expression of Australian culture through the broadcast media will suffer. Mr Duffy said later in the Press release that it was in the public interest that doubts over the Tribunal's powers be removed. The Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 was amended as soon as possible to reinforce the Tribunal's powers to make standards. He continued: The amendments will not add to the Tribunal's function but merely confirm the long accepted task it has carried out in this area. The Tribunal's ability to set quantitative standards is important as often it is the only effective way of achieving a qualitative objective. The specific subjects dealt with under the quantative rules include: (1) Broadcast times for children's programs, and the number of minutes of advertising in children's programs, (2) the quantity of advertising permitted per hour; and (3) the level of Australian program content. The Minister committed himself to introduce legislation as soon as possible on this subject. We have not seen this legislation during this session. He went on to say: The Tribunal's comprehensive set of program and advertising standards benefited the Australian film and television industry in its development phase and remains important to the industry's continued growth and development. The standards have ensured that Australians have gained expertise and experience in film and television making. They have also helped the industry reflect Australian culture and assisted in the preservation and expansion of jobs. The particular case which went through to the High Court has thrown all of this into question. We no longer have any guarantee, except for a statement by the Minister in his second reading speech to the legislation amending the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act which we are currently debating in the Senate, that he will introduce this again as soon as possible. We have had an enormous delay between 14 February and now. We still have not had the introduction of a Bill to amend the Act in that way and we are now being promised the same thing; the Minister has said that he will introduce it first thing next session. In the meantime the large television networks are able to cut costs and able to handle their television standards commitments in a cavalier way. This is really very disturbing. The suddenness of the High Court's decision has apparently caught the Government unprepared. It is still awaiting the ruling of a Full Bench of the Federal Court on the Saatchi case which is dealing with Australian content in advertising. If it is held that the power to make standards is not an effective power of the Tribunal, that 'standards' means only technical standards, it means that there is nothing guaranteeing that the Australian advertising industry can survive the onslaught of material coming in from the United States and other parts of the world. This will result in widespread job loss and the local advertising industry will face considerable dislocation. It is extremely important that these standards should be maintained. I have received a number of telegrams from different organisations which raise this point and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a telegram chosen from several telegrams from various organisations. This particular telegram is from the South Australian Council for Children's Film and Television. I have obtained permission from both sides of the House for its incorporation. Leave granted. The telegram read as follows- Senate AA62326 Telcom AA88765 Attn Senator David Vigor: South Australian Council has telexed Communications Minister Duffy urging him-''To introduce qualitative Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Television Standards Amendments today in light of High Court decision. Amendments are needed now not in August. 1. To ensure they happen. 2. To maintain children's television programme standards. 3. To stabilise industry programming for children's television'' The Council asks for your support. . . . South Australian Council for Children's Films and Television Inc. Attn P Dight ADO17 Senate AA62326 Telcom AA88765 Senator VIGOR —The telegram points out the real problem associated with children's television. Why should we put our children's television industry at risk when we are just starting to get an international reputation in this area? If there are no standards, I believe that the commercial interests of the larger producing organisations and the large networks will mean that the Australian content will go down, or at least the quality of the Australian content will go down. I believe that it is extremely important for the Government to grasp the nettle. It has an opportunity now of bringing on the Bill which I introduced into the House and we would certainly support that going through the Senate. Under those circumstances, as the Government has recalled the House of Representatives it has a chance of passing the Bill now and solving some of the problems which have been left by the High Court case. I call upon the Government to do this in the interests of children's television and the interests of parents. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Vigor, you are again transgressing into the area of the subject matter of your Bill. Senator VIGOR —Right. I apologise, Mr Deputy President. I feel that it is extremely important for the Government to do something about this. It is extremely important for us to look very closely at the Broadcasting Tribunal's powers. It used to have the ability to give what is called a C classification which allowed certain programs to count towards material suitable for stations' quota of children's television. However, in this morning's Australian Financial Review there is an article headed: 'ABT Raps 9 over the knuckles, failure to meet Australian quotas'. The article states: The Nine television network has failed to meet the Australian drama contents standard for the third year in succession, this time provoking the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to act. Later on it states: The findings could spell trouble for the network, which has made it clear that first-run Australian drama was not easy to find, and its production budgets could be further strained by its apparent decision, expected to be announced today, to buy a satellite transponder. It is quite obvious that the commercial decisions of these large networks are going to militate against high Australian content and good television programs. Currently censorship is left in a very strange way to the Film Censorship Board to classify just overseas films for television. The acceptance of commercial advertising is left to the Commercial Acceptance Division of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations. This is the only type of control we have in that area. I believe we need an independent body, like the ABT. The ABT needs all the support it can get from the Government in order to be able to carry out its task effectively in the interests of the community. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(1.12) —Mr Deputy President, I want to alert the Senate to some figures that have been sent to me from some people in New Zealand. The first ones, sent to me late in April show that on the 24th of that month it was stated that 44,500 New Zealanders left that country on a one-way basis and the bulk of them came to Australia. That figure is up 10,000 on the previous year. The interesting figure is that for the same 12-month period only 241 persons arrived in New Zealand on a one-way basis. Then I was given some other figures which appeared in the New Zealand Herald of 21 May and showed that the unemployment dole payments in New Zealand are dropping quite considerably. It is a short article headed 'Big Drop in Dole Payouts'. It states: The number of people getting the unemployment benefit has fallen to 31,721, a drop of nearly 28 per cent compared with a year ago. The latest figures released yesterday by the Minister of Social Welfare, Mrs Hercus, showed a drop of 3 per cent in the two weeks to May 10. The number of those aged under 20 getting the unemployment benefit had also dropped dramatically, she said. There were now 8,740 young people on the benefit compared with 13,189 this time last year . . . That was a fall of about 34 per cent. It seems to me that when you put those figures together, the young people's dole payouts dropping and the number of people coming to this country, a lot of the people who are on the dole in New Zealand are coming to this country. I believe that they are going on the dole in this country, too. I have heard of some who come over here to go to university and they get assistance under the tertiary education assistance scheme where some Australians cannot. I think it is time that the Government woke up to this situation and stopped offering free access to this country and opening the Treasury coffers to all of these people from New Zealand. It seems to me that the Government should stop taking over New Zealand's unemployed and should refuse payments to all people until they have been gainfully employed in this country for some years. I do not think we should continue to allow New Zealand to export its unemployment problem to this country. There is one other matter that I think bears raising in the same context, and that is that in Australia pensioners are rightly or wrongly-I believe wrongly-assets tested. If they are over the limit there is a penalty on them. I have asked this question before: What happens when a pension is sent to people who have chosen to leave Australia and live in another country? How are their pensions assets tested? Who is responsible for that testing? Do we send people away at great cost to spy on the way a pensioner lives in another country? The whole idea of sending pensions to those who choose to live in other countries, I believe, is one of the crazy things that happen and are supported by this Government. If a pensioner lives in Australia he spends his pension here and the general community benefits. I ask: What benefit do we get from a pension that is spent in an overseas country? None whatsoever. I am sick and tired of seeing taxpayers' money sent overseas. If people choose to live-I emphasise 'choose to live', rather than just go on a holiday overseas-overseas and the Government is crazy enough to ship bucketfuls of taxpayers' money out of the country I believe that such pensions should be reduced to cover the assets situation and the multiplying effect of the spending that such pensions would have if they were spent in Australia. I suppose I should make it quite clear that I am really against any payment of pensions overseas. I suppose by saying that I will upset some of my friends who have made this country their home. Of course if they do remain here I have no objection to their getting their fair share of the pension. The economy of this country, I believe, is on a knife edge at the moment. Our deficit is in cloud-cuckoo-land and the Government is going to attack every individual by increasing taxes. The Government is going to have to do that to make up for the expenditures in past years. In Australia it is time the Government recognised that the party is over. This country cannot afford the benefits that the Government is throwing around like a drunken sailor. That time has passed. I am not impressed by a reply from any Minister who says: 'Your Government did it too'. Sometimes I despaired for that Government too. The situation is now so much worse than it used to be. As I said the other day in a debate in the Senate, next year we are going to spend more on public debt interest than on defence. 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. In 1987-88, on conservative figures, it will be almost 11 per cent of a much bigger figure of course, but 11 per cent of Budget. The projection is that nearly 11 per cent of our Budget will be spent just in servicing the interest on our public debt. Defence spending in 1974-75 represented about 9 per cent of the Budget. It is just over 10 per cent now. The figure that is increasing so dramatically, as shown in the Forward Estimates that were given to us a few days ago, is this public debt interest. Everything else is staying about constant but the public debt interest is increasing at something like 15 per cent per year. I believe that the magnitude of our present credit problems is, as I said, such that this country is on a knife edge. Even before the devaluation of the dollar earlier this year the Age last November reported that it was a fact that on bankers' criteria Australia ranked as a debtor with some of the troubled countries. If we compare our position with that of our Tasman neighbour we see just how badly things could go in this country. If we look at the way the interest payments on public debt have gone in New Zealand and plot them as a graph alongside the Australian figures we see a marked similarity and something that has a very frightening exponential trend to it. I really do not know what is going to happen to the national debt. Something dramatic has to happen or we are certainly going to get into a very critical situation and we will be heading in the same direction as some of the banana republics of South America. I read with interest Mr Stone's article in the Australian last weekend. I have not got it here to quote from, but in essence he said that whereas once upon a time we looked to the United States and said 'That is where Australia will be in a few years time', it is now obvious to those of us who follow the finances of this country that we should look to New Zealand and say: 'That is where we will be in a couple of years time'. That means most probably a much lower dollar; not straight away, it is going to be a gradual thing. It will mean difficulty in paying our debts and a reduced standard of living for everybody in this country. Of course, Tasmania-my State-with its low per capita income, I believe, will be one of the hardest hit. I have been of late consistently trying to draw attention to the percentage of expenditure which is being outlaid on public debt interest. It is my belief that our national debt can be reduced to acceptable levels only by cutting heavily into government expenditure. Instead, this Government's only reply has been to shave minute amounts from its Budget Forward Estimates. Yet I believe we are still in a financial graveyard spiral, and Senator Collard would know, as an aviating man, just where one ends up in a graveyard spiral in an aeroplane. I quote from an article by Terry McCrann in the Age of 17 May. The article is headed 'Iron Man Keating'-and I think that is said rhetorically-'Helps Build a $55 billion Deficit'. It starts: Despite Tuesday's mini-Budget, honoured more in the rhetoric than the substance-and speech, after Churchillian 'Battle of Britain' speech from Bob Hawke and Paul Keating-the undeniable truth is that Australia remains on that streetcar named Deficit, careering almost uncontrollably down a crazy path towards a fiscal hell. Mr Deputy President, I have shown this section of the article to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The article read as follows- IRON MAN KEATING HELPS BUILD A $55 BILLION DEFICIT Despite Tuesday's mini-budget, honoured more in the rhetoric than the substance-and speech after Churchillian ''Battle of Britain'' speech from Bob Hawke and Paul Keating-the undeniable truth is that Australia remains on that streetcar named Deficit, careering almost uncontrollably down a crazy path towards a fiscal hell. The evidence is displayed in the table at the bottom of this column. The data, except for the last line, comes from the 1984 Budget papers. The bottom line, the fiscal ''aims'' for 1985-86, is calculated from Mr Keating's answer to a question from his predecessor John Howard in Parliament on Wednesday. Mr Keating said that the public sector borrowing requirement-PSBR or, as presented in the table, the total public sector deficit-would come down from 7 per cent in the current fiscal year ''hopefully'' to nearer 6 per cent in 1985-86. I have been charitable and assumed Mr Keating succeeds in getting it all the way down to 6 per cent. But at that level it would still be among the highest in recent history in Australia. And in money terms it would be a quite staggering $13,700m or so, or barely a billion off 1983-84's biggest ever figure. And further, consider, it would mean that over the four years to the 1985-86 year Governments in Australia would have collectively spent around $55 billion more than they would have collected in taxes and other revenues. That money doesn't just fall from the sky, in some magic fulfillment of our, perhaps more sophisticated, cargo cult fantasies. It has to be paid for and it has to be serviced-out of taxes and charges-in the form of a floodtide of rising interest payments. In just four years the nation's public debt will have risen by a sum equal to about one quarter of our total national output over the course of a year. And Mr Keating is proud of his toughness, proud of his record. Some toughness, some record. The next financial year will be the third of recovery-assuming the upturn continues-from the 1981-82 recession. And yet we will still be running mammoth deficits in Canberra and across Government generally. What happens if the economy dips into recession? Will we gaily pump the total public sector deficit up to 8 per cent of GDP, 10 per cent? And on top of the mammoth increase in the nation's debt burden over the last four years? How sharply the centre of the debate has shifted; how inured we become to the ever-rising tide of Governmental red ink; how readily the Pavlovian dogs in some sections of the business community bark their praises of Mr Keating's fiscal muscle-power. Only three years ago Malcolm Fraser managed to screw the federal budget deficit down to $548 million or less than half of one per cent GDP (Gross Domestic Product). And the total PSBR was around $6000 million or 4 per cent of GDP. Now Mr Keating says that if Tuesday's-hard as warm butter-budget doesn't get next year's deficit below the 1984-85 figure, by gum he and the government will stick out their collective jaw and make further cuts in August's full Budget. What an ambition! To get the deficit below $6700 million or ''well under'' 3 per cent of GDP-and on top of the masses of red ink in 1983-84 and 1984-85! Perhaps Mr Keating believes that if he says ''tough'' often enough, the entire capital market will behave like well-trained Pavlovian dogs and both believe him and bark his praises. THE DEFICIT FLOOD Federal budget deficit Total public sector deficit $m % of GDP $m % of GDP 1980-81 1 109 0.8 4 828 3.7 1981-82 548 0.4 6 006 4.0 1982-83 4 473 2.7 11 444 7.0 1983-84 7 961 4.3 14 807 8.0 1984-85 (est.) 6 745 3.3 14 500 7.0 1985-86 (''aim'') under 6 700 under 3.0 13 700 6.0 Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. We are heading for the taxation debate. I said a moment ago that I believe everybody in this country is going to be taxed more heavily to pay for what the Government has spent over the last few years. It is no good saying it was the previous Government's fault. People of this country are not worried about past problems; they are worried about this problem that now faces them. They expect the Government they have to fix the situation. We are in a terribly dangerous financial situation in Australia and unless the Government can increase taxation by mammoth amounts we are not going to get out of this situation. I believe that the debate about taxation is out of control. Every day we see different things reported and it is obvious that the people within the Labor Party have many different views. The different sections have different views of just what should be done. But there is a truism, I think, within political life that tax reform-I always hate it when Labor Party people use the word 'reform' because it usually means dramatic change-always means increased taxes. Mr Keating can say to us loud and clear and often that taxes will not be increased, but the people of Australia and I do not believe him. The first two years of Mr Hawke's Government has seen government expenditure increase by an average of 7.1 per cent in contrast to Mr Fraser's government expenditure increase of an average of only 2.2 per cent. So Australians will soon see that tax reform is only a front for allowing this Government to raise more revenue to support the lavish expenditure that is going on. I believe the Government's intentions are clear and that the people of Australia recognise it. The Government is saying clearly that taxpayers are going to be expected to make significant sacrifices, sacrifices which the Government is not prepared to make. There would be no need for a change in the tax system at all if the Government would simply show a little bit of discipline in its expenditure. Anyway, what guarantee does the taxpayer have that a substantial part of any new money raised will not be squandered? Mr Hawke is effectively asking taxpayers to give him their money and then to trust him to give it all back. But where has that trust been returned in the past? Ask the elderly people with their assets test or the Queenslanders held to ransom by their unions, or the sick under Medicare. Ask any Tasmanian without some of the essential freight subsidies that have been cut to that State. Where has the Hawke magical mystery tour of faith taken us? The Government has broken promise after promise and, even if we do trust Mr Hawke's intentions, there is no guarantee that he will correctly predict the effects of inflation or the correct income compensation that is necessary if a broadly based tax is imposed. Monday's release of the Finance Department's overestimate of provisional tax receipts shows just how large this Government's miscalculations can be. While Mr Hawke continues on his cosmetic taxation public relations exercise the deficit time bomb, the deficit cancer, gets worse and worse. Eventually when the deficit explodes so that other countries do not trust our ability to pay and when they put us in a section where we are not in a triple A rating, this Government will be the one to blame. Australia's per capita debt already exceeds that of Mexico, Chile, Poland and Argentina and, as I said, next year we will be spending more on interest than on health, education or defence. I believe that very few people can believe that this socialist Government led by Mr Hawke can or will do anything but increase our taxes at the tax summit. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(1.27) — On 23 May during the debate on the dairy legislation Senator Black made certain remarks concerning the purchase of a farm by a Mr Pat Rowley. Anyone reading those remarks could see them as imputing improper motives. Mr Rowley is the President of the Queensland Dairymen's Organisation and as such is on other industry boards both at a State and national level. So my brief remarks are mainly to put on record the facts about the purchase of this farm so that people within the industry will have no cause to doubt the integrity of one of their industry leaders. As indicated, the farm was purchased on 12 February 1981. The point I want to make is that the farm was purchased lock, stock and barrel on a walk-in walk-out basis. It is an adjoining farm. The only change-and of course on the purchase of that farm the milk entitlement was also bought-since that day, and it was for a matter of efficiency, was that the combined herd is now put through the one dairy. That is both within the letter of the law and the intent of the law and Mr Rowley has acted quite properly at all times in this transaction. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(1.29) —We have at the moment the Premiers of the various States meeting in this building, negotiating on the share of grants from the tax take to be given by the Commonwealth Government. We in Tasmania have been told by the Commonwealth Grants Commission report that we should take a cut of, it first of all said, $40m. Later that figure was revised to $56m. Perhaps here a minor point should be made, Mr Deputy President, that last Tuesday Senator Aulich, a Tasmanian senator, in a question to Senator Button, said: I refer to newspaper reports published today which predict job losses of 4,300 people in Tasmania should the Commonwealth Government implement the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Report. He asked: Were any of the Grants Commission members appointed by the current Labor Government? Senator Button in answer to that question said: The fact is that members of the Grants Commission were appointed by the Fraser Government. They reported to this Government and the question of what is in their report requires objective analysis. That is what Senator Button said and he picked that up from Mr Hawke, who on Sunday made the same statement which is entirely wrong. The facts are that two of the three commissioners were appointed by the Whitlam Government and one by the Holt Government. The Chairman, Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, was reappointed by the Hawke Government just last year and it is a pity that Senator Button takes for granted that what Mr Hawke says is accurate and does not do his own checking, because he is entirely wrong. However, that is just a minor point and I make no comment on that. Following the Grants Commission report Mr Gray, the Premier of Tasmania, commissioned an independent inquiry into the likely effects on Tasmania if that recommendation, the first recommendation, for the cut of $40m was implemented. That was an independent inquiry. It was chaired by Sir Harold Cuthbertson, a very well known businessman in Tasmania, and it had many other members on it. It was a completely independent inquiry. The results of that inquiry have been quite devastating to Tasmanians. The inquiry was making its report on the original $40m cut and said that there would be 2,700 jobs lost to Tasmania. It said that we ought to be jumping up and down about it because, if we did not, the economic situation in Tasmania would be disastrous. The inquiry said that the social effects would be wide-ranging and most Tasmanians would feel them; that the situation would be to stifle further development in Tasmania, especially capital expenditure by State governments and that jobs affecting education, health and the police force would be very much affected. It predicted that strong cuts in those areas would result in an increase in death and injury on the roads, the crime rate and drug rate and drug problems would also increase and social disorder would escalate. Some of the high schools would need to be closed. This revised $56.5m cut recommended by the Grants Commission, we have been assured, would create twice as many problems. The second report came out from the independent Centre for Regional Economic Analysis at the University of Tasmania. It referred to much more serious effects projected than those contained in the Cuthbertson report. Mr John Madden, senior research fellow at the Centre, again substantiated what would happen as a result of the cuts that Mr Cuthbertson had brought forward. He said that if there were a $56m cut, we would have 4,300 jobs lost and a $70m drop in wages and incomes with lower State production. What the Grants Commission has ignored is that Tasmania is a very decentralised State. The average population in the capital cities of the other States is 70 per cent of the total population. In your State of Victoria, Mr Deputy President, 70 per cent of the population resides in Melbourne. In Tasmania it is 40 per cent. As a result, the services have to be spread more widely. We have to provide services equally, not only in the south where the capital is, but also in the north and the north-west. Hence considerable extra cost is entailed for the State Government in this regard. Tasmania certainly earns its share. Our export earnings relative to our population far exceed those of any other State. We have just heard that we are to get disastrous cuts. Let me go back to last Sunday, because we then had our Opposition Leader, Mr Wriedt, decide that Tasmania could cope with a $56m cut. He said that it could be done, that we would have to have additional taxes raised but that Tasmania could cope. Having said that on Sunday, he then chose to come to Canberra to try to undermine the elected Premier of Tasmania. He is only an Opposition member; he came to Canberra to try to undermine the elected Premier of that State and he made such a mess of things that he went home with his tail between his legs. Having said on Sunday that Tasmania could cope with a $56m cut, he then came up here and tried to talk Canberra into the fact that perhaps we could not after all. He had not even bothered to read either of the independent reports which made it very clear that Tasmania could not cope with that sort of cut, but he decided off the top of his head, the great expert on economics, that Tasmania could cope and he came up here. He was treated so badly by the Government up here, treated so lightly, that when he asked for appointments with the Treasurer and with the Minister for Finance he was denied; he was told that he could see one of them but he certainly could not see both Ministers. How dare he come up here. How dare he come up here as an Opposition leader and try to do the work of an elected Premier. He has gone home, as I say, completely empty-handed with his tail between his legs but the amount of damage he has done by his statements has been absolutely horrific. In the Hobart Mercury we had the headline 'Hawke Horror Story'. The article explained to Mr Hawke, who came down to our State over the weekend, just what a mess it would make of Tasmania if he adopted those sorts of recommendations. Mr Hawke said: In no way will Tasmania be singled out for harsh treatment, that is not my way or the Labor way. It will not be the way of any government that I have the honour to lead and that is my direct answer to Mr Gray. He said on another occasion: Any suggestion that Tasmania is going to be saddled with new, unrealistic burdens, or that we would allow drastic, draconian, curtailment of Tasmanian services and standards should be dismissed. It sounds fine, sounds reassuring, and I am sure that many Tasmanians were reassured by that. But what has happened today? Tasmania has been told that it is going to lose $50m; it will be down $50m. Taken in line with the mini-Budget where we lost $20m and $3m for roads, it is a total of $73m Tasmania will be cut if the Prime Minister has his way; that is $500 per family in Tasmania. Mr Acting Deputy President, this cannot be allowed to happen. I am well aware that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Wriedt, has mucked it, has undermined and sabotaged Tasmania; he has made no effort to fight for the State. I understand that the Labor senators in this place are not likely to fight for Tasmania and that it has been left to the Liberal senators here to do so. But the Premier, Mr Gray, I am quite sure, will not allow that to happen. Mr Hawke has disadvantaged Tasmania in so many ways since he has been in government; he now claims that this is all the fault of someone else and tries to put the blame on the commissioners who, he told us so untruthfully, were appointed by Mr Fraser. There is no way the Tasmanian people will accept those untruths and there is no way the Tasmanian people will ever forgive Mr Hawke or this Government if they attempt to introduce such draconian measures against my State. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(1.40) —I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate a matter that I consider important, not only for South Australians but for all Australians. It is a matter I had intended to raise in the adjournment debate last night, but as you, Mr Acting Deputy President, will know, circumstances arose that prevented that happening. The matter I wish to raise in general is that of housing development near airports and in particular in close proximity to military airports, that is, air bases. The specific matter is housing development south of the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh in South Australia. I wish to raise this matter partly because of the noise factor that should be considered when looking to, or at, developments near airports but more particularly as a consequence of the safety factor. Honourable senators will be aware that, a few days ago in Darwin a Mirage fighter found itself in mangrove mud flats as a consequence of losing power while making a final approach to landing. The pilot, reports inform us, had only seconds to turn the aircraft towards the sea before he could eject from the plane; the plane then proceeded on its path to the mud flats. The connection between this incident and what I wish to talk about, which is the housing development near Edinburgh Air Force base, is quite simply this: I am informed, reliably I believe, that the Mirage fighter that came down near Darwin was on a critical flight path. Honourable senators may well be aware there are two critical flight paths-take-off and landing-and the aircraft that had to crash land, if you want to put it that way, near Darwin was in the critical path of landing. Considering that critical flight path in relation to Edinburgh Air Force base, there is not only some development but also some recent much higher density development than has ever been there before. That development, as I have said, is near the Edinburgh Air Force base and in particular it is just south of the Air Force base. I will take a few minutes to provide the Senate with some particular information about Edinburgh Air Force base to fill in the picture. The main runway runs more or less on a north-south axis and this critical flight phase area is immediately south of the runway. The Air Force base has six units. It has the aircraft research and development unit, the No. 1 recruit training unit, No. 24 squadron, 92 wing airman-aircrew training school and a significant base squadron as well. Another matter relating to Edinburgh that should be brought to the Senate's attention is that it is an area where there is a significant number of birds; by that I mean flying birds and, in particular, seagulls. It is common knowledge that when birds are sucked into jet engines the operations of those engines can be severely impaired. Passengers and crew are at risk, there may have to be a shut-down prior to landing or a take-off may have to be aborted. The sorts of planes we are talking about coming in and out of Edinburgh are Orions, Mirage fighters, FIIIs, and a variety of other aircraft including training aircraft. I believe there is the possibility that the new FA18 Hornet will be flying in and out of Edinburgh as well. I remind honourable senators that this is an Air Force base where training flights are regularly undertaken and where live weapons are regularly carried on aircraft. I do not want to be dramatic and I am well aware of the capable and responsible actions of Air Force personnel when dangerous circumstances arise. I know that they are instructed to and do at all times avoid, where possible, loss to persons or property. That the Darwin pilot managed to turn the plane towards the sea or, in this case, the mangrove swamps before ejecting, is a classic example of that sort of care. Nonetheless, the Darwin incident does show that circumstances can arise that would create danger to development in the environment of an Air Force base. In these circumstances, fuel may have to be jettisoned, weapons may have to be jettisoned or the aircraft may have to be abandoned. I accept that these circumstances are unlikely to arise. It is not very often that newspaper front pages report that the Air Force has managed to land one of its very expensive planes in the mud flats. Nonetheless, they are circumstances that can arise. I simply make the point that to have zoning that will allow new houses immediately under the critical flight path at Edinburgh Air Force base seems to be taking an extraordinary risk. To have zoning that will allow new schools to be built immediately under the critical flight path at Edinburgh Air Force base seems to be taking an extraordinary risk. It is a risk that I do not believe should be taken. With respect to the noise factor, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am informed that portions of the new housing development south of Edinburgh Air Force base and some of the existing houses are well within noise zones that are considered unacceptable for development near a number of airports around Australia. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise will be in a much better position to make any comments with respect to the noise factor than I am at this stage. I raise this matter today in Federal Parliament because the Edinburgh Air Force base is a Commonwealth facility and the incident in Darwin has highlighted the potential problem of residential development being permitted close to an Air Force base. I happily accept that planning is a State and local government matter and so it should remain. It is, therefore, with the greatest respect that I call on the State authorities to give serious consideration to restricting further development in this area. Sitting suspended from 1.47 to 2 p.m. Senator COLLARD —I understood that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs had returned from overseas and would be present at Question Time. As my question is to be addressed to him, I will defer it until he arrives in the chamber. Senator ELSTOB —I refer the Minister for Education to the document entitled 'Aboriginal Social Indicators', which states that the percentage of Aboriginals with some educational qualifications has increased fourfold in the past 10 years. What steps is the Government taking to increase Aboriginal participation in tertiary education? Will the Minister tell the Senate what is the success rate for Aboriginal people in the tertiary field? Senator RYAN —I studied carefully the report entitled 'Aboriginal Social Indicators'. Although it revealed a situation of very gross disadvantage for Aboriginal people in virtually every area of social policy, it was not an entirely depressing document because it also indicated that over the last 10 years there has been some progress in some areas. I am pleased to say that there has been some progress in education. In proportional terms, there are now many more Aboriginal people in tertiary education than there were 10 years ago, but, of course, the numbers are very low and, in relation to the rest of the Australian population, they are still extraordinarily low. Our Government has taken a number of steps to increase the participation of Aboriginals in tertiary education. Before I reply in detail as to what steps the Government has taken, I point out that any strategy for increasing Aboriginal involvement in tertiary education needs to be underpinned by a strategy for improving Aboriginal participation in schooling and secondary education. As with the rest of the population, if we have a situation where Aboriginal children are not able to finish their secondary schooling and are dropping out well before reaching a satisfactory level of secondary schooling, they will not be in a position to take advantage of any new opportunities that are open in tertiary education. In schooling, the Government has done a number of things, mainly in the area of capital. Up to this point, we have devoted some $12m to Aboriginal school projects, mainly in remote areas such as the Kimberley region in Western Australia, the remote area of Senator Elstob's State, and in the Northern Territory. Quite a large number of school buildings are now being built, thus providing for the first time the opportunity for Aboriginal children in these areas to get schooling, particularly secondary schooling. Also, $500,000 has been earmarked under the participation and equity program for expenditure on programs that will assist Aboriginal students to finish their secondary education. In the tertiary area, the Government, through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, is providing $839,000 in 1985 to support a total of 200 additional places for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders at universities and colleges of advanced education throughout Australia. In 1986 and 1987 funds will also be available through the CTEC for additional intakes of Aboriginal students and for the continued support of the 200 students that will be taken in this year. An additional 100 special teacher training awards have been established for 1985 to help meet the target set by the National Aboriginal Education Committee of 1,000 trained Aboriginal teachers in schools by 1990. I remind the Senate that an initial 100 awards were available in 1984. So there are now 200 such fellowship holders studying to be teachers. We have also increased the level of allowances for Aboriginal students undertaking tertiary education. They are up by 3.9 per cent. There have been increases in funds for special support programs. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Ryan to ignore the interjections and complete her answer. Senator RYAN —Yes, Mr President, I will complete my answer. I had almost finished. I must say that it is a matter of some regret to me and, I am sure, to other senators on this side of the chamber that Opposition senators have so little interest in the very serious problem of improving participation of Aboriginals in tertiary education. In conclusion, I was informing the Senate of the amount of money spent on enclaves and bridging programs for Aboriginals to increase their access to tertiary education. Some $3.5m has been made available for 1984-85-an increase of $0.5m on the previous financial year. The Government is taking steps to increase the participation of Aboriginals in tertiary education, and those steps are proving to be successful. Senator Peter Baume —I ask the Minister to table the document from which she was obviously quoting. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator RYAN —Happily. Senator COLLARD —I preface my question by welcoming back the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator COLLARD —As the Minister heard, he is among friends. I refer the Minister to his speech delivered one year ago today to the sixty-eighth annual congress of the New South Wales branch of the Returned Services League of Australia in which he said in part: Let me also say firmly that it is not the intention to change the onus of proof which rests on the Commonwealth in deciding if a disability is service-related. Given the Government's Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, which does alter the onus of proof, will the Minister resign from his ministry because of this clear breach of an undertaking and his inexcusable absence overseas when the Bill was debated in Parliament? Senator GIETZELT —Firstly, I should say that an invitation was extended to the Australian Government for me to participate in the Battle of Crete celebrations, which was accepted. Subsequently, we were also invited to attend the celebrations for the seventieth anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli, which invitation the Australian Government also accepted. Contrary to what some people have attempted to suggest, I believe that attending both those commemorations was very useful from the point of view of the Australian veteran community. I was able to meet the presidents of Turkey, Greece and France at the VE Day celebrations. Australia gets a great deal of credit for its participation in those events. In respect of the specific question Senator Collard asked, I have no hesitation in saying that I won the battle on section 47 before I left Australia. The agreement I got from the Government was that section 47 would be retained for those personnel who fought overseas during world wars I and II and subsequent wars; in other words, if they had overseas wartime service, the application of section 47 would remain unchanged. However, the Government made decisions in respect of peacetime service after 1972 and most of those who did not serve outside Australia during World War II. The civil standard of proof will exist in respect of that group of people, whereas the onus of proof for those who have overseas wartime service-that is the great bulk of the veterans-still rests with the Commonwealth to disprove any applications. So, quite contrary to what Senator Collard said, I believe I have acted properly to protect the interest of veterans in Australia. Senator COOK —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to proposals on income splitting for tax purposes? Do those proposals offer any prospect for a fairer tax system? Senator WALSH —From time to time propositions are put to allow couples to divide their incomes for taxation purposes. Most notably, I suppose, a series of propositions was put prior to the last election by members of the Opposition. On this question, as on so many other questions, the Opposition of course speaks with a multi-forked tongue. There were some non-specific proposals and undertakings given by the Leader of the National Party of Australia to the effect that all couples, no matter what their income, would be able to divide their income in whatever way they chose for taxation purposes. There seemed to be contained in that multi-forked tongue approach something close to a specific proposal advanced principally by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Howard, who said that up to $9,000 in income would be permitted to be transferred from one income earner to another. Such a move was sold quite fraudulently to assist what is known in some quarters as the traditional Australian family, that is, a single income household with a dependent spouse, probably children and a fairly low household income, say of $16,000. The effect of that sort of proposal, that is, allowing a maximum of $9,000 to be transferred for that single income household with a dependent spouse and dependent children, from the income earner to the dependent spouse would be that the tax payable by that household would be reduced by $294. On the other hand, for a household of precisely the same composition, that is, a dependent spouse and dependent children, with a $50,000 single income, if $9,000 of that single income were transferred from the income earner to the dependent spouse, that household would have its taxable income reduced by $3,269. In other words, for the household with an income of $50,000 the tax saving is 11 times higher than the tax saving for the $16,000 household. The Opposition had the audacity to try to market that proposition as something which would be both fairer and more equitable. Most fraudulently of all, of course, it tried to market it as something which would help the fairly low single income household with dependent spouse and children. However, the cost of the Opposition's proposal was far from insignificant. The cost to the revenue would be in the vicinity of $1 billion if such a proposal were enacted. The associated child care taxation rebate would represent about another $240m. If any government has $1.25 billion of tax cuts and a desire to spread them around lower income households there are of course much more effective ways than that of helping such low income households. I understand that of course Senator Walters is very keen on this proposition because she comes from the class and represents the class of people in the $50,000-a-year-plus income bracket. Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, pursuant to standing order 363 I ask that the document from which the Minister was quoting be tabled. Senator Walsh —I have not got a document. The PRESIDENT —The Minister asserts that he was not quoting from any document. Senator CHANEY —My question follows on from Senator Walsh's last statement which is a typical attempt to build up resentment and class feeling. I simply ask him whether it is a fact that many income earners who earn $50,000, or whatever figure he cited, a year are, under the present state of law, able to split their incomes with their spouses because if the income is earned from a business or something of that sort one can very easily divide the income whereas wage and salary earners in general are precluded from it. Is there therefore a high degree of tax injustice in the present inability of all income taxpayers to adopt that option? Senator WALSH —In my view there is a high degree of injustice in the present taxation system. I think that is also the view of the Government. If the Opposition is interested in cleaning that up it will probably get the opportunity to start doing that legislatively before the end of this year. However, that makes absolutely no difference to the point that the Opposition, prior to the last election, was attempting to market a fraudulent policy-I use that term advisedly-which the Opposition claimed would help the fairly low single income household with dependent spouse and children. The facts which I have already given are that for a $16,000 single income household, with half of that being transferred to a dependent spouse, the tax savings are $294. For a $50,000 household and $9,000 of income transferred from the income earner to the dependent spouse, as seen to be proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition before the last election, the tax savings would be $3,269-11 times as much for the $50,000 household as for the $16,000 household. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister agree that the tax policy put forward by the Opposition before the last election involved a ceiling on the income at which tax splitting would be permitted which, in fact, limited that advantage to people on relatively low incomes and provided no additional benefits to people above that level of income? Senator WALSH —As I said in answering the earlier question, prior to the election, the Opposition on that issue, as on so many other issues, spoke with a multi-forked tongue. According to the Leader of the National Party, all couples would be able to divide their income equally or a single income could be divided equally or two disparate incomes could be divided equally between a couple for tax purposes. That was the policy advanced by the Leader of the National Party. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party I think came closest to announcing a specific proposal. As I understand it, that specific proposal was that up to $9,000 may be transferred from one income earner to a dependent spouse for tax purposes. It was on that basis that I answered the question. Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, again I ask, as the Minister has cited figures in detail by reference to a document, that he table the document pursuant to standing order 363. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister whether he has quoted from a document. Senator Walsh —Mr President, I have not got a document. I have a pad page with figures written down which say $294 and $3,269. I am not going to table it because I have a lot of other things written on that page as well. Senator Peter Rae —In other words he is lying. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Peter Rae to withdraw that remark. Senator Peter Rae —I withdraw the remark which I made, Mr President. I now seek to pursue the point which I made under standing order 363, which is that the Minister table the document from which he quoted. He has admitted that he quoted from it. This is a document which he has before him and about which he inaccurately stated previously that he had not quoted from. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It is very common in this place, in fact, an almost daily occurrence, that under standing order 363 Ministers are asked to table papers from which they have quoted. The Minister initially indicated that he did not quote from a paper and then, in a further explanation, he went on to say that he merely had a number of figures written down, which were the figures he actually used in his answer. There was no statement by the Minister that what he was using was a document of a confidential nature. The fact of the matter is that this Minister has recently been exposed as having documents on which were written some of his more coarse and vulgar epithets that he has thrown at the Opposition. It may be that he is just embarrassed about tabling the document. But I think he should be called upon to table it, Mr President. Senator Grimes —Mr President, on the point of order: I think we are getting to quite a ridiculous stage in this place, even though it is late in the session. I am sitting next to Senator Walsh. Senator Walsh has a bit of paper with figures scribbled on it. Senator Lewis —That is what he should be tabling. Senator Grimes —Wait a minute. That can hardly be considered a document. I sat here during many years of opposition and heard honourable senators read answers out, including the famous Senator Webster who read out great and detailed answers. We accepted that Ministers read answers from briefs which they had. Very occasionally they were asked to provide documents. If we are going to be in the situation in which every Minister in this place has to table every bit of paper which is lying in front of him or her, quite frankly, what I am going to do is have in front of me a bit of paper stating 'Fred Chaney is a dill' or something like that on it and I will table it every time I am asked to table a document. This is madness; this is silly business. Senator Chaney —That is exactly the sorts of bits of paper we have been getting. Senator Grimes —It would be more accurate than some of the briefs I have had. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is speaking to a point of order, not to an interjection. Senator Grimes —I am speaking to a point of order. I am sure that Senator Walsh has no difficulty with tabling at least the paper from which he was quoting, if that is what the Opposition needs. But why should he, and how often will this performance go on in Question Time? The problem is that, because honourable senators on the other side cannot remember figures as Senator Walsh can, they do not believe that Senator Walsh can. That is the great difficulty that the Opposition has. The PRESIDENT —Firstly, I ask Senator Walsh: Does he as a Minister of the Crown claim under Standing Orders that the document is of a confidential nature? Senator Walsh —It is not a document, Mr President. That is not a claim; it is a fact. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister has stated that he cited figures from a paper that was before him. The Chair would regard a paper as a document. I ask the Minister: Does he regard the document as being one of a confidential nature? Senator Walsh —It is not a document, Mr President. Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, I was going to withdraw my request in the interests of saving time, having learned that there is embarrassing material of an obvious kind in relation to the rest of the document and we do not wish to embarrass the Minister. Thus I do not pursue my request. The PRESIDENT —Order! The request for the tabling of the document is withdrawn. Senator AULICH —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Communications aware of an interview between an Australian Broadcasting Corporation reporter, Mr Andrew Saw, and a woman named Virginia Perger which took place on the National program on Monday, 13 May 1985? Was the interview arranged through an agent of Miss Pergers? If so, what is the name of the agent? Was Miss Perger paid, either directly or via the agent, for appearing on the program? If so, does the ABC have a policy on cheque-book journalism? Senator WALSH —I am told by the Minister for Communications that he has been advised by the ABC that a $1,000 fee was paid to an associate of Miss Perger for assistance and research involved in arranging the interview. The ABC does not know whether any of the money was paid to Miss Perger. The ABC says that it has no formal policy with regard to such payments for news items. The ABC has advised that it would not normally engage in such practices and would consider payment to providers of information only when there was no other way to obtain a news item which it was believed the public had a right to know. If I may add an editorial comment, I think that is a highly euphemistic description of that item. Senator HAINES —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of a report in the Age on Friday, 24 May, which alleged that an unreleased paper commissioned by the Government's Economic Planning Advisory Council stated that increasing indirect taxes would not only raise prices, costs and wage claims but also place pressure on monetary policy and the Australian dollar? Can the Minister confirm that such a paper was commissioned by EPAC and can he explain why the paper was not made public? Can the Minister explain why the Government has made a move towards a broad-based consumption tax when the Minister for Social Security has apparently cast doubt on the possibility of compensating low income earners for price increases and a number of independent-that is non-Treasury-economic forecasters have predicted that a move to broaden the indirect tax base will result in lower growth, higher levels of unemployment, increases in inflation, pressure to increase wages, problems with managing our money supply growth- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to bring her question to a conclusion. Senator HAINES —I have half a dozen words left, Mr President-and downward pressure on a weak and volatile Australian dollar? Senator WALSH —Firstly, EPAC is responsible to the Prime Minister, not the Treasurer. I do not know whether EPAC has prepared such a paper. I have not seen the report in the Age of a week ago or thereabouts. However, it is a fact that, given the way the consumer price index is currently defined, if there were a net increase in indirect taxes on items within the consumer price index regimen the rate of increase in the CPI would be higher than it would otherwise have been. That is just a simple, arithmetic fact which I would have thought even the Australian Democrats could understand. One does not have to have the economic expertise of EPAC, or even any economic expertise at all, to understand that. Whether the increase in the CPI was translated into a new and higher continuing threshold of inflation would depend on other matters. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen Press reports that the Soviet leader, Mr Gorbachev, during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, Mr Gandhi, to Moscow, called for an all-Asian security conference? Will the Minister give to the Senate any further details of this proposal? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has received reports of remarks made by the Soviet leader at a dinner in Moscow a couple of weeks ago for the Indian Prime Minister, Mr Gandhi. Mr Gorbachev apparently called for an all-Asian security conference to reduce tension on the continent along the lines of the 1975 Helsinki meeting. On the information available to the Government, it appears that the speech made on that occasion was simply a restatement of an old idea. An approach to Asian collective security along similar lines to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was proposed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as long ago as January 1976. The concept of collective security in Asia goes back even further. The then Soviet leader, Mr Brezhnev, made a speech at a dinner in June 1976 in honour of the visiting Indian Prime Minister, then Mrs Gandhi. Not only the occasion but also the nature of his remarks on Asian security resembled very closely what is reported as having happened in Moscow. Therefore, the Government's initial assessment would be that Mr Gorbachev's remarks contain nothing new and to that extent are unlikely to find a more favourable response than similar Soviet proposals that have been made in the past. Senator REID —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to the Government's commitment to full consultation with ex-service organisations before any change is made to veterans entitlements. I ask the Minister to engage in semantics by trying to quarantine that promise to particular legislation. Why has the Government betrayed ex-service personnel? Why did it use the back-door method of tacking changes on to the May mini-Budget instead of dealing with them in the entitlements legislation to be debated this afternoon? Was this simply a ploy to make it more difficult for the Parliament to reject part of a government financial package? Senator GIETZELT —I will have to take that question on notice. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. One aspect of the Treasurer's May economic statement referred to the direct access by veterans to dental prosthetists, optometrists and ophthalmologists. Will the Minister inform the Senate as to the reasons behind the decision and what benefits are likely to accrue to both beneficiaries and the Department as a result of the decision? What is the likely impact of limiting the annual amount of non-service-related dental treatment to $300 per pensioner? Senator GIETZELT —When I became a Minister I received deputations from the Australian Optometrical Association as well as from the dental prosthetists, who told me that they had been pressing the government for some years to allow veterans direct access to the services they could provide and that this would be of great assistance to aged veterans in that rather than their being forced to go to doctors or dentists in the first instance, they would be able to have direct access to those particular services. Several conferences have been held with me in the intervening two and a half years, and it was agreed earlier this year that we would consider providing eligible veterans with direct access to optometrists and that a similar process would be made available to those requiring dental assistance. The consequence of that in the May statement, contrary to some irresponsible comments made about that statement, is that extensions and increased facilities have been made available to veterans, who will now have direct access to optometrists and also will be able, on advice, to go to a dental prosthetist for assistance. The reason why this has been restricted to certain categories of veterans and to $300 a year for non-service-related dental treatment is that there has been a dramatic increase in the cost of that section of my budget-indeed, a 40 per cent increase in the last financial year. Honourable senators may be aware that rather than patients having teeth extracted and plates provided, it is now possible for dentists to restructure the tooth or teeth generally, and fees of anything up to $3,000 or $4,000 can be incurred by one applicant. Whereas most people are happy to have teeth removed and dentures supplied by my Department, some have taken advantage of the restructuring and new technology in the dental industry, and the costs have risen accordingly. Having regard to its overall approach to economic expenditures in all departments, the Government has placed a limit of $300 a year for certain categories of veterans. It will not apply, however, to those who have accepted dental disabilities by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, follows his very detailed answer on the subject of veterans' teeth. I ask him a much simpler question. Why did he not introduce changes to the entitlements of veterans in legislation which was allowed to lie on the table for months for veterans' consideration? That straightforward undertaking was given by the Minister. Can he remember why that undertaking has not been honoured and why the changes were introduced as part of the mini-Budget? Senator GIETZELT —I apologise to Senator Reid because I did not, because of my hearing disability, hear the full import of her question. I did, however, hear what Senator Chaney said. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill proposals were laid on the table in the Senate this morning. It was my intention to do that, but all planes out of Sydney this morning were delayed for somewhere between three and four hours. Therefore, the legislation as such has been laid on the Senate table for consideration. The consequence of that is that there will now be, as promised by both the Prime Minister and me, extensive consultations with the veteran community. I refer to the promise which the Prime Minister and I made in respect of the Bill which will be considered in the Budget session. I have read some ill informed comment suggesting that there has not been adequate consultation with the veteran community in respect of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. That is not true. I suppose I would have had anything up to six to eight meetings with the advisory committee and with veterans' organisations, and at a number of conferences I have outlined the Government's intentions and what I was prepared to recommend to the Government in respect of the proposals in that Bill. Some 84 Acts are being put together in one piece of legislation, and it is proper that opportunity should be provided for the Bill to be laid on the table for consultation, on the basis of the Government's recommendations, directly with the veterans' organisations. On that basis the Government will formulate its policies for the Budget session and bring forward legislation on the basis of whether the Government accepts my original propositions or whether amendments should be made following consultations with the veterans' organisations. Senator CHANEY —I thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for his answer, and I accept that he was not able to hear the question the first time it was put in a slightly different form. As a supplementary question, I ask the Minister why the changes to section 47 and the entitlement changes included in the mini-Budget were not made part of the legislation which is to be tabled this afternoon and which is the subject of the undertaking given by the Minister to the veterans' organisations. Senator GIETZELT —It is pretty clear, of course, that if the legislation were amended in the Budget session it is more than likely that the changes that would be made would take effect from some date after the decision of the Parliament or after the adoption of the Budget. The Government, in its wisdom, felt that there was a need for some savings in all government departments. I am sufficiently cognisant of my responsibilities in that area. The Government therefore decided to make some changes at the time of the May statement which will take effect, as I understand it, from 1 July. That is a decision taken by the Government or the Cabinet, as distinct from any negotiations or discussions that took place with me prior to my leaving Australia. There could have been a hundred Ministers for Veterans' Affairs present, but the Government made that decision at Cabinet level and decided that those savings would take effect in all government departments and ministerial responsibilities. Accordingly, the same principles were applied to the Department of Veterans' Affairs as to all other government departments. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the glowing analysis of the Australian economy by the Commonwealth Bank in its latest Economic Newsletter? Does the Minister agree with the Commonwealth Bank that the economic recovery in Australia has entered a more mature phase involving greater reliance on privately sourced demand? Is the bank correct in concluding that the most encouraging trend over the latter half of 1984 was the emerging shift from government stimulus to higher levels of spending by the household and business sectors? Senator WALSH —Fortuitously, I have with me at the moment a copy of the Commonwealth Bank's Economic Newsletter dated May 1985. It does, as Senator Maguire said, state that the recovery has entered a more mature phase involving greater reliance on privately sourced demand, that is, consumer spending and business investment. It goes on to say: The most encouraging trend over the latter half of 1984 was an emerging shift in the sources of growth from government stimulus and 'one-off' factors (such as the breaking of the drought) to higher levels of spending by households and businesses. It says that the continuation of strong levels of activity during 1985 depends on the maintenance of that sort of demand, and adds that consumer spending strengthened very appreciably in the second half of 1984. This is consistent with recent comments by similarly well informed economic commentators, such as Mr Gittins, who wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday: . . . the economic recovery which began miraculously a month or two after Bob Hawke's economic summit in April 1983 continues apace. I continue to quote Mr Gittins: Just think of it: the prospect of the economy growing by 5 per cent a year for three years in a row. We rarely did so well in the halcyon days of the 1950s and 1960s. In the decade to 1982-83, real GDP grew by an average of only 2.4 per cent a year. Retail sales, seasonally adjusted, at current prices were almost 9 per cent higher in the March quarter of 1985 than in the same quarter of 1984. Another important indicator of consumer demand-motor vehicle registrations-is buoyant. For example, seasonally adjusted new motor vehicle registrations were a whole 17 per cent higher in the March quarter than in the March quarter of 1984. Private fixed capital expenditure is expected to be 41 per cent higher, in current terms, in the June quarter of this year than it was in the March quarter of this year. It is now expected to be more than 10 per cent higher, again in current prices, in 1984-85 as a whole than in 1983-84, and so on. I am aware of the Commonwealth Bank's comment and of the fact that, leaving aside the odd crank one tends to find in some of the Murdoch papers, that is the opinion shared by economic commentators in general. Senator MESSNER —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, refers to the earlier question asked of him by Senator Chaney when the Minister admitted that he had been rolled in Cabinet on the question of section 47 of the repatriation legislation being amended. I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the fact that the Government overruled him in relation to section 47 being incorporated in the mini-Budget rather than the Veterans' Entitlements Bill constitutes a denial of the solemn undertakings to consult with veterans given by the Minister before he left Australia. Senator GIETZELT —Contrary to what Senator Messner has said, I was not overruled in respect of any changes that were made or suggested in the May statement. I was consulted on them and I expressed my views. I believed that the retention of section 47 for overseas wartime service was the most important aspect of my portfolio. I indicated that it was essential to retain that aspect, and it was retained. The reason for that is fairly simple, that is, that those who serve in front line or forward areas during a war are not always able to produce sufficient records to attest to their disability or illnesses and, consequently, the onus of proof should be on the Commonwealth. I remind Senator Messner that that onus of proof, which was in legislation introduced by the Labor Government in the dying days of World War II and in the immediate post-war years, was designed to change the processes which existed under previous conservative governments where the onus of proof was on the applicant. The reason why it is essential, therefore, to keep that provision for the substantially greatest number of serving personnel in World War II is that records and memories are not able to be authenticated easily. I believe that the maintaining of section 47 for that group of veterans is a recognition by the Government of its responsibilities to the veterans' community. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer but I ask him whether he agrees that he has denied the solemn promises to consult with the veterans' community, because apparently he acquiesced in the decision taken by the Government to incorporate the amendment in the mini-Budget and not the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. Senator GIETZELT —No, I do not agree with Senator Messner's interpretation. When certain judgments and legal decisions made by courts make a travesty of the intention of the Government-the O'Brien case illustrates that very circumstance-I believe there should be, and I would have thought that a responsible opposition would take the same view, a relevancy between disability and illness and wartime service. For persons aged 60, 70 and 80, having passed their three-score years and ten, to suggest that some illness is attributable solely to war service and not to other factors in their lives is quite absurd and is a matter that required further consideration by the Government. The Government gave that consideration to this matter when it dealt with the May statement, and, keeping paramount those who served in forward areas outside Australia, the Government has not contemplated changing the provisions. Senator ROBERTSON —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is in four parts. What would be the consequences for Alice Springs and its inhabitants of a nuclear attack on Pine Gap? What would be the response of the Australian and American governments if Pine Gap were seriously debilitated by sabotage, and what would the consequences be for Alice Springs? Are there missiles or other weapons protecting Pine Gap and are any of these based on Australian soil? Finally, how much of the costs of the present expansion of the facilities at Pine Gap is being contributed by the Australian Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —This is an extremely good question and I have an extremely good answer with me somewhere, but I have lost it. I may need to put the matter on the record at the conclusion of Question Time. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer him to the questions that he has answered today and, in particular, to his last answer where he said that entitlements for people who have had war service have not been changed and were not contemplated to be changed. Is the Minister aware that section 100 of the Repatriation Act, which deals only with those with war service, was changed and that the words 'direct combat' were inserted? Senator GIETZELT —In respect of section 47, a veteran still has the capacity to present his case under the amended legislation, which has already been approved, I think unanimously, by the Parliament. The onus of proof on the Commonwealth to disprove that applicant's increase or application for a pension is enshrined both in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and in the May statement. In no way has that changed for any existing beneficiary or any person who participated overseas in any war. I reiterate that no existing beneficiary will be affected either by the May statement or by the new legislation unless, of course, the Senate in its wisdom takes steps-as the majority rests on the other side of the chamber-to make changes different from those which the Government is prepared to recommend. Senator MACKLIN —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. The legislation was not approved unanimously. Is the Minister denying that the words 'direct combat with the enemy' were inserted in section 100 of the legislation to deal with situations where, in the opinion of the Repatriation Commission, people were on war service? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Macklin, who is the spokesman for the Australian Democrats on these matters, obviously does not understand the circumstances in which veterans' entitlements exist. I would have thought he would have done his homework in that respect. Any person who served during any of the wars in a forward area outside the three-mile limit is judged as having been on active service. Consequently he or she is entitled to all the benefits existing in the 1984 Acts to which I have referred and will still be provided for in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, unless it is amended by the other side of the Senate. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, refers to the recent raids by the Queensland police on fertility control clinics and the removal by the police of patients' confidential files. I ask whether the patients who have had their personal medical files confiscated can take any action under Federal law to preserve their privacy. If not, is there any Federal agency which can investigate the matter and act on their behalf? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Human Rights Commission has power to inquire into any act or practice that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right. Human rights are defined, in turn, among other things, as the rights and freedoms declared in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The action in Queensland would appear to be in breach of Article 17 of that convention, which provides: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawful attacks on his honour or reputation. The Human Rights Commission is considering this week the issues involved in the Queensland abortion raid and will, no doubt, report in due course. It should be said, however, from all the information on the public record to date, that no one could be in much doubt that an invasion of civil liberties of the most scandalous and disgraceful kind has taken place in Queensland. That view has clearly been expressed on behalf of this Government by the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, who has no personal sympathy whatsoever for the pro-abortion position, as is well known. I note from recent survey reports that it is also the view of the overwhelming majority of Queenslanders. The Queensland Premier and Cabinet, by their actions in this matter, have shown themselves not only to be thuggish and discredited, which we have always known, but sick as well. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Minister aware of the capital gains tax proposal outlined by the Treasurer to business representatives in Canberra yesterday, which was presumably explained to officers of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in Melbourne last week? If he is not aware, I will give him the newspaper cutting. If he is aware, will he confirm that capital gains will be treated as income-that is, will be taxed at the normal income tax rates? Does the Minister now agree that it is as certain as night follows day that Australians will be hit with some new form of capital gains tax? Senator BUTTON —I was not present at the discussions reported in today's paper, which were supposed to have taken place yesterday between the Prime Minister, Mr Keating and representatives of the business community. Senator Baume assumes for the purpose of adding colour to his question-if I might say so-that the same information that was allegedly given to the business representatives yesterday was given to the ACTU on some previous occasion. I do not know the precise details of any such sets of discussions, but I adopt Senator Baume's expression that it is as certain as night follows day that certain things will happen. It is as certain as night follows day that a discussion of capital gains taxes will be in the White Paper on taxation which will be released by the Government, because no consideration of taxation reform which is broadly and seriously considered can lack a discussion of such matters. I assure Senator Baume, as night follows day, that there will be a discussion in the taxation White Paper and I suggest that he should read it when it is published. Senator McKIERNAN —I refer the Minister for Education to Press reports which quote the National Secretary of the Independent Teachers Federation, Mr Patrick Lee, as saying that the Government's attitude in setting conditions for the establishment of new non-government schools should be supported. Is the Minister aware of other comments which have been made by Mr Lee, when he described as deplorable comments made by Senator Baume and Senator MacGibbon when the new guidelines were announced? Senator RYAN —I am aware of the fact that the Independent Teachers Federation is supportive of Government policy and has been particularly supportive of the policy for new non-government schools. It has made its reasons for that quite clear. Not only does it believe that it is right that the Government should have a non-government schools policy which allows for a rational, properly co-ordinated development of non-government schools in relation to existing government and non-government schools, but also, naturally, being a union, it is very concerned that non-government schools should be proper employers and provide members of its union with proper employment conditions. That has not always been the case in the past. Because there is now a more rational approach to the development of new non-government schools, it is much more likely that teachers in those schools will universally achieve proper working conditions. I am aware also of the fact that the Federation has been critical of Opposition spokespersons, especially Senator Baume, who have chosen to try to make some political mileage out of the fact that there has been some very muted criticism from some quarters of the non-government sector about a more rational, planned approach to the new non-government schools policy. Overall, I stress that the policy has been very well received throughout the non-government sector by administrators of non-government schools, non-government school organisations and also now by the representatives of the teachers teaching in those schools. The Government is pleased to note this high level of approval. Senator PETER RAE —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it true that the capital gains tax option proposed in the White Paper on taxation will assume realisation of gain at the time of death or on transfer to another person? If so, given that as recently as the 10th of this month the Minister said 'I am not in favour of wealth taxes or death duties', will he oppose this introduction of a death duty by stealth? Senator BUTTON —I do not propose to discuss any more what is in the White Paper. When I answered the earlier question about capital gains tax, I meant what I said, and I meant what I said about death duties. I do not regard any capital gains tax which is realised at death or any other time as necessarily being a surrogate form of death duties, as Senator Rae said. Senator McINTOSH —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a reply he gave on Tuesday to a question from Senator Bolkus in which he noted with deep regret the recent executions of Indonesian dissidents arrested in 1968. Given further articles in yesterday and today's Age in which it was made clear that the Indonesian Government intends to press ahead with the executions, and the Minister's response to Senator Bolkus's question that 'It is very difficult to believe that the carrying out of such a penalty could ever be justified for someone who has been imprisoned for 17 years', will the Minister consider making formal representations to the Indonesian Government to have any further executions stayed? Senator GARETH EVANS —There have been further reports that the Indonesian Government is planning to carry out the executions of three former members of the Indonesian Communist Party, namely, Rustomo, Djoko Untung and Gatot Sutaryo. As I have previously stated, the Government deeply regrets the execution a few days ago of Mohammad Munir, a trade union official and PKI member. As I said earlier, the Government would hope that reason and compassion will prevail. It is certainly most concerned at any suggestion that the death sentences of the remaining three PKI members will be carried out. As to whether it is possible, appropriate or likely to be productive to make representations of the kind suggested by Senator McIntosh, I will raise that question with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and see what response he gives. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Minister for Finance whether he believes that he can be fairly criticised for reducing the standards of living of public servants and not worrying enough about the gap between rich and poor, as reportedly alleged by Mr Charles MacDonald of the Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council? Is he concerned that while the recently approved $100m pay rise may improve public servants' living standards, it might also have some effect on widening that gap between rich and poor? Finally, will he heed Mr MacDonald's call to resign from the Australian Labor Party because of his comment that the industrial action which brought about this pay rise was little short of sabotage? Senator WALSH —I have been asked whether I can be justly criticised for all those sorts of things. The answer to that, of course, is no. I have also been asked whether I would heed Mr MacDonald's call to resign from the ALP, or something like that. The answer to that is no, I will not. I have a different view on this, apparently, from that of Mr MacDonald. As a social democrat I regard sabotage of public administration as just that, and I do not believe that that is in conflict in any way with mainstream Labor Party thinking. Senator COATES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask him whether he knows who made the following statement in 1979-- Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Coates will continue with his pick-a-box question. Senator COATES —It was: The States can't share the fruits of lower inflation from Commonwealth economic policies and still expect the burden to be carried by the Commonwealth. It is unreasonable of Mr Lowe to expect the Federal Government to shoulder the full burden of economic restraint and discipline while the State basks in the glory of big government spending. Did the Minister hear Senator Walters's contribution in the debate in the Senate about an hour ago on matters of public interest? Can the Minister give the Government's reaction to the sentiments expressed by Senator Walters in 1979 and today? Can he say whether the present circumstances are similar to those in 1979? Senator WALSH —I was asked whether I knew who had said: The States can't share the fruits of lower inflation from Commonwealth economic policies and still expect the burden to be carried by the Commonwealth. It is unreasonable of Mr Lowe to expect the Federal Government to shoulder the full burden of economic restraint and discipline while the State basks in the glory of big government spending. That was published in the Launceston Examiner of 3 July 1979. I am sure Senator Coates will be amazed to know that those words were spoken by Senator Walters. Senator Walters —I take a point of order, Mr President. He will have to produce the document and the evidence to convince me that those were my words. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —I have noted especially the last line in which Senator Walters castigated Mr Lowe for, as she put it, 'basking in the glory of big government spending'. I have noted that in particular, and I have also noted that spending by the present Tasmanian Government has increased by 35 per cent in the last two years. I assume that the present Tasmanian Government is doing just what Senator Walters accused a different government of doing in the past, that is, basking in the glory of big government spending. Of course, the fact is, as is revealed in that sort of expenditure increase, that the Gray Tasmanian Government has embarked on a reckless spending spree in recent years at the expense of the rest of the Commonwealth of Australia. Knowing that Senator Walters is a woman of high principle, I expect her to accept that, in this period of financial stringency, all the States must be expected to make some contribution to it and that States which have been indulging in reckless spending sprees, or as Senator Walters once put it 'basking in the glory of big government spending', ought to be willing to offer up a somewhat greater than proportionate sacrifice. Senator GARETH EVANS —Earlier in Question Time, Senator Robertson asked me a question about Pine Gap to which I am delighted to be able to say I now have a full reply from the Minister for Defence, which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- SECURITY OF JDSRF PINE GAP AND ALICE SPRINGS Background The Alice Springs Peace Summit has posed four questions relating to the Security of Alice Springs and the JDSRF Pine Gap. Suggested points for reply Studies have been made of the hypothetical circumstances of a nuclear attack on the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence looked at this question in 1981 in its study of the threat to Australia. Conclusions about the possible consequence of a nuclear attack depend entirely on the assumptions made about the possible nature of the attack, especially the size of the weapon and the nature of the burst. Assumptions used by the Joint Parliamentary Committee in its Study suggested that an attack on Pine Gap might result in no loss of life in Alice Springs and only minimal damage (broken windows, small fires). The first concern of this Government is that all Australians, including the residents of Alice Springs, will never suffer the horrors of a nuclear war. The whole of Australia would face extremely grave problems in the wake of a general nuclear conflict. Any such conflagration would be followed by the most devastating long term consequences arising from the prospect of a nuclear winter, and the attendant environmental and economic disruption. These problems would be in addition to the more immediate consequences of any direct nuclear attack on Australia. The whole thrust of the Labor Government's policy is to ensure that not only is global nuclear war avoided, but that the risks of such a war occurring through accident or miscalculation are significantly reduced. One way in which Australia contributes toward these objectives is by hosting the joint US/Australian defence facilities, as the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the Parliament on this subject on 6 June 1984. Our intelligence and defence authorities have for many years assessed the risk of nuclear war to be remote and improbable providing effective deterrence is maintained and to which the joint facilities contribute. In the unlikely event of nuclear war it would be reasonable to assume that Soviet missiles would be targetted primarily against weapons systems able to strike at the USSR itself, and secondarily at those systems able to attack Soviet military capabilities. The Government will not comment on detailed security arrangements and on contingency plans for the joint facilities or other high security areas because to do so would only weaken the effect of those arrangements but I can say there are no missiles or similar weapons at Pine Gap. The facilities are not military bases. There are no combat personnel or equipment there, no military stores or workshops, no plant or machinery or laboratories for research or development, production or maintenance of any weapons or combat systems of any type. The distribution of costs associated with the establishment, maintenance and operation of the Facility is decided by the Australia and United States governments in accordance with the government-to-government agreement of 1966 relating to the establishment of the Facility. The costs of the present works at the Facility are being borne largely by the United States. This is of course only one element in the 'jointness' of the Facility, in which the requirement for full knowledge and concurrence extends throughout the decision-making process concerning the roles and activities of the Facility. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a one-page extract from the taxation policy issued by the Opposition before the last election and a one-page extract from the policy speech issued by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, before the last election on the issue of family tax reform, income splitting and family tax relief. I do that simply to correct the misstatements made by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) about the Opposition's family tax proposals at the last election. I do not think it would be in order for me to comment further. I simply seek leave to incorporate the two documents in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Opposition's Taxation Policy 5.3 Family Tax Reform (a) Income Splitting We propose from our first budget to make a start in giving personal tax relief to families with one or more dependent children. This will be done in two ways: (a) through the progressive introduction of income splitting; and (b) the progressive introduction of tax rebates for child care expenses. Under income splitting a husband and wife with one or more dependent children may if they wish submit a joint tax return. If they choose to do this they will be assessed for tax purposes as if each of them had received half of their aggregate taxable income. A limit will be placed on the aggregate amount of family income which can benefit from income splitting. The limit will be determined by budgetary conditions. The choice of income splitting will be available to both one and two income families. Thus, for example, in family (A) the husband works and earns $18,000 per year and his wife has no income. They will be assessed for tax purposes as if each had received $9,000 per year, with a benefit up to a certain limit determined by budgetary conditions. Likewise in the case of family (B) the husband earns $18,000 per year and his wife $6,000 per year from a part time job. They will be able to split the family income and receive the benefit of splitting up to a limit imposed. Couples who elect to split their aggregate income for tax purposes will lose entitlement they might have to the dependent spouse rebate. The joint return will be completely optional. If there is no personal tax advantage then couples will presumably opt to be assessed in the current manner. The greatest potential beneficiaries are one income families and some two income families where the partners have substantially unequal incomes. Income splitting will only be available to families with one or more dependent children. It will be phased in over time. The start will be made in the first Budget. The proposal will be introduced in a way which ensures that the greatest relative benefit goes to lower income families with children. One option to achieve this is to limit the dollar benefit to any taxpayer to the benefit provided to a single income family at say $18,000 (Illustrative purposes only) and to an average two-income family at a lower dollar level. Income splitting will increase the freedom of families with children to choose to have one parent to stay at home to look after the children if that is the way they wish to organise their lives. Policy Speech of Leader of the Opposition FAMILY TAX RELIEF Families have been particularly hard hit by Labor. There are additional expenses involved in raising children and families with children have a reduced capacity to pay tax. Previous Liberal Governments increased the value of the spouse rebate and introduced family allowances, but under Labor, families with dependent children are worse off in comparison with other taxpayers. So the next Liberal Government will give top priority to income tax justice and relief for families with children, including arrangements to give families a genuine choice of whether or not both partners will work. In our first budget out family tax relief will give couples with dependent children the choice for tax purposes of splitting their total income up to a set limit. Each partner will then be taxed as if they had received half of a specified amount of the total income. In other words we will treat the family as a team in which both partners are recognised as making a contribution to the team effort. It would be irresponsible to promise too much immediately, given Australia's present budgetary position. But we will make a start in our first budget. There would be a limit to the level of aggregate income that could be dealt with in this way. One example is where one parent works and earns $18,500 per annum and his wife has no income. If $18,500 is in fact the limit then they will be assessed for tax purposes as if each had received $9,250 per year. The benefit available at that income level would also be the maximum benefit available for higher incomes. This inclusion of a limit contrasts with the previous income splitting proposal by Mr Hawke and the ACTU under which the higher the income-the higher the tax cut. The Coalition family tax relief will make it easier for parents who choose not to work to stay at home. The pressure on parents to enter the workforce regardless of their personal wishes will be reduced. The income-splitting scheme also has the following advantages: It reduces the impact of tax creep, particularly in the 46 cent bracket, around which the large majority of one-income families are concentrated. It restores equity for mostly PAYE wage earners with workers who already have access to splitting. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts has completed its Second Report on the examination of annual reports, the Committee may send the Report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and in that event- (a) the Report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Report is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Report; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the Report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —In my adjournment speech last night I quoted Ms Maureen Horder, the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, as having accused the Minister for Territories, Mr Gordon Scholes, of allowing the dishonest administration of the community development fund of the Australian Capital Territory. That is an allegation which I did not then support, nor do I now support it. However, having today read the Hansard report of the speech that I made last night, I believe that a malicious misinterpretation of the final paragraph of that speech might imply that I had questioned the personal integrity of Mr Scholes. I had no intention of reflecting on the honesty of Mr Scholes. Indeed, when I referred in that speech to the need to make one Minister responsible for all the Australian Capital Territory's administrative functions during this transition period, I had Mr Scholes in mind. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The loss of confidence in the Government due to its failure to make decisions in the national interest. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.08) —The Opposition brings forward this matter of public importance because, as the session draws to its close, we are faced with a rush of legislation following the Government's mini-Budget and on other matters which precludes our having many opportunities to discuss the issues which are of broader concern to the Senate and to Australia. It is a fact that there are alarming indications of a loss of confidence in this Government to a point where Australia is being damaged. We have been sitting for about four months. We came back here in February. It is almost impossible to understand how it is that in January our dollar was worth US81c and today it is worth about US65c. We have seen a massive drop in the value of our currency during that time. We have also seen a massive drop in the popularity of this Government. We returned to the Parliament in February at a time when the Government, according to the polls, was supported by 49 per cent of the Australian people. But the latest polls show that it is now supported by 43 per cent of the Australian people. On the other hand, the position of the Opposition is, as it so often is, a mirror image of that. Whereas in February, before the Parliament resumed, the Opposition had the support of 42 per cent of the Australian people, it now enjoys the support of 49 per cent of the Australian people. I suppose the most remarkable change is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for a few months before February enjoyed a popularity rating of 75 per cent. By February that was down to 63 per cent and it now stands at 52 per cent. He is very much back among the mortals. Only today we were told that the level of consumer confidence in Australia is the lowest it has been since the second half of 1983. We have come to a point where now more of the respondents to those surveys have unfavourable opinions about economic conditions than favourable ones. What we find is that the index of confidence in Australia and in our economy has slipped very badly over recent months. There is a very simple explanation for that slippage of confidence. It relates very squarely to the failure of this Government to make it clear to the Australian people that it is prepared to govern in the national interest. Instead, what is very clear is that it is prepared to govern in the interests of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and it is prepared to govern in the interests of whatever factions manage to weld together some sort of coalition within the Australian Labor Party for the moment. What has been evident is a confusion in the Government, an inability to come to grips with the issues which face Australia. There has been nothing but a ridiculous flaying about in the areas which are of great concern to us. In a 20-minute speech I have little time to do other than touch on some of the areas in which the Government has shown that lack of deftness of touch which is fatal to its welfare and indeed, very damaging to this country. Senator Peter Baume —And it cannot make decisions. Senator CHANEY —Senator Peter Baume interjects that it cannot make decisions. That is the problem, but the reality is that the Government is locked into a situation where its inability to make decisions is likely to continue because of its subservience to groups within the Labor Party and to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. An example that has recently been conceded by the Government as involving the economic sabotage of Australia and yet it was a process which was rewarded by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by a rise in pay last week, was the way the Government dealt with the Public Service dispute. In that dispute, which happened during this current session of Parliament, we saw the outright defiance of wage fixing processes by public servants, who simply refused to collect $1 billion of government revenue. They cost the Government $18m directly in additional interest. They disrupted private industry and they stopped the importation of goods. They had a weak response from the Government, which eventually, having abolished the Commonwealth employees employment provisions legislation, sought stand-down powers from the Arbitration Commission, eventually got them, and used them in a very half-hearted manner. The extraordinary thing about the outcome of that sabotage-sabotage is the word that was used not by a member of the Liberal Opposition but by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh-was that the unions went back before the Arbitration Commission, received the support of the Government for pay rises, and were rewarded to the extent of $100m a year. It is only a week since the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) was in this place complaining that the Opposition sought some relief for the rural community in this country, which is at the moment so hard pressed by rising costs and difficult conditions, and he said that that would cost $67m a year. He regarded that as something which was unconscionable, something which could not be supported. Yet the Government of which he is part handed over an additional $100m a year after public servants had struck against a decision of the Commission and indulged in what Minister Walsh called economic sabotage. There are probably much more important issues that go to the long term interests of Australia. Let us look at the handling by the Government of the MX missile crisis, which occurred at about the same time as the Public Service dispute. We had reports of Government agreement for some very limited logistic support for the United States of America in the conduct of trials of a missile which was not armed. The United States was asking its great friend and ally Australia to permit the landing of United States aircraft so that it could monitor the splashdown of unarmed missiles somewhere in the South Pacific. It is history now that Mr Hawke went away, leaving his Ministers backing that decision, and while they were publicly defending it he changed his mind and announced that we would not support that proposal. That was a humiliating backdown for Australia. No one has suggested that that was a change of mind made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the basis that it was in Australia's national interest. That was a perfect example of the Prime Minister kowtowing to the factional manoeuvring within the Labor Caucus. That goes to our relationship with the United States. It is a serious matter. It is not a matter which should be determined on phone calls going around the world because Labor members were spread around the world. I believe that backdown was certainly one of the important starts in the loss of confidence in this Government. Our whole relationship with the United States within the ANZUS Treaty was cast into doubt by this Government. Once again we have had a series of conflicting and damaging statements by Government Ministers and Government back benchers. I suppose the high point of the disarray was when Senator Ryan, the Minister for Education and a member of the Cabinet, had to face a few branches of the ALP in the Australian Capital Territory. In the teeth of their opposition she chose to claim that the ANZUS Treaty was in need of review. We are told by the official spokesman for the Government in this area that that is not the Government's view, and yet we had a Cabinet Minister calling for a review of ANZUS and being excused by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on the basis that she had to face the fearsome might of her constituency party in the Australian Capital Territory. That was a fairly contemptuous rescue operation by Mr Hayden, but it is again a sign of the instability and uncertainty that has afflicted this Government and led to the loss of confidence in it that is now so clear. Where have we finished up with ANZUS? Where have we finished up with respect to the Treaty that is still claimed by Ministers of this Government to be so important to us and to be a very key part of our foreign relations and of the Western alliance? The Foreign Minister has said that we are not a non-aligned country, we are an aligned country and, of course, the main formal vehicle for that alignment is the ANZUS Treaty. In March Mr Hawke said that ANZUS still exists but that the trilateral arrangements are inoperative. Again there is confusion, there is compromise, there is kowtowing to influences within the ALP, not on the basis of decisions being made in the national interest but on the basis of what can be made to work within the ALP. In the area of crime, the Age tapes and the granting of indemnities to the people involved with that matter, again we have had a similar record of chaos and confusion. This came up early in the days of the new Parliament, and of course we were suspicious about the responses of the Government because of its lack of enthusiasm in dealing with previous allegations relating to criminality and organised crime. What we had from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen)-not some mere Cabinet Minister but the Deputy Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party in this Parliament-was a rejection of the idea that indemnities should be granted for the police who were alleged to have tapped phones. I suppose that might have been regarded as the beginning of a highly civil libertarian stance on the part of the Government. Here was the Government weighing up the pros and cons, the balance that has to be drawn between the preservation of civil liberties and the pursuit of crime-quite a difficult question. What we find, of course, is not the beginning of some principled approach by the Deputy Prime Minister but a somersault on his part. After it was cleared by Premier Wran that perhaps indemnity should be granted-that was publicly announced by the Premier-we got a very quick turnaround by Mr Bowen. As far as organised crime is concerned, we have had the response to the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, which has been widely interpreted by commentators, quite apart from the Opposition, as being a damp squib. This Government has talked tough about crime but it has done little or nothing. It has again shown that total inability to maintain a consistent course. I believe that in the long term this Government will be judged most harshly on the pattern of reluctance which emerged to tackle crime, particularly in the State of New South Wales. It is impossible to debate these matters in full as yet in this place because there are still many trials to be heard. In fact the record is clear: Allegations raised, allegations resisted by this Government and the Government of New South Wales. It is only when the allegations have been pressed by both the Opposition and the media that eventually inquiries have been made and charges have resulted. One might have thought that we should simply stand by and welcome the fact that in economic policy there have been some changes by this Government. We might have expected that it perhaps would show consistency in the field of social policy. The Australian people have been sadly disappointed in any search for consistency as far as social policy is concerned. Questions have been asked in this chamber over recent weeks on the issue of Aboriginals and land rights. I am sure that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, as a Queenslander would be well aware of the very many clear statements made by your colleagues in this place on what was going to be done with respect to land rights when a Labor government was elected to Canberra. We have had read out in this chamber over recent weeks some of the very fine statements that were made by Senator Susan Ryan as the then shadow Minister in that regard. We have had two years of the Hawke Government now-two years, I might say, in which the Government has had the clear support of the Australian Democrats for any land rights proposals it might have liked to bring forward. What have we found? We have found vacillation and total confusion. Mr Hawke has added to this reputation for vacillation in almost every field. In regard to the assets test he changed his mind on an aeroplane flying into Australia, or was it out of Australia? He changed his mind in regard to the land rights issue. When he went to Western Australia before the last election he tried to create the impression in that State that the Government was totally in agreement with what Mr Burke, the Premier of Western Australia, was doing. Yet what Mr Burke was proposing to do was certainly not consistent with the principles which were being espoused by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding and, apparently, by the Government. What we have had over the last couple of weeks is, at last, a meeting between the Prime Minister and representatives of the Aboriginal community. That has produced a real decision. What is the decision? The decision is: 'Put it off. Let us have some more talks and perhaps we will do something next year'. What is quite clear in this area, as in so many others, is that the Government is wreaking great damage by its total indecision. Instead of the Government defining a position it can realistically support and put forward, it is simply making empty promises which will come to nothing. There is no clarity in the Government's policy in this area. Questions evoke simply vague responses and evasions. The reality is that the Government will do nothing. It will go on doing harm by raising expectations and not meeting them. Let us look at the recent experience with respect to the Queensland blockade. What really has been the position of this Government with respect to the Queensland blockade? We had debate on a Bill in this chamber yesterday and in the other place over recent weeks. We had the quite extraordinary claim by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, that the Government had always opposed the blockade and had done it in a very firm way. I do not believe that there is a single person in Australia who believes that the Hawke Government has in any sense opposed the Australian Council of Trade Unions in its running of a quite illegal blockade of Queensland. What we have had from this Government is not a clear embracing of the principle that the rights of the people of Australia and the people of Queensland should be protected. What we have had instead has been the use of whatever technicalities were available to the Government to get the matter out of the hands of the Queensland authorities and into the hands of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I say only that, again, no one in Australia would believe that the manoeuvring of the Government on this issue will produce the results that the people of Australia want, namely, some guarantee of the continuation of essential services, some guarantee against the sort of industrial blackmail which is rendered illegal by sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act and some guarantee that those sections will never be activated by the Government. Many private people would be too frightened to use them because of the powers of the trade unions to come back on them. Again, we have seen nothing but uncertainty and vacillation. In the end, the Government has not been prepared to back the interests of the Australian people. It has simply got into bed again with the ACTU and backed the interests of its friends. Probably, in the long term, the most serious area of indecision which has cost the Government a great deal in terms of international confidence, including the confidence of international commentators, is wages. I am glad that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, is speaking in this debate because perhaps he can do something to clarify the confusion to which he has added. We have had Ministers saying things which are quite different and a total refusal to make the sort of straightforward statement that would have done something to restore the market's confidence in the direction this Government is setting. After a good deal of backing and filling we had what appeared to be a clear statement in the mini-Budget. Mr Keating, the Treasurer, brought down in the Parliament a statement which I thought meant, quite clearly, that the Government would not have any part of arguing for the discounting of the consumer price index in the August or September wage case. Mr Keating cast doubts on the meaning of his statement within a day of bringing down the mini-Budget. Within a week of being questioned in this place the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, said that it was quite clear that there was a decision not to discount. What Senator Button's answers mean I do not know. I invite Senator Button in this debate to clarify them by simply indicating whether, if there is a measurable increase in the cost of living in Australia, in the consumer price index, by the time of the next national wage case, the Government will be prepared to argue that that increase should be a discounting factor in the national wage case. A simple and direct answer to that question would do something to restore the confidence of people that this Government has a genuine wages policy, a policy which aims to take the full advantage of the severe devaluation of the Australian currency. The sad reality is that the Government-Senator Button included-does not seem to be prepared, does not have the courage or is not able to make that simple, clear statement. That is doing enormous harm to us all. Mr Willis has had what perhaps will be, sadly, the final word in the wages case. He was reported in the Bulletin yesterday as saying: We have made no decision. We have made no decision on the next case, or on the case after that or on the case after that. I concede that it would be proper for Mr Willis to say that the Government has made no specific decision on what amount of discounting it would argue for. The simple question I ask is whether the Government will adopt the principle that, if there is an increase in the CPI due to devaluation, it should argue that it ought to be a factor for discounting. Within the last day or so, Mr Laurie Oakes, whom I have never regarded as being a sworn enemy of the Government, but who I think is a reputable journalist and who writes sometimes favourably of this side or that, made the comment that there might be a whiff of Whitlam about this Government. There might be a whiff of Whitlam, but I suggest that there is an absolute stench of subservience. There is subservience to the ACTU in regard to wages, taxation, industrial relations and the blockade. There is subservience to factionalism in regard to Australia's security and Budget matters. It is no wonder that confidence in this Government has failed, and that this Government is now seen as a shabby and indecisive Government. We can point to every reason for each decision that has been made, except one reason. One can very seldom argue that the decisions of the Hawke Government have been made in the national interest. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.27) —It surprises me to realise that it is only two years and two months since the Hawke Government was first elected to power. It seems a lot longer than that for some reason. In 1983, the Australian people, having suffered the economic collapse which eight years of the Fraser Government's economic and social policy had created, elected the Hawke Government. The legacy of the Fraser years was, sadly, a contracting economy with gross domestic product falling, an official unemployment rate of over 10 per cent-the fall in employment in 1982-83 was the largest for 30 years-a wages policy that had led to a massive wages explosion which exacerbated inflation and severely reduced Australia's international competitiveness, an inflation rate of 11.4 per cent, a huge Budget deficit blow-out caused by rising unemployment with the Government initiating spending programs in a panic reaction to the economic chaos it had created and interest rates so high they were forcing people out of their homes because they could not keep up with rising mortgage repayments when their wages were frozen. That is a fair description of the legacy this Government inherited from the Fraser years. On the other hand, I think it is appropriate that the Liberal Party of Australia should raise today, as a matter of public importance: The loss of confidence in the Government-- this Labor Government- due to its failure to make decisions in the national interest. It was not only the collapse of the economy and the fact that that was forcing two million Australians to live in poverty that gave the Australian Labor Party a convincing victory in 1983. Australians turned to Labor in the expectation that it would be able to deliver a better deal for Aborigines, rural producers, small business and home buyers. Those who were concerned about the destruction of Australia's natural environment which was occurring under the Liberal Government believed that Labor would go beyond saving the Franklin and expected that, under a Labor Government, conservation of our environment would be given the highest priority. Those who were, and still are, concerned about the threat of nuclear destruction expected that Labor would implement its platform and stop the mining, milling and sale of Australian uranium. They trusted Labor to negotiate the removal of American bases in North West Cape, Nurrungar and Pine Gap. These bases are the greatest immediate threat to the security of all Australians. Senator Button —Why should they trust us to do that when we never said we would? Senator CHIPP —I will come to that. The Government now admits that these bases make Australians nuclear targets since the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would have little option but to destroy these bases in order to reduce the capacity of the United States to deliver accurately its nuclear arsenal on Soviet targets. Hence, the loss of confidence in this Government cannot be attributed simply to the decisions it has not made. It is a clear sign that those people who voted for the Australian Labor Party are not impressed with the decisions that the Hawke Government has not made and the decisions that it has made. They are disappointed that the Government has broken its promises and that it is now so pragmatic and so conservative that there is basically no difference between the Hawke Government's policies and the Fraser Government's policies. It is easy to carp and to criticise, but I think in such a debate as this, it is fair to acknowledge in passing-although even my friend Senator Button would not expect me to spend most of my time in remarks eulogising his Government-that I give the Government full marks for many achievements that it has had. For example, I think the prices and incomes accord is probably one of the great achievements in the history of Australia. I do not know of a time when we have had such stability in wages and in industrial relations generally. I commend the Minister at the table, Senator Button, for having the enormous courage to stand up to big business and the trade unions in the way in which he has tried to reorganise the automobile industry. I give him full marks for that action because that was a matter of screaming urgency. I commend the Government for trying to do something about the assets test. With respect, I say that it has not sold it very well. In fact, it has sold the assets test very badly. But the basic motivation behind the Labor Party in introducing the assets test was to be able to increase the pensions of the needy. I think that is the one message out of this whole sorry mess that has not got across to people. Senator Chaney —The Government hasn't done it; that is why. Senator CHIPP —In answer to Senator Chaney's interjection, the purpose of it was allegedly to try to increase the base pension to the needy and, in doing that, the wealthy people who were getting pensions had to suffer. I commend the Government for reintroducing the national health scheme. Although it still has some warts, it is a national insurance scheme which we desperately needed. Not the least of the achievements for which I commend the Government is the almost record low level of industrial disputation. I think this is a remarkable achievement by the Government. After two years of Labor Government, seasonally adjusted unemployment still stands at 8.5 per cent or 514,000 people. This figure reflects a substantial improvement in levels of economic growth, but it is also a warning that massive levels of unemployment are becoming a permanent feature of the Australian economy. Insofar as the figure represents a reduction in the labour force participation rate, it indicates how many people have stopped looking for jobs. Young people have become particularly disillusioned by permanent massive levels of unemployment. Youth unemployment for the 15 to 19 age group in April this year was at the breathtaking figure of 20 per cent. If we include the 20 to 24 age group, more than 32 per cent of young people-over 272,000 young people-face the misery, degradation, poverty and lack of individual fulfilment that is imposed upon them by unemployment. Inflation is set to rise again. The Government's decision has topped the free market deregulatory Liberal dries. They were not able to get their way against Prime Minister Fraser but have now got their way, ironically, under a Labor government. We have a floating Australian dollar, which is slowly sinking. Even under the Fraser Government, it was not possible for the dries to have such a victory. Foreign banks will now be able to speculate against our dollar from within our own country. The almost inevitable deregulation of home interest rates will bring us back to the frightening Fraser years-and the days when families were thrown out of their homes because they could not afford the ever-rising mortgage repayments. This Government has become obsessed with expenditure cuts. Reducing the Budget deficit has become the most important sign of the economic success of this Government. This has shades of Fraser's razor gang et al. This economics of restraint, stringency and despair is Fraserian economics revisited. It gives the Government the theoretical justification to pursue expenditure cuts which savage the income and benefits of returned servicemen, servicewomen and war widows, to reduce the availability of child care to single mothers and low income families, to reduce community services for the aged, the poor and the unemployed provided by local government and to contemplate the reintroduction of tertiary fees. No wonder the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) are happy to attack the Australian Council of Social Service which dared to remind the Labor Government that its policies, unlike the Fraser Government's policies, were not supposed to sacrifice the unemployed and the poor to deficit obsession and economic restraint. Last week, on 21 May, at the national Anglican welfare conference, David Scott, a former Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, publisher of Australian Society and a dedicated pioneer in the fight against poverty, said: . . . We have failed in efforts to reduce poverty . . . Consensus politics, by definition, favours the status quo and muffles the challenges that should be made in the interests of poor people . . . We now have a generally conservative Federal Government opposed by an even more conservative Opposition-Where do the poor go now for political support? Given political will, poverty is not necessary. Each year the world spends $800 billion on weapons, enough to wipe out poverty in every country on the planet Earth. Yet the Hawke Government is making us part of the arms race and in the economy it is giving priority to forging an alliance between big labour and big business. Poor families and the unemployed are not part of the Hawke Government's accord and their advocates are being told to toe the line or else. In the area of foreign affairs and defence, the Government has made the wrong decisions in an attempt to square the circle-to reconcile the irreconcilable. The Government connived with the United States to monitor the testing of the pernicious MX missile and the testing of the Navstar global positioning system, and conspired to commit the unfriendly act of spying on our friends, such as Greece and Israel. These actions are not in Australia's national interest. The Government cannot justify its actions and accept placidly ever increasing numbers of United States nuclear ships now armed with the dangerous Tomahawk cruise missile in the South Pacific, an area which in our national interest should be kept nuclear free. The Government's actions have heightened tension in our region, which is in direct contradiction to our national interests, as Senator Chaney said in his matter of public importance. Consider the continuation of the bases which make us a nuclear target and the visits of nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships to our ports. I find the logic of the Government mystifying when it says in a very self-righteous tone that it will never allow nuclear bombs to be carried over Australian land by B52 bombers, and yet it allows ships carrying nuclear bombs as big, as powerful and as destructive to tie up in Australian waters at Australian ports. I find the lack of logic of that is quite breathtaking. The use of Nurrungar for the Star Wars program and the development of the electro-magnetic rail gun are not reconcilable with this Government's oft stated objective of a nuclear freeze, a zone of peace, and stability in the nuclear balance. Before being elected to Government, the Labor Party made many grand promises about conservation. Some Australians even believed that the Labor Party national platform contained promises that a Labor government would honour. I place on record my enormous gratitude to the Labor Government for its enormous courage in stopping the damming of the Franklin River. I put that on the record. However, the hypocrisy of the Government has now shown how sadly misplaced its belief in conservation was. I will give a few examples, as they are not hard to find. Seventy-five per cent of Australia's rain forests have already been destroyed by the white man since we colonised this country. The Labor Party's national platform contained a commitment to save Australia's rain forests, at a bare minimum to ensure that all types of rain forests were adequately protected in national parks. Since coming to Government, the Labor Party has done nothing. It has allowed those bandits in Queensland, for the sake of making a few miserable dollars in real estate, to plunder and to savage the most beautiful rainforest in Australia-the Daintree Rainforest-and, because it would represent a States' rights fight, it has allowed work at Daintree to go ahead. Surely the performance of the present Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) must be one of the great disasters in this Labor Government. The Daintree-one of the most magnificent rain forests in Australia-is continuing to be plundered, and the Government has stood by shaking in its boots at the thought of how Joh would punish it were it to take action. It has allowed the Daintree to be plundered, despite the fact that it has been nominated by the Australian Heritage Commission for world heritage listing. Senator Button —What do you say, Senator Bjelke-Petersen? Do you reckon he would? Senator CHIPP —Senator Button may laugh. Senator Button —Not at you, Senator; I would not laugh at you. I was having an exchange with Senator Bjelke-Petersen. Senator CHIPP —If Senator Button has a reason for the Government allowing the Daintree Rainforest to be destroyed other than fear of Sir Joh, let him say so. The Australian Democrats have introduced Bills on the Daintree Rainforest and the other Australian rain forests. If the Government were serious in its commitment to the environment, it would have supported those Bills; but it simply has not done so. I turn to the mining of uranium. This is the most dramatic example of the Government breaking a promise. Two years ago I asked Senator Walsh how the Government could justify uranium mining, given the following statement in the ALP platform: A Labor government will declare a moratorium on uranium mining. That was in the Labor Party platform. I am as critical of the Liberal Party's policy on uranium mining and matters nuclear as I am of the Labor Party. We Democrats have been disagreeing with those policies for years. If anyone were to ask what was the main reason for my resigning from the Liberal Party, I would have to say that it was its policy on uranium mining. But at least the Liberals are honest about it. At least, they have always been consistent. They have always been gung-ho about mining uranium and about ANZUS; but not so the Labor Party. I asked Senator Walsh what he meant by saying that a Labor government would declare a moratorium on uranium mining. 'That is easy,' said Senator Walsh, 'there is significant scope for differing interpretations of what is written in the Labor Party platform on this matter'. Humpty Dumpty said much the same. Senator Walsh should remember what happened to that erstwhile great fencesitter. Next came an even more extraordinary assertion from him. According to Senator Walsh, uranium mining at Roxby Downs was simply incidental to the mining of other minerals. I prefer a Minister with the honesty of Senator Button, who comes in here and tells the truth. If he believes something, even knowing sometimes that it is unpopular with his colleagues, he will say it. The Opposition, quite properly, gives him opportunities to do so, and he always accommodates the Opposition. He is an honest man. He is an honest Minister. I wonder how honest Senator Walsh is when he says- Senator Chaney —He is much more honest than Senator Button! Senator CHIPP —Senator Walsh said that uranium mining at Roxby Downs was simply incidental to the mining of other minerals. Does Senator Chaney suggest that that is an honest statement? Senator Walsh said: A possible view is that 'incidental' means anything less than half. That is a view that some people might hold. This is a statement from Senator Walsh, the present Minister for Finance. What absolute humbug! I think it would come as a surprise to most Australians to know that, because uranium represents only 40 per cent of the value of the minerals initially to be extracted from Roxby Downs, Senator Walsh says it is incidental. As everybody in the world knows, Roxby Downs has the biggest single uranium deposit in the world. Only a government based on doublespeak, or only a Minister expert in doublespeak, could depict the mining of that deposit as incidental to the mining of other minerals. I conclude with comments on the Kakadu National Park. In March 1984, in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, this Government announced that the whole of the water catchment area would be added to the Kakadu National Park, as Mr Justice Fox had recommended. That has not yet happened. After all, the Government has had only a year in which to act! Why has this not happened? In the last month or so the mining companies, which would love to get their greedy hands on the uranium deposits in this area, have been heavying the Government. So we had better not hold our breath. There is some good in this Government's record; but, as I have indicated in the short time available to me, there is much to suggest that it should lift its game markedly in the next 10 years. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.45) —I thank Senator Chipp for his kind remarks when he conceded that there was some good in this Government. The truth of the matter is that governments, unlike the best efforts of the Australian Democrats, cannot please everybody at the one time. Senator Chaney and Senator Chipp have regarded the debate on this matter of public importance as a sort of end of term discussion in which they have given us a summary. I say to Senator Chaney that I am using the end of term analogy not in any personal sense but, in terms of an old view I have held of this place, in the sense that each of the speeches represented a summary of the respective views that have been advanced by the Liberals and the Democrats over the course of this parliamentary session. This is a sort of wind-up MPI in which everything has been put on the record, as it were. I take the general view that the Liberal Party in opposition has always had grave difficulty in distinguishing between the national interest and that of the Liberal Party. In fact, they are sometimes seen as synonomous. I also take the view that that is why the Liberal Party never served this country well in its seven years of government and that is why it is incapable of taking any of the hard decisions. If we were to ask Senator Chaney and Senator Chipp to list items that would be in the common good of this country, the problem is that we would get totally different lists. Senator Chaney would advance some proposals that he thought would be for the good of the community as a whole. Senator Chipp would advance a totally different-and, indeed, economically irreconcilable-list from that given to us by Senator Chaney. Ultimately, governments are judged not on what particular members of the government Party may have said from time to time but on what those governments do. I shall dwell for a moment on Senator Chaney's speech in this debate which, as he put it, could be headed 'Slippage of Confidence'. He substantiated his argument, firstly, by suggesting that there has been much confusion concerning Government direction and policies and that in some ways, particularly in respect of taxation and wages policies, this Government has been subservient to the wishes of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Ever since we were elected to government we have made no secret of the fact that the issue of wages is constantly on the agenda for discussion with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That is the basis of the prices and incomes accord. While Senator Chaney did not attack the accord, the assumption underlying the accord is that, for very good macro-economic reasons, there should be a prices and incomes policy in Australia. Senator Chipp thinks it is greatly to the credit of this Government that it has established a prices and incomes accord. It should come as no surprise to anybody, except honourable senators on the other side of the chamber, that the Government has continually discussed the question of wages with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The second piece of so-called evidence advanced by Senator Chaney was that the Government was in collusion, as it were, with the ACTU on the question of taxation. As I have said on a number of occasions in the Senate, there has been much discussion about the desirability of broadening the tax base in Australia. If one wishes to broaden the tax base in Australia by introducing a consumption tax and indirect taxes, with the greatest respect, I do not believe that any government at all can do it without a clear understanding with the trade union movement of the consequences of that broadening of the tax base for wages policy. So if one wants to maintain a prices and incomes policy and to broaden the tax base, those two things are integrally bound up. It is the Government's view that that is absolutely necessary. A Liberal Government might say that we do not need a prices and incomes accord or that we do not need to consider the position of wage earners when broadening the tax base, and so on. We disagree with that. That has been made quite clear in the policy announcements that have been made and the policy discussions that have taken place. That is why, during seven years in Government, while there was a lot of talk from Liberal Party spokesmen about broadening the tax base nothing was done about it. I believe that was because ultimately it would have been politically unpalatable. It would have involved hard decisions and hard discussions in relation to wages policy. Senator Chaney —You did defeat some legislation. Senator BUTTON —I understand that limited effort in respect of indirect tax. With respect to Senator Chaney, some of those discussions by Liberal spokesmen at the time-in my view quite admirably-went a lot further than that. Therefore, we make no public apology, in terms of policy development, for continued discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on these matters. If Senator Chaney wants to characterise that as collusion or something, that is all right. There were a number of supplementary suggestions about the boycott of Queensland by the ACTU. Those have been matters of debate in the Senate for a long time but, in particular, yesterday. I make the point again that there was a problem of national concern in relation to that situation. It was quite clear that the situation in Queensland would not be resolved. It was quite clear that we had responsibilities as a national government to take steps to resolve that. We have done so. As I said yesterday in the Senate, if those steps fail I have no doubt that honourable senators opposite will remind us of that fact in the Budget session. As I said yesterday, I will cop it. I do not mind that. I have to deal with Senator Chaney's speech at greater length because he is the leader of the putative Opposition of this country. Senator Messner —Government of this country! Senator BUTTON —No. I meant putative Opposition because I was thinking of Senator Chipp as the alternative. Senator Chaney is the leader of the majority Opposition party. I thought there was a rather desperate catalogue- Senator Chipp —I am the leader of the second largest party. Senator BUTTON —Yes, and Senator Harradine is the leader of the third largest party. I thought that over the term of this Parliament there had been a rather desperate scraping of the barrel, as it were, to point to alleged areas of Government indecision and failure. Senator Chaney chose to refer to the strike by Public Service unions at the start of this year as an example of Government failure. He then went on to say that Senator Walsh had described it as sabotage of the Public Service and that, in some way, the Government had connived with the rewarding of sabotage. I reject that quite clearly. I make it quite clear that from the beginning the Government expressed the view that the more lowly paid public servants involved in that case were entitled to some alleviation of their wage situation under the anomalies provision of the wage fixing principle. We maintained that position right through to the more recent case. Senator Chaney —And the Commission disagreed. Senator BUTTON —I am sorry, Senator Chaney; the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission did not address the question of merit on that issue in the first case. It did not address the question of merit as to whether those public servants were entitled on merit under the anomalies provision to a wage increase. It was only in the second case that that question was addressed. I think if Senator Chaney checks the record he will find that to be so. Again, at no time did I as Government spokesman welcome or embrace the actions of the Public Service unions in February this year. The question, as Senator Chaney well knows, is what one does about it. I suppose his remedy propounded in another debate would have been to impose penalties of one kind or another under the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act on the Public Service unions at the time of the problem in February this year. All I want to say to Senator Chaney about that is that if he wants me to get a dorothy dix question about his handling of the Public Service when he was Minister for Social Security and indicate what time was lost, what revenue was lost and things such as that, I will certainly oblige him. That remedy did not in fact work. It caused more disruption in the Public Service than even the incidents earlier this year. There was a number of other matters to which Senator Chaney referred. For example, Senator Ryan had the misfortune to say something at the Canberra branch of the Australian Labor Party. I confess that this Government has not taken much notice of the Canberra branch of the Labor Party and its deliberations. I apologise to it for that, but I doubt that we ever will. The sort of issues raised are indicative-- Senator Chipp —Wait until they get self-government and you will. Senator BUTTON —I think they had better wait. These are not indicative of great government failings of one kind or another. I make some basic points for the record because this is a wrap-up session. We have been criticised by an opposition. Ultimately, the people of Australia have to make a decision between governments on the basis of what they do and not what they talk about. We are chided on a number of minor points by an opposition which failed miserably in government and which now offers itself as the alternative government. It failed in terms of wages policy in respect of which we are criticised. Award wages grew by 16 per cent in the year to March 1982, the last calendar year of the Fraser Government. In its last year of office 186,000 people lost their jobs. In the last few years of the Fraser Government we had very high levels of industrial disputation. In the last few years of the Fraser Government unemployment rates were over 10 per cent. In terms of economic policy, in the last year of the Fraser Government, in which some of these honourable senators here were Ministers, there was double digit inflation and an enormous potential deficit. In the last year of that Government there was a lot of talk about deregulation, but nothing was done. In the last few years of that Government, in fact for the entire seven years of that Government, there was talk about the desirability of needs based welfare systems but nothing really was done. In the last few years of that Government there was talk about government cost cutting and reductions in expenditure. We had that extraordinary razor gang, that review of Commonwealth Functions exercise, in which no real savings were identified even 12 months later. In terms of industry policy there was no clear direction but a series of disastrous plans were inflicted on particular industries. In terms of tax reform there was a lot of talk but nothing was done. All these issues are hard. I understand that. These issues were too hard for the Liberals. That is why nothing was done. I make the point that in our period of government we have undoubtedly caused our popularity rating to run into difficulties. We have embarked on a prices and incomes policy which has resulted in 341,000 new jobs since April 1983-a month after we were elected. Real unit labour costs are down to the level of the early 1970s. The unemployment rate is down to 8.5 per cent. The level of industrial disputes is the lowest for 17 years. The growth rate of the Australian economy is up by 4.1 per cent in the six months to the December 1984 quarter. That is the highest growth rate for a number of years. Inflation has been halved under this Government. Investment was up 4.6 per cent in real terms in the December quarter of 1984. The level of economic spending generally is buoyant. In the course of our government we have embarked on a number of real structural cost cutting exercises in relation to the deficit. We have embarked on the deregulation of business. We have moved to needs based welfare in several areas. We have embarked above all on the very difficult question of tax reforms. We recognise that these processes of change cause difficulties for government. We are in a difficult period at the moment. However, we have seen a government prepared to take hard decisions and prepared to bite a few bullets, which its predecessor was never prepared to do. We will never satisfy the Democrats. We will never satisfy every section of the Australian community. However, in respect of the basic concerns of this country and the need for sustained economic growth, this Government has the best performance of any government we have seen in Australia for many years. We will keep on with that, even if it involves hard decisions and carping criticisms from time to time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.00) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Opposition welcomes the tabling of the long-awaited Handicapped Programs Review report. I would like to apologise for a misunderstanding that occurred this morning in relation to the tabling statement by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). I understand that some misleading information was imparted to me but the problem was on my side of the Senate chamber rather than that of the Government and I apologise to the Minister. The report we now have before us is a most significant and important one. It relates to a major review-I believe that this is the first time it has been done in such a comprehensive way-of all of the programs currently being operated by the Federal Government in respect of the physically and intellectually challenged. Of course we have not yet had time to look at this report in detail and examine all of its ramifications. However, on the surface it appears to touch all of the major concerns of those in the disabled community. Indeed, from a quick glance at the report, many of the complaints appear to be major ones and are being brought forward almost daily by the various organisations that represent the physically and intellectually challenged in the community. It is perhaps with some regret that I note the considerable delay in the presentation of this report. I think it was first expected in September or October last year-before the election-but that did not occur. It is now two months since we were advised by the Minister at an Estimates committee hearing that the report was at the printers and would be received any day. Of course two months or more have passed since then. I mention this matter not so much as a criticism but rather to indicate that the Opposition has been anxious to see it, as have many organisations in the community that have been concerned with the presentation of information to the inquiry. I believe that there is a certain weakness in the tabling statement. It does not give us any indication of the Government's intentions in handling the various recommendations on behalf of the disabled community. Indeed, numerous matters have not been referred to at all in the tabling statement. I would like to mention some of them. First of all I refer to the question of income support for the disabled. The report makes six specific recommendations relating to income support. I think the Minister will acknowledge that this is the area of greatest concern to the disabled. They are concerned about the level of pensions. This must be one of the great concerns in the minds of disabled people. However, when we consider the Government's lack of commitment to its promises made before the election in 1983, in particular its promise to lift the basic pension rate to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings-it has failed to do this-we realise why people do not have a great deal of hope that the Government's promises to the disabled will be met. Concern about various aspects of income support are revealed in questions about the handicapped child's allowance in particular. One of the report's recommendations adopts one of the Liberal and National parties' policy recommendations made on this matter before the last election. I refer to the payment for up to a maximum of 30 days for respite care for handicapped children rather than the present seven days which is causing a great deal of hardship in the community. Disability allowances are the subject of inquiries and pilot studies at present. This is related to certain attendant care pilot studies that are going forward at the moment and which are due to terminate early next year. At present we are receiving-I suppose the Minister is also-a number of representations from community groups and individuals who are very concerned about the Government's objectives- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Messner speaking for a further 10 minutes and Senator Haines speaking for 15 minutes. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.05) —I thank the Minister for moving that motion, thus allowing us further time to discuss this important matter. We are receiving numerous representations as to the Government's intentions on this matter. I look forward with a great deal of interest to what the Minister may have to say later about it. Another area of very great interest and concern-one to which I know the Minister has been paying some attention lately-is the present program of aids for disabled people. The PADP scheme has been an extremely valuable one. It was first introduced by the Fraser Government in 1981. A fairly limited amount of expenditure was authorised on it. It provided an opportunity for State health departments to distribute aids for the disabled, thereby encouraging independent living and enabling the disabled to get around more freely in the community. It is obvious that this type of program is under-funded. Indeed, a vast queue of people is waiting for aids under this program. There are also some difficulties in distributing the aids through the various State government authorities. That is something to which the Government should give immediate attention because it is an area where hardship can be relieved very quickly. The Minister drew attention in his tabling statement to the lack of uniformity between the States with regard to eligibility requirements and the lack of components to cover the maintenance of such aids. We in the Liberal and National parties believe that the PADP scheme should be extended to cover the maintenance of such aids. One can easily imagine that an electrically driven wheel-chair may well require a great deal of maintenance in order to keep it in proper working order. The chair would be of absolutely no use to a disabled person once it stops operating. We believe that the maintenance of aids should be incorporated in the funding given to various State governments and we hope that the Government will take action on this matter in the not too distant future. Taxation is another important question when thinking of aids for the disabled. A number of aids are subject to Federal and State government imposts. Import duty on wheel-chairs is one example. We in the Liberal and National parties made our policy clear before the last election. We promised to 'remove taxes and other imposts from aids for the disabled and support Australian manufacturers through bounty or subsidy'. I turn now to a few other matters in the Minister's statement. The Minister said that he intends to introduce a new disability services Act to replace the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act and Part VIII of the Social Security Act. The requirement for this measure is obvious. There is now a vast body of disparate and separate legislation in various parts of the social welfare field that ought to be brought together. There should be a common body of legislation for the administration of assistance to the disabled. I hope there will be continuing consultation by the Government with welfare and community organisations which no doubt will be most interested in the detailed drafting of that legislation. One might observe that had the Government sought to maintain its original promise on the repatriation legislation and consulted more widely, it would not have brought about such terrible redress from the veteran community as has happened in the last couple of weeks. When the legislation is finally before the Parliament for debate, I hope that it will be more than just an attempt to make simpler the administrative procedures for handling problems of the disabled and will be more oriented to assist more generally the problems of the disabled. That is an important point when the Minister comes finally to consider the draft legislation. We note with some concern that it may be more than a year before the legislation is dealt with in this Parliament. That means that since the Hawke Government was first elected in March 1983 this process of examining programs and finally bringing the matter to a head through new legislation will have taken more than three years. I am not sure that the Government is pleased with the rate of progress, but there is a certain anxiety in the community that this process has taken so long. I also note from the Minister's statement that the Minister intends to develop new funding and program directions. In that respect he said that there will be: . . . ways of enabling people with disabilities to live independently within the community, of improving their access to mainstream community services and ensuring that better and more realistic training and employment opportunities are opened to them. Naturally enough, the Liberal and National parties do not disagree with any of those goals. In fact, our policy as laid down before the last election reflected those themes of improved access, better training and employment, and recognised the desire and right to independent living while noting that this option was not open to all those who are physically or intellectually challenged. The Minister's statement outlined five areas of key reforms to be brought about and his goals were set down. I refer in particular to his heavy reliance on the use of the new home and community care program. Judging by the experience of the last eight to 10 months, we must caution those in the disabled community about the lack of money and new initiatives in this area. We all know that before the last election the Government touted a new $300m program for home and community care for the aged and disabled which, after the election, turned out to be a program that was to cost the Government only another $10m. That sum would go very little distance in assisting the aged and disabled across the whole of Australia. It was something of a confidence trick, as has been verified by statements from Labor Ministers in the State governments, particularly in South Australia, who claim that the program was substantially oversold during the election campaign. The Liberal and National parties will be monitoring the Government's actions closely now that this report has been presented. We hope the Government will take every opportunity to consult further with the community, and will ensure that the final legislation represents the views of those disabled people who are expecting something more than just simple changes around the edges of the present legislation. Our view is that disabled Australians should have opportunities to develop their abilities to the maximum possible extent. Like all other Australians, they are entitled to choices about their lives so that they can take the fullest part in contributing to our shared future. The Liberal and National parties' aim will be so far as possible to reduce the limitations and constraints which prevent the physically and intellectually challenged from exercising their freedom of choice. As we said in our policy statement last year, we shall be closely studying the findings of the Handicapped Programs Review as part of the process of developing our own alternative policies. The presentation of this report is just the beginning of work in this area not only for the Government but also for the Liberal and National parties. We look forward with a great deal of pleasure to examining in greater detail the report presented by the Minister today. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.16) — The Australian Democrats welcome the report of the Handicapped Programs Review and the positive statements made by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) in response to it, although I would ask the Minister to consider at some time in the very near future changing the title so that it fits in more with the way in which the community refers to people with disabilities. I think reference to 'handicapped' is a little passe. Senator Grimes —But that is what the programs are called. Senator HAINES —Yes, I am aware of that. I simply ask the Minister at some time to look at that point. In many ways the establishment of this review was long overdue, the needs of disabled people having been ignored for far too long by a succession of governments. Most people with disabilities want to be recognised as people, individuals in their own right. They rightly believe that they are people who happen to have a disability of one sort or another. They also believe that, in the main, they are not only capable of putting across a point of view, but also entitled to do so when decisions are being taken that will affect them. It is long past the time when we ended the rather paternalistic approach that was taken not only to people with disabilities, but to women and to disadvantaged groups of one sort or another. We must realise that these people are not statistics to be discussed in some objective sort of way, as if they can be moved around at will. They have the normal feelings other people have, though they have a few more needs than those of us who do not have obvious disabilities. The report has identified the major concerns of people with disabilities. Because it is based on an extensive range of submissions and consultations, I hope that it will provide a sound basis for future action by this Government, and possibly by successive governments. The focus of the report on the aspirations of disabled people themselves is particularly pleasing because in the past the policies have often been based only on the views and opinions of service agencies. The emphasis of the report on the provision of independent living options for disabled people is a direct reflection of the changed focus that this Government is apparently attempting to pursue. As the Minister has already pointed out, there are some 52 recommendations in the report covering a wide range of areas and they seem, at least on the surface, to address the urgent need to provide better and wider choices for disabled people in training, employment, education, leisure activities and so on. Whether the decisions relate to those sorts of areas as well as to housing, transport, sport, access to buildings, sales tax concessions, health care, access to finance or whatever, there is no doubt that most people who have a disability of one sort or another should be able to nominate the solutions to the problems in those areas. After all, they are the ones who have experienced the problems in the first place and have the best idea of how those problems can be circumvented. The report identifies several areas of past inadequacy, poor co-ordination between State and Federal programs, and the lack of specified objectives, which attracted adverse comment from many of those who made submissions to the review. The Minister has also acknowledged the restrictive nature of existing legislation and has indicated his intention to undertake a major review of that legislation. The Australian Democrats welcome this and will examine carefully the proposed new disability services legislation when it is introduced. We hope that the same consultative process which attended the review will occur in the development of that legislation and that we do not see a recurrence of the sorts of things that have happened in the Senate occasionally, most recently with the repatriation legislation, when consultation with the people affected by it was about the last thing that occurred. The Minister also announced a range of new funding and program directions which he has correctly identified as urgent. Again, it is pleasing to see that the focus will be on the needs of disabled people rather than on the needs of the funded organisations. The specific reforms which the Minister has announced seem likely to achieve this, although again we will have to keep a weather eye on those reforms. We can only do that when more details are available to us. The pressure placed on families who have a child, a parent or a spouse with a disability are enormous. For many years there has been an increasing demand for respite care in a form which is beneficial both to the main carer and to the disabled child or other family member. Whether the recommendations will meet those needs remains to be seen. Certainly any extension of the family day care program will be difficult, I suspect, although it is one of the recommendations, given by the Government's deficit-cutting exercise and the strains already on that service, strains which I mentioned in a speech earlier this week. Nevertheless, as I have said, the Minister has indicated that there are urgent areas for review and he intends to undertake that review. So it is not just the official Opposition that will be keeping a weather eye on that but also the Australian Democrats. The strengthening of the Commonwealth rehabilitation service and the proposed Office for Disability, as well as the new emphasis on a consumer-oriented approach, should ensure that future policies affecting people with disabilities avoid the often appalling inadequacies of the past. It remains to be seen whether the new directions detailed in the report will be definitive or merely the beginning of a more appropriate approach to problems facing people with disabilities, or whether it will turn out to be simply another futile exercise in examining a problem only to have partial implementation of the recommendations, with the rest shelved or put into the too hard basket. However, the Government is to be commended for setting up the review process in the first place and the Minister is to be commended for bringing down what is essentially a very positive response to the recommendations contained in the report. I am a trifle concerned, however, at a comment in the Minister's statement which seems to add a rider to the positive nature of the rest of the statement. He says: Clearly the major reforms I have outlined will not be achieved overnight but will require much consideration, negotiation and hard work by everyone concerned with disability matters. I look forward to initiating action and achieving results on these matters in consultation with my Government colleagues, State governments, non-government organisations and community groups and, in particular, disabled people themselves. Nobody in his right mind would suggest that the scope and breadth of the recommendations contained in the report could be achieved overnight. I hope that consultation which has to take place, not only with the Minister's colleagues but also with his State colleagues, will not result in undue delays, in particular, I imagine, in consultations with certain States in this country that do not have a particularly good record in their concern for disadvantaged people. I will not mention any State in particular but I am sure the Minister will not have to take 20 guesses to work out the State to which I am referring. I hope that, whatever legislation is implemented, the processes that are put into operation will not be stalled because of deficit-cutting requirements from one of the Minister's colleagues, or because one State government is being a little obdurate, or because the community groups themselves are placed in a position of having to square off, so to speak, against one another and make their own decisions about the priorities. All in all, this review is overdue. The recommendations cover a wide range of areas. I hope that the Government looks at them with speed and efficiency as the essence of the exercise and that it is not held up by problems from State governments of one sort or another. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.26) —I want briefly to place on record my comments about the report of the Handicapped Programs Review. I do not wish to canvass the areas already covered by Senator Messner and Senator Haines, but I think such a review is a reflection of the seriousness and thoroughness with which the Government has approached this and many other areas of concern. It is quite clear that we need to hasten slowly sometimes so that that slowness actually allows the Government to be thoughtful and comprehensive in the areas it covers. I simply wish to make a comment about what the review found to be the specific outcomes most important for consumers with disabilities before I make a comment in particular about sport and leisure. I find it very interesting that people with disabilities listed these outcomes in the following order: A place to live; paid employment; being competent and self-reliant; participating in community activities; feeling secure; having choices in life; and having an image which is regarded positively by other people. I suppose that that list would not be too different from a list made out by any member of our community. It is probably quite unlike what health professionals in the past have decided should be a priority list for handicapped or disabled people. I think we have now moved to the use of the preferred word 'disabled'. There is a brief heading in the report entitled 'Sport, recreation and leisure'. It is a very brief item which simply reports: Sport and recreation options for people with disabilities have traditionally received far less emphasis than residential or vocational programs. Disabled people interested in participating in mainstream sporting and recreational activities are often unable to do so either because they are unable to get there owing to transport difficulties or because the venue concerned is physically inaccessible or inappropriate for them. I appreciate that those concerns are actually included in this report, and I would like to comment on a recent experience I had on the Working Group on Women in Sport. One of my committee colleagues was Libby Kosmala, a gold medallist in the paraplegic Olympic Games last year. Her gold medals are for shooting. Libby Kosmala illustrates very well a disabled person in our community who, to all intents and purposes, is a fully participating citizen in this community, if I can use those sorts of words. She certainly made sure that the Working Group on Women in Sport particularly addressed the needs of disabled people, not only for those who might achieve gold medal status at Olympic Games, but also for participation in everyday recreation and sporting facilities. If ever anything illustrated a nicely normal way of living in this country it is the opportunity to participate in sport and recreation programs and facilities around the country. That participation is part of community health, part of being a member of the mainstream of the community and part of being nicely normal. I think it also allows disabled people to feel very much part of the mainstream community. Again it provides an opportunity for members of the community to see, by playing sport and recreating with disabled people, that disabled people are, to all intents and purposes, not too different from them; they simply have a disability. I commend the review and in particular I commend the emphasis that the members of the Committee have brought to our attention for regarding disabled people as members of the community who are equal to anybody else, with their own particular needs. I am particularly interested to see that the list of important requirements for disabled people is unlike the lists that we have had in the past which have been given to disabled people. I think it is very encouraging to see that the list now reflects what disabled people themselves want. I am pleased that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) in his comments on this report stressed the importance of involving consumers and clients in the planning as well as the program delivery and review. I think that the voice of disabled people in the provisions of their own services and planning will guarantee that we do not have a return to the Dark Ages for disabled people that we have experienced in the past in this country. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —The time allotted for consideration of Government papers has expired. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Draft Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.34) —I seek leave to move motions for the introduction and first and second readings of the six Bills referred to in notices of motion Nos 44 to 49 as if the Bills were being taken together, on the understanding that the Bills will be listed as separate orders of the day on the Notice Paper and the questions for the second reading and all remaining stages will be put separately in accordance with the Standing Orders. Leave granted. Senator CHIPP —I express my deep gratitude to the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and Senator Harradine for the courtesy they have extended to me in allowing me to bring forward these Bills in this way today. I move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons through Australian airspace. That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear-powered ships through Australian waters. That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of ships carrying nuclear weapons through Australian waters. That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the manufacture of nuclear weapons in, and the introduction of nuclear weapons into, Australia. That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the importation of nuclear hardware, and for purposes connected therewith. That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the exportation of nuclear materials, and for purposes connected therewith. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills presented by Senator Chipp, and read a first time. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.35) —by leave-I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. AUSTRALIAN AIR SPACE (NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROHIBITION) BILL 1985 AUSTRALIAN WATERS (NUCLEAR-POWERED SHIPS PROHIBITION) BILL 1985 AUSTRALIAN WATERS (NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROHIBITION) BILL 1985 These Bills offer a hope to the people of Australia, particularly the young people who believe that there is no future for them, and who believe it is better to live for today because there may be no tomorrow: Not because Reagan or Gorbachev are madmen, but because of a computer error or a single disturbed person sitting in a submarine presses the wrong button. To evade the reality that a nuclear exchange would be far from the cities of Australia, off in missile silos elsewhere, is absurd. The targets will be ships and planes just as much as military bases. These nuclear targets are unacceptable risks, and the series of Australian Democrats' Bills are aimed at eliminating the whole gamut of these nuclear threats to our very survival. Not only do many honourable senators here appear to embrace the exposure of their fellow citizens to these risks, but in doing so they are effectively blocking off the only faint hope for lasting peace in our region: The nuclear free zones proposed for our region in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as well as the Association of South East Asian Nations proposal. The Australian Government's support for disarmament in general and a nuclear freeze in particular is farcical in the light of its support, collusion and even encouragement of the nuclear strategy of the United States of America. Are these people aware that, in so readily handing over our sovereignty and integrity as a nation, in the future we may not be able to redeem our rights as a nation to do what is in this nation's interests? All in all there are six anti-nuclear Australian Democrats' Bills. For Senator Tate, who was so genuinely concerned about the immunity aspect of one of our Bills that he could not vote for it, we have altered it; not because we believe that it was any different in that regard from the many Acts since Federation covering similar areas, but because we believe it does not detract from the Bill's effectiveness to accommodate him. For those honourable senators who said there was nothing in the Bills they could object to-except that they were introduced by me-I made the offer inside this chamber, publicly, and then personally in a letter to each of the Government senators in which I said: 'Bring in your own Bill on this and my colleague Democrat senators and I will vote for your Bill'. None of the senators responded positively. I really do not care if it is my Bill or theirs, but since they have no Bills I must introduce mine on behalf of my colleagues in the Australian Democrats. Each Bill forms a part of the anti-nuclear package. The Australian Airspace (Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1985 I believe is vital at this point. While it is true that Foreign Ministers Street and Haig signed an agreement in 1981 that United States B52 bombers in Australian territory are to be unarmed and carry no nuclear bombs, it is true that the United States is not prepared to disclose which of its aircraft are nuclear armed and which are conventionally armed. This was said by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, speaking on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in reply to a question from me in this House on 27 March 1985. To take his reply one step further, the agreement is only what is euphemistically known as a gentleman's agreement. In other words, we have an agreement with the United States which is at present unverifiable by us. It is not even possible to verify that the B52s are unarmed, let alone not nuclear armed. We are not allowed to, or we are afraid to, ask the Americans. In other words, we have these aircraft flying over our land-it does not just relate to our ports-and yet, according to official Government policy, we do not or will not ask them whether they are armed or whether they are carrying bombs. In other words, we rely on what is euphemistically known as the gentleman's agreement. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) tells me that the B52 flights through Australia-Busy Boomerang Delta and Glad Customer are their names-are for low level navigation training over Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia and sea surveillance and navigation training over the Indian Ocean. Yet the Commander in Chief of the Pacific Command, CINCPAC, testified in February 1984 before the United States Senate Armed Services Committee that he is looking forward to the B1, fitted with cruise missiles, being added, with the existing B52s with conventional arms, to the functions of the Strategic Offensive Forces at Guam, which include surveillance flights over the Indian Ocean and staging through Australia. How, in the face of this evidence, can the Australian Government repeat childishly that no B52s are armed and will not in the future carry nuclear weapons? The Government does not know, it has not asked and it will not ask the United States. In this Bill we propose to give the Australian Government the power to verify this. It is not a question of the planes being nuclear armed or conventionally armed because, according to the agreement, they are all unarmed planes. Surely on that basis the United States Government could not object to the passage of this Bill, seeing as it says that it has nothing to hide. Furthermore, the B52 agreement is an agreement which is supported by both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Opposition; a Liberal Government negotiated it. This Bill merely takes it to its logical conclusion, that one of the signatories has the right to verify the agreement. After all, this does affect our land. Most alarming are the recent developments in the upgrading of the United States operations in Guam. In particular, the B1s are fitted with cruise missiles and the B52s are also to be fitted with cruise missiles while the newer B52Gs will carry nuclear short range attack missiles. All are to be deployed to Guam in the next 12 months. Article I of the agreement states: The agreement of the Government of Australia shall be obtained before the facilities are used in support of any other category of operations. Article VII states: Arrangements shall be made for consultations to ensure that the Government of Australia has full and timely information about strategic and operational developments relevant to B52 staging operations through Australia. We can only assume that these negotiations are afoot now. Now is the time to take responsibility for Australia's foreign policy and establish that no nuclear planes and no nuclear bombs are being carried by United States planes over Australian territory now or will be in the future. I turn now to the Australian Waters (NuclearPowered Ships Prohibition) Bill 1985. From 1971, during the McMahon Government, to June 1976 the visit of all nuclear-powered ships to Australian ports was suspended-this was under Liberal governments-until satisfactory guarantees against accidents were given and the practical requirements in the different circumstances of each Australian port could be assessed. The report which followed the suspension recommended limiting the acceptance of nuclear-powered warships to those ships with power reactor levels less than 100 megawatts thermal. Point 21 of that report stated: The chance of a reactor accident, though remote, cannot be entirely discounted and the risks from nuclear powered subs and surface warships is no greater than from civilian power reactors. Given the Three Mile Island incident, that is hardly reassuring. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the last month presented evidence before the United States House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Energy, Conservation and Power. It put the chance of a melt-down at a nuclear reactor somewhere in America in the next 20 years at 50:50. This is a chilling forecast: It put the chance of a melt-down in a nuclear reactor somewhere in America in the next 20 years at even money. To be told that the chances are the same with nuclear-powered warships is hardly heartening, particularly when one contemplates that regularly those ships tie up near centres of heavy population such as Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth. The Australian report considered sinkings, collisions, explosion, loss of propulsion and abnormal occurrences in port of nuclear powered ships up to 1976 and recommended that for planning purposes an area within 600 metres radius of the berth should be capable of urgent and immediate evacuation. It identified a core melt-down as the principal risk of a nuclear ship visiting an Australian port. It stated: The probability of a core melt-down accident will not be greater than one in ten thousand per reactor per year. Of course, accidents of a far more dramatic kind could occur as a result of a catastrophic failure of the reactor pressure vessel or from a high speed collision or sabotage. However, the reality is that Australian authorities have no control over operating techniques or safety precautions carried out on board the nuclear-powered vessels. Nor can the Australian Government assure us that there is no unauthorised discharge of radioactive waste into the port environment. It has not initiated services necessary to safeguard the public in the event of a release of radioactivity following an accident, as was recommended by the report. I quote again from the report: The remote possibility of an accident or failure leading to the release of radioactive fission products to the environment has to be accepted. I now turn to the final Bill of this set, the Australian Waters (Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1985. The mystifying lack of logic of the Hawke Government is highlighted by the fact that, while nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships are allowed-no, welcomed into Australian ports-by this Government, the Government is categorically opposed to nuclear-armed planes or even conventionally-armed planes flying over Australian territory. In other words, the logic of this Government seems to be: We will allow nuclear bombs into our ports but not over our land. Of course, there is no logical difference; it is just hypocrisy. Nuclear-armed ships are just as much nuclear targets as are Pine Gap or Nurrungar in the case of a nuclear conflict. While the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, can admit that the United States installations in Australia are Soviet targets, and they have done that, they have not been prepared to admit that any nuclear warship in an Australian port would equally be a target. These warships are not part of our ANZUS obligation, just as they are not part of New Zealand's ANZUS obligation. Somewhere between the beginning of the 1970s and now, the United States has unilaterally altered the terms of ANZUS. Somewhere along the tortuous path of United States foreign policy, allies have lost their right of independence-the right to act in their own country's national security interests as they see them. An ally, even a powerful ally such as the United States, should not exact such a price from its friends and partners. It is very heartening indeed to see that within the last month Iceland, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, has decided to follow the courageous leadership of New Zealand and not allow nuclear armed ships into its ports. It is interesting to compare the way the United States treats non-allies with respect to nuclear warships. Communist China can lay down conditions. Egypt can lay down conditions, and that nation has a long-standing policy of not allowing nuclear warships through the Suez Canal. Countries that are not allies of the United States are treated as having rights and are respected accordingly, but not allies such as New Zealand or Australia. To Mr Reagan, alliances are there only to assist the United States in its super-power rivalry with the Soviet Union-nothing more. To end nuclear ship visits merely requires an act of determination, not of enormous sacrifice. Australia does not even need to take the lead or to break new ground. Other nations have already done this. It merely requires the Government to carry out the wishes of the millions of Australians who wish to disentangle this nation from the nuclear insanity of the super-powers. I conclude by drawing the attention of the Senate to the admission by the United States Defense Department that there had been 31 major nuclear accidents up to 1981 and the fact that the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that 113 such accidents had occurred in Western forces before 1977. God knows what the figure would be in 1985. The United States Congress has reported that 5,000 Service personnel have been removed from weapons duties because of alcohol or drug abuse, criminal negligence or mental problems. Now is the time to act. As weapons control systems become more complex, human error becomes more likely. Yet this Government, like successive previous governments, has embraced the complete nuclear vulnerability of this nation against all the evidence and against all common sense. I commend these three Bills to the Senate. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the second reading speeches on the Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1985, the Customs (Prohibition of Importation of Nuclear Hardware) Bill 1985 and the Customs (Prohibition of Exportation of Nuclear Materials) Bill 1985. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROHIBITIONS BILL 1985 This legislation is part of the 6 anti-nuclear Bills proposed by the Australian Democrats. It would in effect be a great step towards establishing Australia as a nuclear weapons free zone. The Bill would prohibit the development, testing, manufacturing, transportation, storage or importation of nuclear weapons into Australia. For the purposes of this Bill, Australia is defined as the land mass to the low water mark including external territories. Territorial waters, harbours and airspace are excluded as these are covered in other Australian Democrat Bills. The prohibitions in the Bill apply to the Commonwealth; a person on behalf of the Commonwealth; a corporation; the Government or Defence Forces of a foreign country or any person on their behalf. The Commonwealth is prohibited from entering into an agreement with a foreign country that would allow that foreign country to import, store, test or transport nuclear weapons within Australia. Remember that when we refer to Australia we are referring to the land mass of the continent and the external territories. The reason for this Bill is very simple. The nuclear arms race is accelerating out of control. The super-powers' negotiations for nuclear arms limitations have ground to a halt. In the light of this, it is necessary for the non-nuclear states to take their own initiatives and put into legislation a nuclear weapons free zone. This Bill is designed to give legal effect in Australia to the United Nations General Assembly resolution to create a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the South Pacific. It is the policy of the present Labor Government to promote such a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone proposal bans the use, testing, stationing or development, manufacture, receiving or acquisition of nuclear weapons. In declaring Australia a nuclear free-zone we are in this Bill focusing solely on nuclear weapons. It is open for any country or group of countries to ban on their territory whatever it wishes through a unilateral act. If Australia wishes to ban all nuclear activities of any kind, whether as a symbolic repudiation of that technology or on the grounds of environmental concern over, for example, reactor safety, it is free to do so. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Australia has already declared its intention to remain a nuclear weapons free country. This does not make this legislation any less vital. It is precisely when there are no nuclear weapons on Australian soil that Australia can sensibly outlaw any future weapons involvement. This is the reason for the success of the banning of nuclear weapons in Antarctica, the seabed and outer space. I wish to stress that this Bill does not in any way inhibit peaceful nuclear industries in accordance with the NPT and the Latin American Zone-Tlatelolco. What it merely does is establish in law that Australia forfeits the option of nuclear weapons. The Hawke Government has renounced any desire for Australia to have a nuclear weapons capability. The very first plank of the Disarmament, Arms Control and International Security section of the 1984 Platform of the ALP reads: 'Labor is committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons and the ultimate achievement of general and complete disarmament'. To support this Bill the Government does not have to make enormous sacrifices. This Bill is part of the Government's publicly stated policy; by passing this Bill, the Government will be closing the nuclear weapons option for Australia once and for all. The concept of nuclear weapon free zones can make an enormous contribution to disarmament initiatives. The absence of nuclear weapons from various regions increases the threshold between the use of conventional and nuclear weapons. Decision-making time in case of a conflict is increased, reducing the prospect that an outbreak of fighting would automatically escalate to a catastrophic and global holocaust. All these reasons would lead to an increase in confidence and stability. The East-West border in central Europe is the region that most needs to be a nuclear weapons free zone. Australia will not have a great deal of direct influence on that issue. However, if we ourselves are a nuclear weapons free zone our diplomatic influence would be vastly increased because we would be an example of what we are asking for. This Bill would put our domestic affairs totally in line with our international concerns. If, as a unilateral initiative, Australia moved towards being a nuclear weapons free zone through the proposals contained in this Bill, we would be able to exert considerable influence towards establishing similar zones in the South Pacific and the Indian Ocean. Nuclear war would be a more distant prospect if these zones were to be established. This Bill is consistent with Labor Party policy. By passing it, the Government would be backing its commitment with not only words, but with action. This Bill is the guarantee that Australia needs to repudiate a nuclear weapons option for all time. CUSTOMS (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION OF NUCLEAR HARDWARE) BILL 1985 This Bill deals with one area of Australia's involvement in the nuclearisation of the world. In broad terms, this Bill imposes a general prohibition on the importation of nuclear hardware. Hardware which would be essential if Australia wanted to establish nuclear power plants, uranium enrichment plants or nuclear waste reprocessing facilities. There are exceptions for medical and industrial uses. The Minister has the power, under this Bill, to grant permission for the importation of nuclear hardware to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission for the medical and industrial uses of isotopes. For the benefit of those honourable senators who require further definition of the words ''isotopes for industrial use'' I wish to make it quite clear from the outset, that this includes agricultural uses and research in the ''medical'' and ''industrial'' uses of isotopes, all under strict Parliamentary scrutiny of course. All the evidence indicates that a nuclear industry for Australia is a shortsighted, uneconomic and totally repugnant path. By putting our eggs in the nuclear energy basket we would be rejecting the abundant alternatives in energy efficiency and renewability as well as increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation. The reality is that solar and wind power supply twice as much energy to consumers now in the United States of America as nuclear power does. If it were true that nuclear power could replace oil as a source of power then one would have expected a rapid increase in the number of nuclear reactors in OECD countries after the 1973-74 oil crisis. The truth is that there has been a dramatic decline in the number of nuclear reactors in OECD countries since 1974. To take the US figures to February 1984, 108 nuclear power reactor orders had to be cancelled. The William H. Zimmer reactor was 97 per cent completed when the project was abandoned as economically unviable. The cost of constructing power plants is only one of the factors which determines the cost of the fuel they produce. The nuclear industry has received billions of dollars in subsidies all over the world for research and development, uranium enrichment, and of course the imponderable deferred cost of nuclear waste disposal. The US Department of Energy itself admitted to Federal subsidies of $37 billion to the nuclear power industry from 1950 to 1980. These figures did not include tax subsidies or loopholes. As a nation that has a genuine interest in peace, the connection between a civil nuclear industry and nuclear weapons must be accepted. It is just so much harder for a country to develop nuclear weapons if it does not have a nuclear industry. The civil nuclear programmes of India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iran, Argentina and South Korea have put them on the road to nuclear weapons. Nor can involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle be used as a lever to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The US, in spite of considerable pressure to prevent India or Pakistan developing nuclear weapons, has failed to have any effect on those countries. If the US cannot affect the nuclear policy of other nations, how in all honesty can anybody pretend that Australia could succeed in pressuring nations where America has failed? The fact that there is no permanent method of waste disposal should be enough to convince people that Australia should not be party to nuclear energy in the future. There is no safe method of disposal of radioactive waste, and saying, as some honourable senators have, that nuclear waste is just a question of will and money does not help. After more than 30 years of nuclear waste, the world is no closer to a permanent solution. Since nuclear reactors have about a 30 year operational life the larger problem of what to do with a spent nuclear reactor has not even been contemplated. This nation must declare itself to be on the anti-nuclear path. We must spurn every part of the nuclear cycle. Unless it is for medical or industrial uses nuclear isotopes have no place in this country. The Government members know in their heart of hearts that there is nothing wrong with this Bill. It is a philosophy that many honourable senators on both sides share. The ALP platform on nuclear power states that a Labor Government will ''prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle''. On an issue such as this it is meaningless not to have a tripartisan policy for the benefit of this country's future. The passage of this Bill would close off the nuclear option. The Government keeps its nuclear options open if it does not support this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to prevent Australia establishing a civil nuclear industry and then nuclear weapons. All the rational arguments are against nuclear energy, I commend the Bill to the Senate. CUSTOMS (PROHIBITION OF EXPORTATION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS) BILL 1985 This legislation is to prohibit all exportation of uranium from Australia. This is one of six Bills the Australian Democrats are bringing before the House which would cut off once and for all Australia's involvement in the nuclear insanity which is pervading the world. Honourable senators will no doubt be aware that this is not the first time I have brought a Bill such as this before the House. I am doing so again not only because it is an issue of such vital importance to me and the Australian Democrats, but because it reflects the hopes, ambitions and desires of millions of Australians. Australia, and the politicians who represent the people of Australia, cannot ignore the fact that this country has enormous uranium reserves. This is an issue about which we cannot pretend that what Australia does is irrelevant to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are helping to place the world in peril of the ultimate Armageddon. Uranium has two purposes only, it can be used as a fuel, and it can be used for nuclear weapons. The reality is that to justify the selling of Australian uranium on the grounds that it is for civil use only is patently absurd. We do know that the establishment of a civil nuclear industry provides the basis for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. It is just so much harder, in fact, a great deal harder for a country to manufacture nuclear weapons without a civil nuclear industry. The civil nuclear programmes of India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iran, Argentina and South Korea have put them on the road to nuclear weapons. A path which every sane person in this world deeply regrets. Nor can honourable senators hide behind the argument that because we are supplying uranium for civil industry in other countries we will be able to influence the course they choose; and somehow keep them off the manufacture of nuclear weapons. There is not a single shred of evidence to prove that any country, let alone Australia, has been able to keep any nation's nuclear industry civil, when they wish to develop nuclear weapons. The United States, in spite of considerable pressure, has been unable to prevent India or Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons. Is anyone seriously suggesting for one moment that we can succeed where they have failed? The leverage argument passed into history when the Reagan Administration between July 1981 and June 1982 issued 57 export licences for nuclear-related technology to the nuclear programs of India, South Africa, Argentina and Israel. All these countries refuse international inspection of their nuclear facilities and have not signed the Non-proliferation Treaty. Australia must take her share of the responsibility for the proliferation of nuclear weapons as long as she sells uranium. The recent report that Australia may sell uranium to Egypt is a disgrace. Does anyone honestly believe that this will finally be for non-weapons purposes, given the fact that Israel and Iraq have nuclear weapons, and Libya and Iran are developing them. In the light of the highly volatile nature of the Middle East, and Australia's long expressed desire to see peace and stability in that region, this act can only be interpreted as an act of international vandalism. Recent events in Australia involving uranium sales to France show once again the complete and continuing hypocrisy of this Government's position. Labor Party policy, agreed to at the 1984 ALP National Conference, states that a Labor Government will 'refuse to allow the supply of Australian uranium to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific region'. Less than one year later we have a Labor Government selling out yet again-in March of this year the Government announced the export of 100 short tons of uranium to France. Underneath the complex contractual aspects of the statement by the Minister for Trade on 21 February this year, the truth stands out: Australia is selling uranium directly to France, because, in the words of the Minister for Trade, to not do so would ''prejudice Australia's trade interests''. This statement makes it crystal clear where the Government's priorities lie: with its own monetary interests, and the interests of uranium companies. In exporting uranium we must accept our role not only in nuclear proliferation but in the long term problem of disposal of radioactive waste. Despite the fact that the nuclear industry has been around for over 30 years and has been churning out radioactive waste for 30 years, the world has not found a permanent solution to radioactive waste disposal. None of the four areas-spent fuel rods, high level liquid waste, low level waste and uranium mine tailings-of radioactive waste have a safe, permanent disposal system. Even more alarming is that there is no system likely in the foreseeable future. Given the fact that there are some 16,000-24,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods, and 1.2 to 1.8 million tons of liquid waste in the western world alone, this should be reason enough to cease all uranium mining and exportation until a safe system of waste disposal is established. Even if all nuclear production were to cease now, the world would still have to deal with the problem of the enormous volume of radioactive waste, waste with a life of thousands of millions of years. The final point I wish to raise is that nuclear power, for those who advocate it as an energy source, is economically unviable. The delivered electricity price of US reactors commissioned from 1982-84 varies from 7c to over 20c per kilowatt hour. Australian electricity prices 1981 range from 1.28c to 6.92c per kilowatt hour depending on user designation. Unfortunately many of the official industry costs simply ignore many of the factors which add to the cost of nuclear power. The cost to the taxpayer in the US in the form of subsidies to the nuclear industry is around $40 billion; in France the figure to 1982 was $19 billion. In Japan the capital cost for research and development to the taxpayer is in excess of $19 billion. These sorts of figures are the reason why the nuclear power industry is collapsing. In the U.S. the last order for a nuclear power station was in 1978. It is why 78 per cent of Swedes in 1980 voted for a phasing out of nuclear power by 2010. The message is clear to anyone: Without enormous Government handouts nuclear power cannot stand by itself economically. The trend is clear round the world. Nuclear power is not cheap. I would like to end with a sobering thought. The world's nuclear plants produce about 40 metric tons of separated plutonium each year. That is enough to make 5,000 to 20,000 nuclear bombs a year. By ending uranium mining as this Bill proposes, we would make a great contribution to the world in the face of nuclear madness. I commend these Bills to the Senate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.53) —The Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, has this afternoon reintroduced, in a slightly different form, six private senator's Bills-the Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships Prohibition) Bill 1985, the Australian Waters (Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1985, the Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1985, the Customs (Prohibition of Importation of Nuclear Hardware) Bill 1985, the Customs (Prohibition of Exportation of Nuclear Materials) Bill 1985 and the Australian Air Space (Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1985- which he introduced into this Parliament previously. I am disappointed that this has occurred at the conclusion of the session and at a time which prevents there being a substantial debate, involving all the parties in this chamber, about the issues which have been raised by Senator Chipp. The Bills cover a series of quite different propositions. There is a Bill which proposes to make Australia part of a nuclear weapons free zone by barring the possession of nuclear weapons in this country and declaring Australia to be a nuclear weapons free zone. We go from that Bill to a proposal that there be a prohibition on the importation of nuclear hardware, which moves into the quite different area of the importation of material which might be related to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, although there are some specific exceptions relating to medical uses and some other limited uses. A further Bill relates to the export of uranium, which would be prohibited under that legislation. Then there are the Bills-the second reading speeches on which were fully presented to this chamber a few minutes ago-which involve the prohibition of nuclear weapons in our air space, the prohibition of visits by nuclear powered ships into our waters and also the prohibition of nuclear weapons within Australian waters. The Bills which are brought forward in this form by Senator Chipp warrant debate and, just as importantly, warrant dissection because they raise quite different and very important issues which need to be addressed in this Parliament. I suppose the major concern I have about the Bills coming in in this way is that they seek to mix up totally the question of the peaceful use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity with the question of nuclear weapons. That is a linkage which the Opposition believes needs to be contested and which sits very oddly with Australia's obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I do not know whether the Australian Democrats have ever specifically said that they are opposed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but it seems to me that the proposals they consistently put before this chamber are quite inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the treaty, which include obligations to take part in the development and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It is quite inconsistent with the Treaty, as it is presently cast, that we would consider the sorts of prohibitions which are contained in a number of the Democrat Bills. More fundamental concerns arise on the nuclear weapons issue. It needs to be said each time this issue is brought forward that there is a fundamental difference between the Australian Democrats and the Government and the Opposition because the Democrats proceed on the basis that simply removing Australia from any involvement with nuclear matters can lead to a reduction in the possibility of nuclear war and an increased possibility that there will be peace. Of course, the Opposition has long held the view that this sort of approach is not consistent with the interests of Australia and is not consistent with advancing the cause of peace. I think it is important to note that there is a high degree of commonality between the Government and the Opposition on this issue. When we last debated the Bills in this group in the Senate, on 25 February 1985, I quoted at some length from the contribution made by Senator Gareth Evans to the debate in September 1984, when he drew out one of the principles which are common ground between the Government and the Opposition. The unfortunate conclusion that we draw from the views put forward by the Australian Democrats is that they do substantially increase the risk to Australia of nuclear war rather than decrease it, on the basis that the option which is available to Australia to prevent nuclear war at the moment is to take part in a system of stable deterrence and, within that framework, to work for disarmament on a phased, verified and agreed basis. I look forward to there being an opportunity for more significant and lengthy debate on this subject, involving all parties. It has interested me that, since before the last election, when the issue of whether the Australian Democrats are in favour of unilateral or multilateral disarmament had been raised, there have been strong expressions, certainly by Senator Chipp and Senator Mason, that the Australian Democrats stand for multilateral disarmament. It fascinated me that when I raised the same issue with Senator-elect Jo Vallentine-who will be joining us after July-she also professed herself very staunchly as being in favour of multilateral disarmament. If the Democrats and Ms Vallentine, by saying that they are in favour of multilateral disarmament, mean that they would like all sides to disarm, that is one thing. The real question is in what sense they believe in multilateral disarmament as requiring that we should engage in disarmament, not on the basis of Australia taking unilateral steps but rather, to quote the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia, by seeking: . . . agreements involving mutual substantial and militarily significant reductions of nuclear and conventional arms, with effective verification and compliance. I read the next sentence from the Liberal policy statement because it expresses very well the concerns I have about the propositions which are being advanced by Senator Chipp and, independently, by Ms Vallentine. The Liberal policy states: Any approach to arms limitations which ignores the needs of verification and continuing stability is ineffective, undesirable and dangerous. The whole question of mutuality, verification and compliance is central- Senator Chipp —Surely someone has to give a lead. Senator CHANEY —Yes, but I am trying to say that this is central to the point of difference between us. I understand the point Senator Chipp is making. I simply say to him that if that lead involves Australia unilaterally taking steps which substantially reduce the deterrence of the Western alliance-if I may use that broad expression-it may be a contribution to instability rather than the moral lead which Senator Chipp is seeking to provide and which he hopes will be followed by other parties. From the words which Senator Chipp has used it is quite clear that he is seeking Australia's unilateral action. Whether it would be described as unilateral disarmament we might argue at greater length in another debate. However, he is certainly seeking unilateral action on the part of the United States. Senator Mason —It is not the same thing. Senator CHANEY —Senator Mason shakes his head. However, let me quote from the second reading speech on the Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill, which has just been incorporated in Hansard by Senator Chipp. I thank him for making it available to me. Page 2 of the typescript of that speech states: It is open for any country or group of countries to ban on their territory whatever it wishes through a unilateral act. Quite clearly, what is being sought in the banning of weapons, of exports, of uranium and of this and that is unilateral action by Australia. It may well be that Senator Chipp believes that this will lead later to actions on the part of others which will give rise to what he would describe as multilateral disarmament. I simply say that this sort of unilateral action, which is not part of an agreed program of a mutual reduction of arms at this stage, is a course which is fraught with danger. Senator Mason —But, Senator, it is not seeking unilateral action from one of the powers. That is confusing the situation. Senator CHANEY —The simple fact is that it is seeking unilateral action on the part of Australia which would, of course, have a substantial effect on our allies. I do not think the Government or the Opposition would seek to deny that Australia has a quite important role to play in the Western alliance. We have a very large land mass in an important part of the world. The access of the United States and other countries to our ports is an important part of the World's Western alliance defence system. Just as importantly, we have important Australian-American strategic facilities in Australia. The fact is that Australia, in acting unilaterally, affects not only itself but also the ability of its allies to maintain a position of strength. I say, in a debate which I know it is not wanted to prolong- Senator Grimes —Yes. Senator CHANEY —The Minister for Community Services has made it quite clear that he thinks the debate should cease now. I can only say to him that there has been agreement to waive further General Business in the interests of Government Business. The matter is important enough to warrant some comment. It is fundamentally important that in the debates in the next Parliament, when it resumes for the Budget session, there be some detailed examination of the concept of unilateral action by the United States and how that can possibly fit into a concept of multilateral disarmament. It is very important to Australia and ultimately very important to the world. My main object at this stage is simply to reaffirm the very strong concern of the Opposition about this issue. We believe that the pursuit of peace is as critical a matter as is faced by Government in Australia today. We believe that it is very important. Our difference with the Australian Democrats is that we are not happy with the line they advance as being one that will further the cause of peace. It is my hope that we will have opportunities for serious and, if necessary, lengthy debate on this issue in the next Parliament so that some of these matters can be drawn out and our position on the matter advanced in various ways. If one looks at the contributions made by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, and other Government speakers to the debate in this place last September and in February, and, if one looks at the contributions by speakers on behalf of the Opposition, one will find a consistent thread in that they all seek peace. One will also find a consistent thread in that they believe that avenues other than those being pursued by the Australian Democrats need to be pursued in preference to the Australian Democrats' approach. I seek leave to continue my remarks later in the hope that, in the Budget session, we will have an opportunity to debate this matter with all parties involved in a way which will advance our thinking on the matter and which will, in the end, advance Australia's interests. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present the report on changes in the presentation of appropriations and departmental explanatory notes, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This matter arises because of the Government's introduction of a pilot scheme of program budgeting. The matter was referred to the Committee on 19 March 1985 following the recommendations made by Estimates Committee A in its report of October 1984 that the issues arising from planned and/or implemented changes to appropriations and possible effects on departmental explanations should be examined by the Finance and Government Operations Committee. At the Committee's invitation the Department of Finance made a submission and officers of that Department gave evidence at the hearing held by the Committee on 22 April 1985. Copies of the Hansard report, which includes the submission, are available from the Secretary to the Committee. The Committee in its report recommends: That the Departments of Finance, Employment and Industrial Relations and Industry, Technology and Commerce present their Budget estimates and explanatory notes for 1985-86 in the program format outlined in the report; that Estimates Committees A and C examine those departments' explanatory notes and report to the Senate on their format and content; that the Finance and Government Operations Committee review the reports of those Estimates committees and report the results of its review to the Senate and, finally, that the Department of Finance prepare a handbook on documentation requirements under program budgeting in consultation with the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I present a report on Commonwealth law-making power and the privilege of freedom of speech in State parliaments. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —by leave-I have pleasure in speaking to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the reference relating to the Commonwealth law and the privilege of freedom of speech in State parliaments. The Committee has considered the statement by the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, and the Solicitor-General, hereafter called the joint opinion, relating to the rights of members of State parliaments for complete immunity from the application of Federal law in reference to their statements made in Parliament. The joint opinion arose from a statement made in the South Australian Parliament by Mr Peter Duncan, then a Member of the Legislative Assembly. The joint opinion expressed the view that State parliamentary privilege was subject to control by the law imposed by the Commonwealth, whereas the majority of this Committee is of the opinion that it is not. The law officers and the whole of the Committee thought that the law, as it stands, does not subject State members to any control in the performing of their privileges as members of a State parliament, but the majority of this Committee has concluded that under no circumstances can the law of the Commonwealth be applied so as to restrict such rights of State members. We believe, and set out in some detail the reasons for our opinion, that the Commonwealth in this area is restrained not only because section 106 of the Commonwealth Constitution guarantees the inviolability of State Constitutions but also because there is an implied limitation on Commonwealth power in respect of the privilege of freedom of speech in State parliaments. The overriding of the freedom of speech of State parliaments would amount to a substantial interference with the State's capacity to govern and the functioning of Parliament is an 'essential State function' which could not exist without that freedom of speech. The report examines the establishment of this privilege which is held by State parliaments either by inherited law, or by application of the doctrine of necessity or by express provision made for it in State legislation. The Committee has considered the provisions of section 106 of the Federal Constitution which preserves the Constitution of the States 'subject to this Constitution' and considers that section 106 operates to prevent a State's privilege of freedom of speech from being overridden by Federal laws operating under section 51 of the Constitution. It rejects entirely the concept adopted by the joint opinion that the defence power of the Constitution can be used to override State parliamentary privilege. It finds that any other conclusion would reduce section 106 to a nullity, would lead to wide ramifications and allow the use of the powers under the Constitution to override State powers. The majority of the Committee also relies on the doctrine of Federal implications of the Constitution to deny Commonwealth power to be applied in this manner. The Committee believes that the right of freedom of speech is necessary to establish the State's capacity to govern. It refers with approval to the 1984 statement of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege when it affirmed: Without this fundamental right Members would fear to express themselves with the bluntness and directness parliamentary life so frequently demands, and the Parliament could become a shell devoid of content or meaning. The Committee goes on to consider certain ancillary matters. It concludes that publication of statements made in State parliament are subject to similar overriding privileges. It believes, with the New South Wales Solicitor-General, that statements made in Parliament already constitute matters belonging to the public and that such matters are not complementary, reasonable, appropriate or incidental to any head of power in the Commonwealth. Furthermore, it does not share the New South Wales Solicitor-General's doubts that, even in time of war, the Commonwealth has any power to restrict reporting of parliamentary privileges. The further matter relates to the law of contempt as related to royal commissions. The Committee finds persuasive the views of the Chairman of the Australian Press Council that a royal commission, exercising an executive and not a judicial function, should not be interpreted as having any powers of contempt and considers that the expression 'wilful contempt' in relation to criticism or debate of the subject of a royal commission should be defined and restricted so that serious, critical discussion of the work of a royal commission may be published for the information of the public. Senator Tate and Senator Puplick dissent from the view held by the majority of the Committee as to the substantive question of whether the Commonwealth has power to override State parliamentary privilege in specific circumstances and their separate conclusions and arguments are annexed to this report. They are of the opinion that the law officers are correct in their advice to the Government. Senator Tate, unlike Senator Puplick, disagrees also with the conclusions formed by the Committee in respect of the application of Commonwealth legislation to media reports of statements made in State parliaments. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I seek leave to make a statement relating to the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES —On 16 November 1983 the Senate appointed the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare to inquire into: . . . the question of animal welfare in Australia, with particular reference to: (a) interstate and overseas commerce in animals; (b) wildlife protection and harvesting; (c) animal experimentation; (d) codes of practice of animal husbandry for all species; and (e) the use of animals in sport. Advertisements were placed in the national and rural Press in mid-January 1984 calling for written submissions with a request that they be forwarded to the Committee by 9 March 1984. This was a nominal rather than an absolute deadline to ensure that the inquiry got under way within a reasonable time. To date, 479 submissions and many supplementary submissions, other correspondence and petitions have been received by the Committee. The submissions cover all areas of the inquiry and reflect many shades of opinion, particularly on the more prominent and contentious issues. As it will be a long inquiry covering many diverse areas of animal welfare, the Committee will continue to receive and consider written submissions and supplementary submissions. In May 1984 the Committee began its program of public hearings. These were preliminary hearings designed to cover a range of topics so that members of the Committee could get a better appreciation of the general and specific issues in the animal welfare debate. As a result of these hearings, the Committee decided to concentrate first on two areas and report on these to the Senate. It would then proceed to other areas and report on them progressively through the inquiry. The first two areas selected by the Committee were kangaroo welfare and the live sheep export trade. The kangaroo harvesting program had attracted criticism both in Australia and overseas. The European Parliament was considering an investigation into the harvesting program in order to decide whether a ban should be placed on the importation of kangaroo products into the European Economic Community, a move strongly recommended by Australian and international animal welfare organisations. Dr D. Eisma, who was then a member of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament, accompanied by Dr W. Jordan, a British veterinarian, visited Australia to investigate kangaroo harvesting. Dr Eisma and Dr Jordan met with the Committee on 4 May 1984 during a visit to Canberra. At that time the Committee expected to report on the kangaroo question by the end of 1984. Dr Eisma told the Committee that the Environment Committee would examine the issue late in the year and would give careful consideration to the Select Committee's report. The United States Government had lifted its ban on the importation of kangaroo products but had maintained red and grey kangaroos, the main species harvested, on the threatened species list. The second area accorded priority by the Committee was the live sheep export trade. At the time the Committee conducted the preliminary hearings, the trade was subject to criticism from animal welfare organisations, particularly the Australian Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Australian Federation of Animal Societies. There had also been serious industrial disputes between the industry and producers on the one hand and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union on the other. Late in 1984, the Committee agreed to add a third area for immediate examination. That was the keeping of cetacea-whales and dolphins-in capacity. A proposal to establish an oceanarium at Keysborough in Victoria, in which cetacea would be kept, provoked a keen debate in Victoria with repercussions in other States and overseas. An application for approval to catch cetacea in Commonwealth waters was rejected by the then Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, now the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, but the Minister added that he would review his decision in the light of the recommendations of the Committee on captive cetacea. The Victorian Government deferred a decision on an application to keep cetacea at the oceanarium so that the Committee's findings and recommendations could be taken into account in making a decision. The Committee's inquiry into captive cetacea will cover the subject in general terms and will not be simply an examination of the proposed Keysborough project. Except for a number of hearings on other matters, mainly on animal experimentation, the Committee has, from July 1984 onwards, concentrated on these three areas. The Federal election, preceded by a long campaign period and followed by Christmas, interrupted the conduct of the inquiry. The second half of the Committee's program of hearings and inspections had to be telescoped into a fairly short period early in 1985. So far in the inquiry the Committee has held public hearings on 27 days in Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide and Hobart. It has taken evidence from 184 people representing 75 organisations and individuals. The Committee has conducted several inspections during the course of the inquiry, including two live sheep carriers and feed lots of three States. In February 1985, the Committee visited mid-western Queensland to examine the kangaroo problem and to discuss with graziers the animal welfare problems of the grazing industries in that area. The Committee intends to conduct similar inspections in western New South Wales and in other States. Three of the four members of the Committee-Senator Jack Evans, Senator Hearn and Senator Scott-will retire from the Senate after 30 June 1985 and this will break the continuity of the inquiry. To minimise the disruption to the Committee's work, the Committee recommends that the Senate appoint replacements for the retiring senators before the end of this period of sittings, with those appointments taking effect from 1 July 1985. I depart from the statement for a moment to acknowledge the work of the three senators. There is an opportunity tomorrow for us to speak concerning the senators who are to retire, but I take this opportunity to say a few words about each senator. Senator Scott's term in the Senate has paralleled mine and I think we have all found him to be a person of considerable intellectual capacity, with wide experience of the rural industry. We all know his characteristic of quiet and incisive discussion and contribution to various debates. His work on the Committee was invaluable because from time to time we were concerned with many areas with which he was familiar. He will be a loss to the Committee, and of course to the Senate and, without doubt, to the National Party of Australia. Senator Jean Hearn approached her work on the Committee with an empathy for all living things. Her approach was of a great value to the Committee because it immediately began to consider matters from the animals' point of view. We gave the benefit to the animals. We were concerned with their welfare. We put economic considerations in a secondary position. Senator Hearn came easily to that position. I am reminded of her first speech in the Senate. If honourable senators read that speech they will realise her approach not only to animals but also to humans in general. The pity of this inquiry is that the longer one is involved in it, the more sympathetic one becomes to animals and the less sympathetic one becomes to humans. I value, and the Senate should value, Senator Hearn's contribution to the Committee. I refer also to Senator Jack Evans, who, over the past few days, seems to have been indicating that he intends to be here forever-if not physically, certainly in spirit. The tenacity that he has contributed to the debates over the last two or three weeks, knowing that tomorrow will be his last day in the Senate, is the sort of tenacity that he has applied to the work of this Committee. Looking at the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings, which is now about 1 1/2 feet thick, one finds that much of the questioning has been carried out by Senator Evans, with a determination to get the information that that Committee requires. I thank Senator Evans for his work on the Committee. The Committee had intended to present reports on each of the three areas presently being examined before the retirement of the three members. This would have enabled the Committee, with its new members, to examine other areas of animal welfare. The Committee recently reviewed its position. As a result, the reports on the live sheep export trade, cetacea in captivity and if possible, an interim report on kangaroo welfare will be presented by 30 June 1985. The final report on kangaroo welfare will not be presented to the Senate until the spring sitting period. There are a number of matters of concern relating to the kangaroo inquiry which need further investigation. This will be done after the other two reports have been finalised. For that reason, I conclude by asking for leave to give notice of a motion. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Select Committee on Animal Welfare has completed its progress reports, the Committee may send the Reports to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the Reports shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Reports is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Reports; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the Reports upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator GEORGES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.24) —I shall address myself briefly to the statement by the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, Senator Georges, because I am aware of the exigencies of time. As I am leaving this Committee I think it is appropriate that I should at least have an opportunity to make a few observations on the work of that Committee to this point. My first observation is about the Chairman. I believe that Senator Georges, like all of us from time to time, becomes slightly more emotional than reasonable when dealing with this sort of inquiry. I do not think that any Australian is likely to react in any other way. The important thing in the long run is not to allow a totally emotional view to prevent us from making a proper, responsible and well-ordered determination which would be a contribution not only to animal welfare but also to those basic Australian industries that are so closely involved with animal life. I place on record my appreciation of Senator Georges's efforts, his fairness and his genuine questioning in this extraordinarily wide inquiry which is perhaps too wide to be overcome in one effort. My colleagues and I on that Committee have been able as a team to advance so far and increase significantly our knowledge of the subject and our ultimate capacity to bring down a responsible determination. We should be aware of the realities of the Australian circumstances. Australia has a distinguished history of involvement with the animal world. I believe that Australia can be proud of the fact that it is one of the leaders in the world in the areas of animal husbandry, research, breeding, nutrition, and the control of animal diseases. It is a fact of which we ought to be clearly aware and we should make known. If we need finite evidence of the sort of determination and capacity of those involved, we have only to look at the vast number of highly qualified people and organisations that are involved directly and absolutely in animal welfare. I refer to organisations such as the State and Federal departments of agriculture or their equivalents, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Australian Bureau of Animal Health, the Australian Veterinary Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the National Farmers Federation, and the Livestock and Grain Producers Association and its associate bodies around Australia. We can add to this list those involved in pig and poultry research and so on. There is no doubt at all that there is a great consciousness of animal welfare and animal husbandry in this country. I believe that it is our duty to identify weaknesses. That is one of the things that this Committee has done significantly. It has been able to draw this issue to the attention of Australians across the board and has given them an awareness of the problems involved in the relationship between the animal world and mankind. That awareness has been increased by the existence of this Committee. I am sure that basically that is a plus. As I see it, the only problem that can arise really stems from the immensity of the task that faces the Committee. The task is so great that there is a real possibility that in most cases unavoidable delay may build up into long delay. That sort of thing across the wide spectrum of animal industries in Australia can only lead to indecision, doubt and concern. That is not good either for animals or for the people who tend to them and who are directly involved with them economically or otherwise. I believe that there is also a measure of irritation, at least it is a measure of irritation to me, that we are constantly concerned with the views of and pressure from small groups of people from many countries around the world who are more or less implying that in dealing with animals Australians are perhaps cruel and uncaring. I do not believe that that is true. It is extraordinarily irritating that from time to time these relatively small pressure groups from many parts of the world bring pressure on us in regard to looking after an area which I believe we have the tradition and capacity to look after now and in the future. We have to be aware of one or two matters. In the socio-economic world in which we live we cannot dictate demand; we can, and ought to seek to create it. I say that in reference to the common argument often put that so far as the Middle East is concerned we should forget about the live sheep trade and seek to replace it with trade in frozen or chilled mutton. Of course, that is a very reasonable and very responsible view, but we cannot do that sort of thing overnight. That is not the situation that exists today, and I think we have to recognise that. All I say is that one can seek, and ought to seek, to create a demand, but one certainly cannot dictate a demand. I have mentioned the problem arising from approaching such matters from an emotional standpoint. It is quite impossible not to be involved emotionally, at least in some measure, in this sort of inquiry. Indeed, the more one understands and knows the animal world the more likely is that to be the case. The consequences of being overcome by the emotional approach can be quite horrifying. Looking at it in a liberationist sense, we were to liberate the millions of domesticated animals around the world, that liberating would be condemning them not to a superb life of freedom but rather to a slow, and not so slow, death from a range of diseases and, indeed, from preying upon each other. We ought to look responsibly at what liberation literally means literally. So far the Committee has received a range of evidence over a period of 12 months. In the main that evidence has been sincere, solid and, quite clearly, the product of dedicated groups of people. The live sheep export trade is the only area where we have really reached a point upon which we are able to make some deliberations. We have had a very wide inquiry in that field. The live sheep export industry in this country has a long history, although a significant history dating back only over the last five to ten years. That is the period in which it has become a sizable industry, involving as it did last year the export of some 7.3 million sheep. I come back to my reference to the creation of demand. It is quite ridiculous to assume that, certainly in the short term, one could convert a demand for 7.3 million live sheep into a demand for an equivalent number of carcasses. Maybe that will happen over many years; one does not know. In the short term that really is not an intelligent option. Briefly, the statistics of the live sheep trade indicate that it represents some $200m to the Australian producer. It represents very much more than that when we look at the wide range of integrated operations and employment that are directly involved in that quite extensive industry. It is appropriate that I should refer very briefly to the meat workers and the job loss in that area over recent years. That loss is significant; no one could deny that. It is due to a number of things which I do not think are normally considered. I suppose it is due chiefly to the quite dramatic fall in export markets for beef, for instance, and the fall in the size of the Australian cattle herd. The herd has fallen from some 32 million to 22 million, or by one-third, in five to ten years. That is one obvious cause of the job loss in the meat industry. There is also a distinct loss in the market's taste for mutton, and that is relevant to the loss of jobs. There is extreme competition from pig, poultry fish and other food sources and that has caused a loss of meat workers' jobs. Finally and regrettably, there is the recurring industrial unrest and lack of productivity which in many cases puts our product at a disadvantage in an international trading situation. On the positive side, there is a significant area for employment. That area includes the stock feed industries, where there is significant employment in and around the feed lots and on the wharves. Of course, the collecting and delivering of seven million sheep annually has had a significant effect on employment in the transport industry. There is a demand for stockmen, both in feed lots and on board ship. The demand for veterinarians is one that, hopefully, will increase as more and more ships carry veterinarians. So there have been some significant pluses, even in the employment area. In fairness, one should observe the very significant research carried out in this industry into feeding and watering, particularly in relation to feed quality, into feedlots, the nature and type of troughing, shade and shelter, sprinkler systems and so on. Sometimes as a result of disasters-how often this happens in most fields of human behaviour-we have seen great research into the ventilation of ships and fire control on ships. These are matters of which the industry is aware and into which it has carried out significant research. There is no shadow of doubt that this research should continue and, in many areas, increase in intensity. I do not propose to speak at any great length. I think perhaps two minutes more would be more than generous. I will cover very briefly two other areas. Kangaroo management and welfare is enormously important. In that respect one or two things have become patently obvious in the time we have been conducting this inquiry. The first is that Australians have a great regard, indeed a love, for the kangaroo. There are vast numbers of people in Australia, many of them farmers and graziers, who have no objection to kangaroos on their land in reasonable proportions. It is equally clear that there are occasions when kangaroos by their very numbers become a great problem. They cause problems to facilities, to watering and fences, to pastures on which other animals seek to graze. There is a warning note there because droughts come and go in this country and kangaroo numbers increase and decrease dramatically in a 12-months period. We have to be aware of this. We have to monitor kangaroo numbers and we have to continue research into monitoring efforts. I have been impressed by the National Parks and Wildlife people and their dedication to a task which I am sure they will pursue. It will become clear that the numbers of kangaroos have to be controlled for the good of the kangaroo as well as for Australian society. As the numbers have to be controlled there seems to be a logical reason for the proper control methods and for kangaroos to be controlled by an integrated system, an integrated industry, and by professional shooters who do the job properly, quickly and absolutely. Finally, I will say a few words on cetacea. In my view we have not had a full enough look at this problem. On the surface cetacea in captivity sounds a terrible thing. Some things are clear. It should be mandatory that tanks be of a significant size and that facilities be the best. I have been impressed with the way cetacea in captivity appear to be in a relaxed state and by the care-particularly the veterinary care-that is given to them. In any case I believe there are very few cetacea in captivity. If one takes that to its logical conclusion one must ask: Are we suggesting that we should have no zoos, no animals at all in captivity? That is the type of question with which we must confront ourselves. We must ask questions about the value of animals in captivity from the point of view of research, education and the enjoyment of children and adults in our society. I do not believe that a total ban, even on cetacea in captivity, is justified. However, it is certainly justified that we should look intelligently and responsibly at the whole of that area. Senator HEARN(Tasmania)(5.42) —I would like to address a few remarks to this statement and in doing so I commend the Australian Democrats for moving a motion for the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. The Committee has a wide-ranging reference and I very much regret that I will not be continuing with the Committee's work. The reference to the Committee is animal welfare in Australia. The concern of the community and animal welfare groups about the treatment, use and well-being of animals in Australia is something which cannot be ignored. If we look at history we see that it was not so very long ago that similar groups of people and individuals with human sensitivity expressed their deep concern about the use of child labour and the slave trade. Because of their concern those abhorrent practices were abolished. There are still areas in the world where human labour is exploited and has almost become slave labour, such as in the Philippines. But even looking at the three areas of live sheep trade, cetacea in captivity and the kangaroo problem, one is very conscious of the different interests which emerge. These are the welfare of animals, which is our primary concern, the economic interests of people involved in the activity and the social aspects of this question. When considering if animals should suffer for economic gain we must be very mindful of the social effects, the effects on the community of accepting the suffering of animals and what can flow from that. No doubt the use of child labour was profitable to those who exploited it, as was the slave trade, but that did not justify it. The dangers of a trend to a mechanical and dehumanised society are becoming very apparent to many thinking people and we must be alert to the things that contribute to that. I think we have to question the ethics of using animals as machines and of denying them the right to a natural environment. Perhaps it is the fact that we now live with the nuclear threat and the acceptance of its inevitable result by some people that the value and unique quality of life is trivialised and negated. We must note with great concern the incidence in this country of child abuse, violence to the human person and the reduction of human rights and human values in this world. Herbert Spencer said: The behaviour of men to the lower animals-and their behaviour to each other-bear constant relationship . . . Gandhi said: The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. The progress report on the live sheep trade, which will be presented in June, highlights a number of concerns, such as the future uncertainty of the trade due to the very volatile political climate in the Middle East and the lack of consistent standards for the welfare of sheep on board ships-there are some very old ships which do not measure up to the standards which one would expect. The conditions of feed lots and whether proper consideration is being given to the transition from farm feed to pellets need firm guidelines. Another area which the Committee must examine includes animal experimentation. If animals are unlike humans why need we use them? If they are like humans is it not immoral to subject them to pain, fear and torture? Is that not as immoral as it would be if we were to use that treatment on human subjects? In addressing the validity of animal experimentation we must face the moral and ethical questions as well as the welfare and economic ones. Lord Platt, president of the Royal College of Physicians from 1957-1962, said: No amount of testing can make a drug absolutely safe, if only because humans react differently from animals. John Vyvyan in The Dark Face of Science 1971, said: Knowledge without pity or compassion may well be the greatest danger that besets the world. Vivisection is a social evil that advances human knowledge at the expense of human character. It is my hope that activities which cause distress, fear and suffering to animals, activities which can desensitise our society, will be abolished through this Committee's work. I am sure that the incoming members of this Committee will bring the sensitivity and wisdom that will be necessary to the tasks which they will have to do in the interests of the well-being of animals in this country. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.49) —The Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare was formed because of a demand by many concerned Australians that the standards which were being used in the handling of animals in this country were unacceptable. I do not think that the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Don Chipp, was representing only the Australian Democrats in initiating this Committee and proposing that it was time this Parliament recognised its responsibilities and acted to justify the demands, the concern and the very serious feelings of a lot of people about the way we are treating animals in this country. For the first time, I suspect, the welfare of animals was put on the political agenda in this country in the pure sense that we were looking primarily at the welfare of animals. I have been delighted at the way the members of the Committee have accepted the responsibility, particularly the way they have given that priority to the welfare of the animals under consideration, even above economic considerations and, sometimes, even above human benefits such as the benefits of commercial exploitation that advantage some humans, or the benefits some humans get from entertainment provided by or through the use of animals. I was very proud on behalf of the Australian Democrats to be appointed to this Committee, partly because it fits neatly as a committee into some basic philosophies of the Democrats-philosophies which would have us protect the weak and the vulnerable-known in some quarters as the politics of compassion. Those philosophies insist that we preserve our ecology not just for ourselves, but for all people who come after us. These basic philosophies flow into the need which was accepted by this Committee to accept the responsibility of humans for the welfare of all life on the planet in a realisation that we are part of that life, and in fact dependent on it for our very survival. We also accepted as a base for our approach that we should allow neither avidity for material gain, nor sporting instincts to override our concern and our compassion for animals. We humans share with other higher animals consciousness and sensitivity to pain. I do not believe that a difference in species justifies a limitation to our respect and concern for animals and for their suffering. We have seen during this progress of the Committee's investigations some dramatic changes to the attitudes of Australians towards animal experimentation. I am the first to commend the scientists who are involved in animal experimentation, whether for scientific purposes or purposes of experimentation to advance the cause of medicine, they have realised that they themselves are under the microscope, and that their ethics committees will have to maintain standards, and in some cases to set those standards for the first time. The ethics committees have increased in number in the various universities and medical and scientific laboratories around Australia. But, far more importantly, they have increased in quality in the sense that they are now admitting community representation on to those committees-people whose only concern is the welfare of the animal, and not specifically the result of the experiment or the justification for it in scientific or medical terms. People are now being admitted to those communities because they have a genuine concern for the welfare of the animals, which may be part of the research program. With that person on the Committee, the whole ethos, the whole approach to animal experimentation, changes-not because somebody is browbeating them, or demanding that a different approach be taken, but simply because a new item appears on the agenda. I refer to the item: How will this effect the animal on which we are conducting experiments? That will be a constant; it will exist whether the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare is still sitting, or way beyond the existence of the Committee. People in this Parliament are expressing concern and, as long as such people are on ethics committees, we can be sure that the concern for the animal will be constantly part of that vigil. During the progress of our inquiries, research and travels, which have been many and varied, we have seen the slaughter of kangaroos and have had to consider whether it is justified. We have had to consider whether it is indeed aimed at preserving the species, which some people claim. In some instances I have no doubt that that is part of the reason for culling or the humane killing of kangaroos. We must take into account the impact of great numbers of kangaroos on farms, particularly in droughts. What has come through to me as we have been conducting this research in the fact that on both sides of the debate there is a lot more noise than there is reason. On one side are extremists who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare but who express that concern in extreme language and exaggerated terms. This makes it difficult for the average Australian to accept the validity of their case. On the other side of the argument, we have representatives of the rural communities who plead that thousands and thousands of farms are at risk because of the population of kangaroos and the explosion of that population. I believe that we have already established that there are comparatively few farms at risk, and they need to be considered in deciding what should happen to the kangaroo population. But we need to recognise that the comparatively few farms that occasionally are at risk do not give us the justification for creating and exploiting kangaroos for commercial purposes-for creating a kangaroo-killing industry. We need to look closely at this, because we discovered that the interests of the farmers frequently conflict with the interests of the kangaroo industry. That industry wants to maintain the kangaroo in vast numbers. It becomes uneconomic for members of that industry to have to travel many kilometres around the country to find their quota of kangaroos, so the industry wants an explosion in kangaroo numbers. That is the only way that the industry can remain viable. Conversely, the farmers want the kangaroo population reduced; they want it kept at a manageable level. At some time, hopefully in the next few weeks, the resolution of that conflict will be part of the report of this Committee. There have been contrasting standards in the care of the cetacea-the dolphins and whales-in captivity in this country. No minimum standards are set nationwide, and in my opinion we witnessed some appalling conditions. Here I am probably departing from the point of view expressed by Senator Scott, which did not happen very often. There were not many differing points of view. When we had all the evidence before us, we managed to reach consensus most of the time. But on this occasion having seen the great contrast in standards, I must say that there is no doubt in my mind that keeping in a fish tank a few dolphins which are let out from time to time to entertain human beings, is not an acceptable standard-and perhaps it is not even acceptable to have dolphins and whales in captivity even in larger ocean areas. But that is another question that has yet to be addressed to determine the final recommendation. I touch briefly on the subject of live sheep export. This is a very real problem for the people of this country once they bear in mind the welfare of those sheep. If we are prepared to say that sheep are there to be exploited and they are there simply to be produced and slaughtered and nothing that happens between those two points matters, I guess that we will not be terribly worried about the conditions under which these sheep are taken to feed lots, fed a new diet-to which most of them adapt, but to which some of them do not-and then put on to a ship where only that new diet is available to them and, if they do not adapt on board ship, that is their bad luck; they die. We know that a proportion of them die as a result. We cannot ignore that. I do not believe that we, as human beings, can say that that does not matter. I do not believe that it is fair for us to expect Australians to accept the conditions under which these sheep are exported, transported and fed, because that demeans all of us. We now have realised the need for research-I know that the strongest of recommendations will be coming through in our report-into all facets of the welfare of sheep in this industry. At the very least, we would want to see more veterinarians on those ships. The value of this Senate Committee and the work that it has done, I believe, has illustrated the value of all Senate committees. We have on this Committee four people with divergent philosophical bases who have joined in an endeavour to find an agreed solution to the problems of thousands, if not millions, of Australian people and millions more Australian animals. I am very proud to have served on this Committee. I wish its continuing members the same success and the same pleasure of working in the harmony that this first Committee experienced. I pay a special tribute to our Chairman, Senator Georges-a very patient and tolerant human being. If ever people want to see an illustration of that patience and tolerance, I invite them to attend one of the Animal Welfare Committee hearings. My Senate colleagues, Senator Hearn and Senator Scott, have been a joy to work with. I thank them for the opportunity to work with them and to see a Senate committee working towards consensus in the way that they have made possible. I pay a special tribute to the staff of the Animal Welfare Committee who have displayed a degree of professionalism of which any private or government enterprise would be justifiably proud. I compliment them and I know that my colleagues will agree with me. The very existence of this Animal Welfare Committee ensures that there is a forum in which to express and consider the maturing views of Australians on the welfare of the animal kingdom which is in our trust. This Committee, in a sense, gets a point of view from the animals' perspective into this Parliament. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.05) —I wish to speak to the report which has just been brought down by Senator Georges. I address my remarks to the kangaroo industry, to which Senator Georges and other honourable senators have referred. I was fortunate enough to be able to take Senator Georges and Senator Scott on an inspection tour around the western areas of Queensland. Unfortunately, Senator Hearn and Senator Jack Evans were unable to find the time, or they had other commitments and were unable to go. Senator Georges and Senator Scott, who has been involved in the rural industry for a number of years-met with graziers, farmers and groups of kangaroo shooters and their families. I wish to put on the record of the Senate how much the people of rural Australia, particularly rural Queensland, appreciated Senator Georges and Senator Scott finding the time to go out and investigate their problems and listen to their concerns about animal welfare, not only on kangaroos but also on the husbandry methods used by the grazing industry. I want to make some observations that I think should be on the Senate record. There are more kangaroos in Australia now than there ever were. In Queensland, the lowest estimate-that made by the conservationists-is six million kangaroos. The Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service put the kangaroo population at 30 million and the Federal National Parks and Wildlife Service put it at 17 million. I always use the theory that there are more kangaroos than people. People certainly are not an endangered species; nor are the kangaroos. Senator Scott and Senator Georges were told continually in my presence that no one wanted to see the kangaroos shot out or the kangaroo industry in any way discriminated against. The graziers expressed their concerns to Senator Georges and Senator Scott and stated that, whilst they appreciated kangaroos and wanted them on their properties, they felt that they had to be in such proportions that they would not hurt them financially and they were not prepared, or felt that they should not be asked, to carry the kangaroo population of Australia. Senator Georges spoke to the grazing industry and to the kangaroo shooters and he also went out on a kangaroo shoot. I wanted to take him out because I wanted to show him the professional shooter at work with the correct gear and the correct rifles. I wanted to show him how accurately the industry worked and how, within a fraction of a second, a kangaroo was shot in the head and felt minimal pain. I asked him to note the difference between the kangaroo industry and an abattoir. The farming industry has provided food by way of crops, such as wheat and sorghum, and it has provided water in the form of dams and bore drains, and as a result the kangaroo population in Australia has exploded. There has to be some form of culling and some form of harvesting. Certainly, no one in this Senate and no one in Queensland would believe that the kangaroo industry should be dictating terms to the parks and wildlife authorities, both Federal and State. The industry is there to be used as a tool to keep the numbers of kangaroos at a manageable level. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, has enunciated that policy and I believe that no one in Australia would disagree with it. I put this proposition to the Senate: If there is no culling or harvesting industry there will be a way in which the graziers and the farmers will reduce the kangaroo population. They cannot be expected to sit out there and have themelves eaten off their properties. They will find a way. What I am saying to the Senate is that the way in which the industry works now is in the best interests of the farmers and the kangaroos because we have professional people who are shooting accurately, who are shooting to put the kangaroo down right on the spot so that they do not have to chase a wounded kangaroo around the bush. They will hit accurately and they will drop the kangaroo where they can find it. If those people are prevented from doing that, or if the industry is closed to them, we will get sporting shooters who are not as professional and we will get-- Senator Georges —The problem is that now you get both. Senator BOSWELL —Certainly, but there would be more of these types of people who cannot shoot accurately and who would not be as professional. There would be also other actions that the graziers could take. I say to the people who will be coming on to this Committee that, although no one likes to see anything killed-it is an emotional thing to see something shot, particularly for people who have not lived in rural areas-it is very necessary to have a kangaroo industry so that the kangaroo population can be culled in a professional manner. Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85 Customs Administration Bill 1985 Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 Debate resumed. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(6.02) —Before the luncheon adjournment I was paying tribute to the work of Mr Duffy in this area. I include in that tribute the advisers to Mr Duffy and those from his Department who helped to make this legislation what it is. Senator Peter Rae —Particularly his comments about Australia Post at Redfern. Senator COONEY —The fact of the matter is that this is a very difficult area in which to legislate. One may well have imagined that there would be problems with it, but the general thrust of the legislation has found acceptance across all the parties in the Senate and it will go through the Senate by general agreement. In those circumstances, I will not spend long going through the legislation. There is one aspect of it which I wish to talk about, and that is the varying proposals that have been put forward as to how the remote areas of Australia should be serviced. There are about 650,000 people who now will be able to get receptions as good as those of their city cousins. Two proposals have been put forward as to how those areas should be serviced, and that area of the Bill has received most publicity. The first proposal which was put forward by the Minister for Communications was that the mechanism by which the signals be put out to those areas will be through four footprints, as they are called; that is, signals exclusive to those four areas will be put down. That is in contrast to the network scheme where signals from Melbourne and Sydney are spread throughout Australia. The first proposal clearly is the better one, if one thinks about it, because of certain factors to which I will refer. The first factor is that the regional proposal, which divides Australia into four areas and puts down signals exclusive to those area, accommodates the difference in the time zones across Australia, so that people in Western Australia receive signals at appropriate times, rather than a broadcast that is sent out from here at a particular time and is received in Western Australia at a most inappropriate time of the day. The second factor in favour of the proposal put forward by the Minister is that the reception equipment required by the receiver will be cheaper, and that is a big factor to take into account. The next thing is that the program under the system of regional television and radio- Senator Peter Baume —That may cease to matter over time as prices come down. Senator COONEY —I accept what Senator Baume says about that. The point I find most attractive is that programs can be tailored to meet local needs and demands. In other words, instead of a common program being beamed out from Sydney or Melbourne to everyone, people with different interests and needs can have those interests and needs catered for. I conclude on this thought: Australia, as has been said again and again, is a multicultural society. We have all come to accept that Australia's character and quality has been and will be largely influenced by the diversity of interests, backgrounds and aspirations. That is perhaps most commonly thought of in terms of ethnic diversity. Much work has been done in Australia to cater for that ethnic diversity; but ethnic diversity is only one form of diversity-there is diversity of locality, lifestyle and interest. The regional system of beaming out signals will cater for the needs of people in remote areas, will cater for that diversity and will build up what all of us hope will be a maintenance of the Australian culture and its improvement in the future. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.07) — We are dealing with a package of broadcasting Bills which mark the start of a major change in the industry; the transition from licensing of transmitter based systems to licensing of a service for a defined geographical area. This is a significant change which is both welcome and somewhat overdue. The effect of the Bills is in keeping with the ideal of removing pointless regulations; we see no reason for red tape. This is done by giving licensees responsibility for a properly defined geographical area, which could eliminate problems of pockets of poor reception and poor signal interference within a licensing area. Licensees will be able to make the appropriate additions or adjustments to the technology they are using for transmitting their signals, to ensure satisfactory reception for the whole of their potential audience, or even to use alternative technology such as cable or other technology that may become available. These changes will not require prior approval from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and there will be no need for a formal inquiry, which wastes valuable time of both Tribunal and licensees. Problems will be dealt with quickly, without squandering resources which could be used more productively in other areas, which I will mention later. We will not have to rewrite the laws every time a major change becomes possible. That will mean that we can actually use new technologies, like fibre optics and local transmission facilities and, maybe, even integrate some of our broadcasting with areas such as computer terminal networks. Major improvements will be made in the way in which inquiries can be conducted by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. However, we believe there is still room for improvement. The streamlined hearing procedures will mean that those involved will have a better chance to make their point. The uniform inquiry procedures will not prevent matters going to the courts or to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but they will make it more likely that, perhaps, after one or two tries people will not try to delay proceedings on technicalities alone. Over a period it will be possible to develop regulations which will govern how matters come before the Tribunal. These regulations will come before Parliament and will be examined for their fairness. It will be possible to hold a general inquiry into the adequacy and comprehensiveness of a broadcasting service provided to a collection of communities served by more than one licensee-something that is not possible currently under the existing Act. That will enable general matters to be raised by the public and various interest groups and allow these matters relating to particular licensees to be dealt with separately at a separate part of the hearing. The idea of area inquiries is to be commended. There will be no need for repetition of the general points when specific promises of performance are under examination. There will no longer be fiery arguments over who is or who is not entitled to present evidence or to raise particular matters or lines of questioning. Instead of people having to show that they have a legitimate interest in the proceedings, it will be sufficient for them to have lodged a document that the Tribunal considers relevant to the inquiry. The Tribunal will be able to take the public interest into consideration when deciding whether other people should have an opportunity to enter the proceedings. This will be a major improvement. The Tribunal will also be able to determine the extent to which various groups and individuals can participate in any hearing. The Tribunal does not have the resources to arrange or provide legal representation for parties to any hearing. However, it will have the responsibility to see that all people appearing have a reasonable opportunity to present their case and that the absence of legal representation will not hamper the case. This has certainly been a problem and a bone of contention among public interest and community groups which have tried to get themselves involved in licence hearings. I wish the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal luck in its attempts to restore an ordered informality to the hearings that it conducts in the future under this legislation. I share the concern of many people that lawyers have taken over these proceedings and that points of law overcome the legitimate points of view which are put by community groups which do not have the financial resources to brief counsel. I understand that when significant decisions are being made about desirable community resources, large and vested interests will often feel that it is worth delaying things while they apply pressure. Escalating legal costs can be counted on eventually to force the withdrawal of those with only meagre resources. The legislation brought forward would have clearly made absolutely pointless some of the cases that have gone to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the courts in the course of the current hearings into applications for a third commercial television licence in Perth. Other matters may have been tried just to test the courts' interpretation. To illustrate this, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document prepared by the legislative section of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on 30 April. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PERTH INQUIRY Schedule of Current Litigation 1. TVW Enterprises Ltd v Duffy: No. WAG 11 of 1985. Subject: Application under AD(JR) Act re validity of Minister's notice inviting applications for the licence. Present position: Toohey J. has agreed that the basic legal issues should be argued at a preliminary hearing, and a set of questions for determination has been agreed upon. No date for the hearing has been set. 2. TVW Enterprises Ltd v ABT (No. 1): Nos. WAG 12 of 1985 and WAG 18 of 1985. Subject: Application under AD(JR) Act re validity of application by Perth Television Ltd. Present Position: Judgment of Toohey J. given in favour of the Tribunal on 8 February. Appeal lodged on 11 February. Hearing of the appeal has been set down for 20 May 1985. 3. TVW Enterprises Ltd v ABT (No. 2): No. WAG 33 of 1985. Subject: Application under general law for declarations and injunctions on grounds that inquiry was commenced without jurisdiction because names and addresses of all persons who lodged applications were not made available in accordance with s.82(2). Present Position: Application lodged 4 April 1985. Directions hearing on 18 April 1985, and main hearing set down for week commencing 13 May 1985. 4. TVW Enterprises Ltd v ABT (No. 3): No. WAG 34 of 1985. Subject: Application under AD(JR) Act re decision to allow extension of time for Perth Television Ltd to lodge application for licence. Present Position: Application lodged 4 April 1985. Directions hearing on 18 April 1985, and main hearing set down for week commencing 13 May 1985. 5. TVW Enterprises Ltd v ABT (No. 4): No. WAG 35 of 1985. Subject: Application under general law for declarations and injunctions re decision of 7 March 1985 restricting rights of TVW to cross-examine witnesses, and decision of 15 March 1985 refusing to allow TVW to cross-examine Ian Hill. Present Position: Application lodged 4 April 1985. Directions hearing on 18 April 1985, and main hearing set down for week commencing 13 May 1985. 6. TVW Enterprises Ltd v ABT (No. 5): No. WAG 36 of 1985. Subject: Application under AD (JR) Act re decision of 14 March 1985 requiring TVW to produce all written records of program supply contracts and arrangements with other licensees and networks. Present Position: Application lodged 4 April 1985. Directions hearing on 18 April 1985, and main hearing set down for week commencing 13 May 1985. 7. TVW Enterprises Ltd v ABT (No. 6): No. WAG 37 of 1985. Subject: Application under AD (JR) Act re decision of 7 March 1985 that section 10.3 of TVW's submission raised no specific issues or did not constitute basis for cross-examination of witnesses, decision of 7 March 1985 that right of TVW to cross-examine witnesses be limited to relevant issues raised in submission unless leave is given, and decision of 11 March 1985 refusing to allow TVW to cross-examine Ian Hill. Present Position: Application lodged 4 April 1985. Direrctions hearing on 18 April 1985, and main hearing set down for week commencing 13 May 1985. 8. Swan Television and Radio Broadcasting Ltd v ABT: No. WAG 38 of 1985. Subject: Application under AD (JR) Act re decision of 14 March 1985 requiring STW to produce a range of financial information, advertising logs etc. specified in Schedule 1 to the decision. Present Position: Application lodged 11 April 1985. Directions hearing on 19 April 1985, and main hearing set down for week commencing 13 May 1985. 9. TVW Enterprises Ltd v ABT (No. 7): No. WAG 39 of 1985. Subject: Applications under AD (JR) Act re decision of 14 March 1985 requiring TVW (and 6IX) to produce a range of financial information, advertising logs etc. Present Position: Application lodged 11 April 1985. Directions hearing on 18 April 1985, and main hearing set down for week commencing 13 May 1985. 10. Swan Television and Radio Broadcasters Ltd v ABT (No. 2): No. WAG 41 of 1985. Subject: Application under AD (JR) Act re decisions of 3 April 1985 relating to relevance of VHF/UHF frequency options, commercial viability of proposed station, and cross-examination on financial, technical and management capabilities. Present Position: Application lodged 15 April 1985. Directions hearing on 19 April 1985, and main hearing set down for week commencing 13 May 1985. 11. TVW Enterprises Ltd v ABT (No. 8): No. WAG 42 of 1985. Subject: Application under AD (JR) Act re decisions of 3 April 1985 relating to relevance of VHF/UHF frequency options, commercial viability of proposed station, cross-examination on financial, technical and management capabilities, and decision of 4 April 1985 refusing to allow Medlin and O'Donohue to be called as witnesses. Present Position: Application lodged 15 April 1985. Directions hearing on 18 April 1985, and main hearing set down for week commencing 13 May 1985. 12. TVW Enterprises Ltd v ABT (No. 9): No. WAG 43 of 1985. Subject: Application under general law for declarations and injunctions re decisions of 3 April 1985 relating to relevance of VHF/UHF frequency options, commercial viability of proposed station, cross-examination on financial, technical and management capabilities, and decision of 4 April 1985 refusing to Allow Medlin and O'Donohue to be called as witnesses. Present Position: Application lodged 15 April 1985. Directions hearing on 18 April 1985, and main hearing set down for week commencing 13 May 1985. Legislation Section 30 April 1985 Senator VIGOR —The document summarises the progress in 12 cases that had arisen from the Perth hearings at the stage when the document was prepared. I urge the Government and interested senators to seek a yet more clear expression of the Tribunal's powers in the conduct of hearings so that proceedings do not get bogged down in obscure technicalities but get straight to the substantive issues. I commend the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for his approach to broadcasting to remote communities. It is significant that his major opposition has come from short-sighted elements in his own Party. I am glad that the Minister stood firm when some of his colleagues wanted to dismantle another plank in the Australian Labor Party platform. I believe that most Australians welcome the way in which the Minister handled the issue when, if one is to believe the Press reports, the pressure was really on. In its satellite program services report released last year the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal mentioned the Department of Communications estimate of 650,000 Australians who do not receive an adequate commercial television signal. That Department, State governments and community groups in isolated areas all favoured a regional approach to providing services. The receiving dishes that pick up signals from satellites can be much smaller and much less expensive when just a regional spot beam is involved rather than the more powerful national beams. Properly organised, the four-spot-beam model for remote area broadcasting opens up a major television market for independent film producers. That is an absolute must as we must try to diversify the sources of program production and distribution in Australia and aim to open up the overseas acquisitions area to more participants. The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill has a reference to the public broadcasting sector. Sponsorship announcements on public stations are now described in service-based language. I wish to draw to the attention of the Senate the increasing interest communities are showing in public broadcasting right around Australia. I am sure that Mr President takes particular pride in what has happened since he found back in 1974 that the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1905 could be used to issue experimental licences. There are now 60 public broadcasters operating in this country. The latest additions have been community and special purpose licensees in Launceston. Another 150 groups are working towards a goal of obtaining a licence. Of them some 50 have already displayed substantial technical competence. Nearly all these stations are run on the proverbial shoestring. Altogether the 60 stations need about $7m a year to run, which was roughly the price of the two Special Broadcasting Service stations 2EA and 3EA as they were costed together before the mini-Budget. Of course, the only way that this can be achieved is through real community support and the enthusiasm of volunteers. Some 20,000 Australians are directly involved in public broadcasting in one way or another. The service-based licensing arrangement will suit them. Public broadcasting has in recent years become the training ground for people who go on to carve out careers in the national or commercial sectors. That has to be recognised and duly acknowledged. The Labor Party platform devotes a section to public broadcasting in its chapter on communications. It states that public broadcasting must be adequately funded to realise its full potential, and commits a Labor government to develop funding methods which are stable, diverse and contribute to an adequate income for each station. I believe that this objective can be met by earmarking 5 per cent of the moneys collected as commercial radio and television licence fees for disbursement to the public broadcasting sector. I wish this had been included in the Bill. At the moment the Public Broadcasting Foundation is carrying out a major needs study in its own area. Information has been collected about resources, methods and extent of fund raising and steps taken to encourage Australian talent and the ways in which participation by a wider community can be fostered. I look forward to the circulation of the report in the near future. I understand that the upgrading or replacement of outdated equipment prone to breaking down weighs heavily on various groups which have only limited funds. The falling Australian dollar will certainly not make it easier for anyone to import the equipment. We are on the brink of major broadcasting changes and the Government should look closely at those sectors providing training and recreation for the young and unemployed, for senior citizens, for music buffs and for people in all areas of education. This is what the public broadcasting sector is doing. We should remove sales tax on specific broadcasting materials. That would be a very concrete way in which this Government could salute and encourage those who put time and energy into public broadcasting projects. Employment opportunities are there for people who pick up the necessary studio and production skills while still enjoying their community involvement. It is pleasing that public broadcasting is being considered the significant component of our broadcasting industry. Last year the Public Broadcasting Foundation was given the responsibility for distributing $150,000 to Aboriginal broadcasters on public radio stations. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator VIGOR —Before the suspension we were discussing the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill and I was applauding the inclusion of public broadcasting in the provisions of the Bill. I stated that the Public Broadcasting Foundation, which was founded two years ago, was responsible for distributing $150,000 to Aboriginal broadcasters on public broadcasting stations. There are 20 such stations at the moment. Just a month ago the British Broadcasting Corporation news showed great interest in the opening of 8KIN, which broadcasts in English and three Aboriginal languages. The Aboriginal community at Yuendumu created a first in public television. Public television is an idea whose time has come. It is an essential component in a diversified media mix for which most Australians are looking. I hope that we will have it included as a proposition in future amendments to the Act. As I understand it, the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill has been two and a half years and nine drafts in the making. No wonder it is a somewhat voluminous document. Nevertheless, it has some significant omissions that I want to canvass. On 14 February the Minister for Communications issued a Press release to assure the public that the television standards power of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal would be clarified as soon as possible and that draft amendments in this area would be included in the next set of amendments. However, as I said when I canvassed this as a matter of public interest today, this has not been the case. The Minister, in his reply to a question without notice from the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) last Wednesday, said that because of possible effects-of such legislation and fears expressed by various sections of the broadcasting industry, it was decided to exclude the provisions from the Bill and to allow consultation with the industry. I hope that the Minister can let us know what these objectionable powers are. My understanding is that they largely involved substituting the stronger term 'conditions' for the word 'standards' wherever the latter appeared in the current Act. That does not strike me as an earth shattering change. I ask the responsible Minister to tell the Senate just what further consultations were in mind when the decision was taken, and whether last Tuesday's High Court of Australia decision that the power to impose standards did not extend to deciding in advance whether particular programs met those standards was a power the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal had. In answering a question upon notice last Monday, Senator Gareth Evans was most instructive. He pointed out that the Film Censorship Board would continue to do what it had been doing since 1956 while the Government sorted out the implications of the High Court decision. That is very interesting because it has been well understood for many years that the wording of the Broadcasting and Television Act was rather nebulous and probably incapable of surviving a court challenge in this area. For many years there seemed to have been an unspoken understanding that, so long as none of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's powers were exercised, no one would challenge them. During the last year, however, there have been no fewer than 10 major court cases revolving around the powers of the Tribunal. I seek leave, Mr Acting Deputy President, to have incorporated in Hansard an annotated list of those cases prepared by the Tribunal's Legislation Section on 3 May. I have consulted both sides of the House about this list. Leave granted. The list read as follows- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL CURRENT CASES 1. Actors Equity Association of Australia v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: Administrative Appeals Tribunal; review of ABT decision to refuse access under FOI Act to financial information supplied by commercial television stations. Decision on secrecy aspects on 7.5.84 (Todd DP, Prowse and Renouf) and reported at (1984) 1 AAR 222 (AAT). Hearing on business affairs and confidentiality exemptions (by Todd DP, Grant and Renouf) completed 23.11.84. Decision affirming ABT's decision that documents were exempt under s.43 given on 29.3.85. 2. Herald-Sun TV Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 1): Federal Court; challenge under AD (JR) Act to classification provisions in Children's Television Standards (CTS). Decision by Wilcox J upholding validity of CTS on 19.7.84, reported at (1984) 55 ALR 53. 3. Herald-Sun TV Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 2): Full Federal Court (McGregor and Davies JJ; Morling J dissenting); appeal from decision of Wilcox J dismissed with costs on 14.12.84. Special leave to appeal to High Court granted on 15.2.85. Hearing set down for 21.5.85. 4. Benson &Hedges Company Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 1): Federal Court; challenge under AD (JR) Act to POS 07 and decisions relating to incidental cigarette advertising. Decision by Fox J upheld ABT decisions (except on one point) on 10.10.84. 5. Benson &Hedges Company Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 2): Full Federal Court (Bowen C. J., Toohey and Wilcox JJ.); appeal from decision of Fox J dismissed with costs in joint judgment given on 20.3.85. 6. Saatchi &Saatchi Compton (Vic.) Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 1): Federal Court; challenge under AD (JR) Act to standards requiring advertisements to be produced in Australia. Decision by Beaumont J declaring standards void on 23.11.84. 7. Saatchi &Saatchi Compton (Vic.) Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No. 2): Full Federal Court (Bowen CJ, Fox and Wilcox JJ); appeal by ABT from decision of Beaumont J heard on 18.2.85. Decision awaited. 8. Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: Federal Court; challenge under AD (JR) Act to decision of ABT re foreign content of Visionhire commercial. Stood over pending decision in Saatchi. 9. Young &Rubicam Coudrey Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: Federal Court; application for injunction to prevent ABT taking action against licensees showing Volvo commercial with more than 20% foreign content. Application dismissed by Morling J on 8.2.85. No order made as to costs. 10. Canberra Stereo Public Radio Inc. v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: Federal Court; challenge under AD (JR) Act to ABT decision to grant Category S public broadcasting station licence in Canberra to racing and sporting applicant. Hearing before Sheppard J set down for 9.5.85. Legislation Section Australian Broadcasting Tribunal 3 May 1985 Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. What we are finding is that challenges are being made to every conceivable corner of the Broadcasting Tribunal's power. It starts to look like a systematic attempt to undermine the Tribunal itself or to seek to bring it into public disrepute through incessant litigation. Of course, court action is the right of every corporation or citizen. What we must ask ourselves is: What is the long term aim of such activity? Unless we act immediately, the Broadcasting Tribunal will not be able to exercise effectively the role that everyone understood it to have. Just when we were developing a children's television industry of world repute, uncertainty might drive the top creative talent overseas to greener financial pastures. Perhaps they will never return. The Government seems to be able to put together Bills very quickly when it comes to matters such as denying local government 2 per cent of personal income tax sharing monies or depriving veterans of their dues. It should be prepared to give interim relief for Australian advertising and film production industries and for the protection of Australian children with the same enthusiasm. In dealing with the questions of television standards, one of the difficulties is that various sections have been tacked on to the principal Act from time to time, without sufficient attention being given to making them all compatible. This is one of the reasons why the Broadcasting and Television Act often seems so inaccessible. For instance, the Government has previously come up with a good wording for controlling concentration of media ownership, and yet we find the most unwieldy, unworkable wording preserved in the revamped sub-section 92FAA (2) (C) (iii). I turn to the licence fee Acts. A court case last year meant that for the purposes of assessing the gross earnings of a licensee, subsidiary and related companies' earnings cannot be examined to see whether they should rightly be included as part of the assessment. There has not been any attempt at clarification of either the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act or the Television Stations Licence Fees Act despite these amending Bills being before us to correct this situation. So we still have the possibility of large companies breaking up in order to avoid licence duties. I hope that this will be fixed fairly soon. Despite a huge waiting list of applicants for supplementary licences, there is nothing in this legislation to expedite individual hearings. In those admittedly few cases where the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal determines that an independent licence is viable, the matter has to go back to the Minister for further processing, unless the Minister at the outset says to the Tribunal that it should proceed immediately with a licence hearing in the event that an independent licence is viable. I would like the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) representing the Minister for Communications to assure us that in practice the second hearing will follow straight on from the first if the Tribunal determines that an independent licence is viable. The concept of local origination set out in the new section 99A is welcome. Senator Peter Rae —Would the honourable senator like to seek leave to incorporate his speech in Hansard? He is reading it. Senator VIGOR —Yes, to expedite matters I would be pleased to do that. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my speech in Hansard, Mr Acting Deputy President. Leave granted. The remainder of the speech read as follows- Quite a deal of work will have to go into sorting out some of the thorny issues it raises, so presumably the section will take effect at a time well after 1 January when most of the Bill will come into force. I ask the Minister to undertake that at the same time as local origination and local content is thrashed out, thought will also be given to embodying channel sharing provisions as an option in the legislation. Among the transitional provisions is one which theoretically allows the service area of a licensee to be enlarged to a whole state or the whole nation, by administrative action alone, during the process of moving from transmitter based licences to area-based licences. I would like an assurance from the Government that clause 99 of the amending Bill will not be used to bring in national networking through administrative stealth. Mr Deputy President, we are entering into an exciting new era in the broadcasting field. If we make sensible choices that give us greater media diversity and enhance access, our democracy will be strengthened. I trust that the Forward Development Unit is examining ways of untangling media ownership, making the television market more accessible to independent film producers, and ensuring that increased infrastructure costs do not lead to a decrease of quality local production (channels). I look forward to receiving and reading the Unit's report and to inspecting the public record that has been kept of representations made to the Forward Development Unit by interest groups, corporations and individuals that it has consulted. Although the Bill package has one glaring omission in the television standards area, the Democrats see no reason to delay its passage. I invite the Government to bring on my private members' Bill before we rise. I await the Minister's reply to the specific matters that I have raised, and in relation to which I have sought reassurances and I hope the Minister can make an undertaking that the Department of Communications will in the near future closely examine the problem areas that I have briefly mentioned and give us legislation to solve those problems at the very start of the next session. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.10) — We are dealing cognately with a number of Bills relating to broadcasting and television in Australia. Many of the provisions of those Bills are welcomed; others are not: And there are some significant absences from the Bills. Many of the matters I wanted to discuss have already been dealt with by previous speakers and particularly by Senator Vigor. I want to address the problems that have emerged over a period in regard to program standards on television and the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Senate will recall that, on the day when the decision was announced by the High Court of Australia, I asked a question of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) representing the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) what the Government was going to do about the attack that had been made by the industry against the qualitative powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, bearing in mind that the Government has repeatedly indicated to the Senate and to the public that it regards self-regulation in the industry as completely unacceptable and that there is a need for a tribunal such as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to set both qualitative and quantitative standards. The Senate will also recall that the High Court decision on 21 May was the result of a challenge by certain television stations. It was specifically directed at the pre-assessment powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Those powers require the licensee to submit new programs to the Children's Program Committee in advance of screening in order to obtain a 'C' certificate. Unless a 'C' certificate has been obtained, such a program is unable to be shown between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays, and it is unable to form part of the recently introduced children's drama quota. The High Court decision in effect has reduced the Tribunal to something like impotence on the very vital question of children's films to be shown at children's viewing times. That matter is of very great interest and concern to all Australians whether they are parents or not. The quality of those programs is very important. In addition, the decision of the High Court not only affected pre-assessment of children's programs, but also the whole classification system. Again, this is a matter which must-I know it does-exercise the mind of the Minister. Senator Vigor has described the situation elsewhere quite adequately. He introduced a private senator's Bill which is directed, in part, to overcoming these particular problems. I think he deserves congratulations on his initiative. But, as he said, as far back as February this year the Minister was very well aware of the fact that doubts had been cast over the power of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to insist on both qualitative and quantitative standards for television in Australia. I have the Press release made by the Minister for Communications on 14 February this year in which he talked about the qualitative and quantitative standards. It states: Doubts over the Tribunal's ability to determine both quantitative and qualitative program and advertising standards for commercial radio and television came to head recently in a Court challenge to the Tribunal's powers. That was a previous court challenge. He then described that particular court challenge. The Press statement continued: Mr Duffy said it was in the public interest that doubts over the Tribunal's powers be removed. The Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 would be amended as soon as possible to reinforce the Tribunal's power to make standards. The Minister was talking about both qualitative and quantitative standards. Those people who have kept an interest in this question are perfectly well aware that amendments were drawn up for this purpose. In fact, amendments were to have been included in the legislation now before us; but they are not there. Discussions have taken place with the industry, but we are now told, in the Minister's second reading speech, that those amendments are not in this package so as to enable further discussions with the industry. Surely from February until May would have been sufficient time to have those questions resolved not only in the interests of the viewing public and particularly the viewing children, but also, surely, in the interests of the industry itself. As I understand it, the Minister has proposed that in the Budget session there will be amendments which will go to the question of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's powers. Those amendments will be effective retrospective to the announcement made by the Minister. That is a perfectly acceptable proposition. But why are the amendments not included now so that everyone would be aware of what the ground rules are? I feel that it is important for the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to reassert the situation so that the commercial interests in the industry do not get away with a view that they can apply the heat to the Government or to members of parliament in the hope that these foreshadowed amendments will not come about, be introduced or be passed in the Parliament. If the Minister were to state on behalf of Mr Duffy what I understand to be Mr Duffy's attitude to the matter-that the amendments will be introduced as early as possible, namely, on the first day of the Budget session-I feel that that would provide the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal with the necessary powers to determine qualitative and quantitative standards for television, including a provision to ensure the pre-assessment of children's television programs. I feel that it would have been appropriate for amendments along that line to have been moved to this legislation, but I understand that if such amendments were moved they would not at this stage receive the support of the Opposition. I hope that the Opposition will also state its firm intention to ensure that with further amendments to this legislation early in the Budget session the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will be provided with those necessary powers to determine qualitative and quantitative standards for television in Australia. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(8.23) —I do not intend to delay the conclusion of the debate for much longer. It has probably already gone on for longer than it need have done-longer than it would have done if it had been fully completed before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. The Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, in the House of Representatives during his second reading speech on 15 May, gave an undertaking that amendments would be introduced to deal with program standards as soon as possible, considering the need to develop fully the necessary legislation. Drafting work has been done. However, it is necessary to consult all interested parties to ensure that adequate consideration is given to important issues such as civil liberties. It is the Government's intention to introduce appropriate legislation as early as possible in the Budget sittings. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.26) —The Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 is an admission by the Government that it was wrong in the course it took in 1983-84. Not only is Medicare bad in principle, but aspects of it were misconceived. This Bill seeks to correct some of the worst features of Medicare-features about which we expressed concern at the time the legislation came in. Unfortunately we could not get the Government to listen to our concerns. The Government was too stubborn to understand or to admit the errors in the Medicare program when it was introduced and because of this patients have suffered. Indeed, the Government has had to come back now and introduce amendments which it would not introduce in 1983-84, which we asked it to introduce at the time, but which it refused even to consider. The Government has used the past one and a half years to threaten and browbeat doctors and has been largely responsible for the difficulties many patients have faced and which they continue to face in my State of New South Wales particularly, where it is true to say that the public hospital system is at an almost complete standstill. Being a doctor, I have many very close friends in the medical profession. I talked to some of them last week and they told me that going back to work has not resolved the problem because the hospitals are in no position, through lack of staff and money, to allow them to start doing their work again. One of my friends who is a surgeon said he went back to work and asked when his first operating day would be to help Medicare patients. He was told that the hospital could not offer him any prospect of an early return to operating. There is no doubt that health care in New South Wales has been undermined. Not only has the public hospital system deteriorated; its morale has gone and the people operating the system are in despair. Senator Peter Rae —Because of the 35-day rule. Senator PETER BAUME —As my colleague says, the 35-day rule has not helped. It is one of the additional burdens that people have had to bear. All this has culminated in unprecedented numbers of resignations by doctors from public hospitals, in public disputation, and in the very obvious public argument which has occurred over several months. The problems and events that have occurred were anticipated by the Opposition when Medicare was introduced in September 1983. Time and time again the Opposition called on the Government to end the confrontation that was hurting members of the public. Now, of course, the Government is taking our advice. It has now produced a peace package to end the New South Wales dispute, and we hope that this will restore some normality to the New South Wales hospital system. The Government's package is long overdue. We think that some of the damage that has been done to the hospital system in New South Wales may be irreparable. Some of the bitterness that exists in the system now may take years and years to go. We think that the rundown in services and staff may take years to correct. Let us consider this legislation which is part of the Medicare peace package. The package contains seven elements. Three of the elements will be implemented by this Bill. Four will be implemented through agreements with the States. So we have to make it clear from the beginning that all the Federal Government can do through this legislation is produce part of the package. The four items to be implemented through the States are: First, the automatic classification of privately insured patients as private patients unless they specifically opt out and wish to become Medicare patients; secondly, the allocation of additional funds, which I understand to be $150m over three years, for capital works in the teaching hospitals; thirdly, cost sharing arrangements with New South Wales to increase payments to the visiting medical officers; and fourthly, the funding of the introduction of modified fee for service to ensure that even at peripheral district hospitals there is an adequate service by qualified visiting medical officers. Those are the four components which will be implemented by the Commonwealth and New South Wales acting together and by New South Wales legislation. This Bill, however, implements three other matters. First, it repeals the parts of section 17 introduced in the Medicare Bills. Secondly, it provides for an expansion of the basic private insurance table; and thirdly, it provides for all health insurers to be brought under the appropriate Commonwealth legislation to ensure compliance with the principle of community rating. By so doing this Bill will restrict the operation of commercial insurers who at present are offering certain forms of hospital insurance. I now consider these changes seriatim. I deal first with the changes to section 17. The Opposition has consistently opposed and fought against the Medicare amendments to section 17 and now, in this Bill, they are to be repealed. I remind the Senate that during the Committee stage on 21 September 1983, when the Medicare Bills were before this Parliament, I moved to amend the appropriate clause which introduced these changes to section 17 of the principal Act. Of course I could get no support from the Government and nor could I get sufficient support from the Australian Democrats to carry my amendments. Senator Chipp —How do you know? Senator PETER BAUME —I could not in 1983. I am talking about history. I am saying that we are back here now to repeal these elements in respect of which, in the light of experience-I must say that not everyone would have had a background in medical care-our concerns have proved to be well founded. Later, in March 1984, when it was apparent that the medical profession would not accept the changes to section 17, I introduced a private member's Bill to repeal these amendments. On both occasions I was unable to gain sufficient support to achieve my purpose, but today we are back here to do the very things which I tried to do, on behalf of the Opposition, not once but twice; on the first occasion by moving an amendment to the Bill and the second time by trying to get through a private member's Bill. I remind the Senate that on 28 March 1984 the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, said: We cannot and will not be deterred from the principle of section 17. Of course he is and he will be, and the Government is coming in here now deterred from the principle of section 17 because section 17 is wrong. Following that statement by the Minister we witnessed hostility build up to confrontation and confrontation build up to resignation. The Government's slowness, reluctance and failure over many months to admit its mistake hurt the public, patients and the system of health care which I was proud to grow up as part of and to go through when I was training as a doctor in a country that had the best health care system. It avoided, on the one hand, the extremes of the British system and, on the other hand, the extremes of American medicine. I was proud to be a part of it. But so much of it has been lost. These amendments to section 17 were totally unacceptable because of the power they gave to the Minister for Health. One can have a benign and honourable Minister for Health one day and a very different Minister another. It was simply unacceptable for that kind of power to be given to the Minister. The Minister, whoever it would be, was given the unfettered authority to alter or cancel new or existing contracts governing the terms and conditions of employment between salaried or visiting medical practitioners and recognised hospitals. It was the belief of the doctors that such a power removed the normal contractual rights which they enjoyed. Understandably, doctors were not prepared to give them up. The second thing this Bill sets out to do is to expand private insurance. It provides that there be gap insurance for certain hospital treatment. It provides, in addition, a capacity to offer front-end deductible tables; that is, people may determine to carry certain costs themselves before they qualify for certain benefits. Clause 11 of the Bill provides for the inclusion of benefits under the new basic private tables for specified surgical implanted devices. This has been necessary because it was not possible for patients to get benefits for these procedures in private hospitals. This Bill will correct that. The third thing the Bill seeks to do is to bring all health insurers under the Health Insurance Act. It will require all health insurers to operate under the same Act. As we understand it, it will be done to ensure the continuance of the community rating principle. The Bill also allows for an automatic annual review of fees in the Medicare schedule by an independent tribunal. We support that. It contains certain other amendments not directly related to the peace package. Some of these amendments cause the Opposition difficulty. I will refer to at least one of them. Clause 13 (db) of the Bill uses the words 'occupies a bed' and relates to the benefits which are payable for certain short-stay patients, usually patients whose stay is less than a day. The provision seeks to alter the present situation whereby a Commonwealth bed day subsidy is payable where any patient is in a hospital bed for more than eight hours. It will substitute new conditions before such a Commonwealth bed day subsidy is payable. It is true that the development of a special bed day subsidy could open up new and desirable opportunities for short term patients to be treated. However, it may be that what is being offered in this legislation without consultation with the industry will deprive hospitals of considerable income they have been receiving. It may cause patients to be asked to bear greater costs than they have borne. It may, quite perversely, act as a stimulus for some hospitals to keep patients in overnight, thereby qualifying those hospitals for the benefit which this clause seeks to change. There are questions as to what is meant by an approved bed and what is meant by the phrase 'occupies a bed'. I understand that it is the intention of the Department that a bed be occupied at midnight for the Commonwealth bed day subsidy to be paid. Since behaviour often follows the provision of a subsidy-my colleagues tell me this not infrequently-it is quite possible that some of the private hospitals may respond to this change by altering their behaviour. This would produce exactly the reverse effect from that which the Government is seeking. What the Government is seeking is to make it possible for more patients to be treated in day hospitals for minor surgery under this new benefit. The Opposition and the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Australia are concerned about clause 8, which substitutes the words 'that includes part of an overnight stay' for the previous words of 'more than eight hours' for the reasons that I have just set out. I remember that in 1983 a similar provision was introduced and when it came to the Senate I proposed an amendment. Senator Grimes, in talking to that amendment, said that he not only accepted the amendment but also agreed with it. He said that it was a sensible amendment. That was an amendment to change the eight hours back to 12 hours in order to provide what was a more reasonable approach for the private hospitals. We now have this new attempt to impose restrictions on private hospitals. I fear that all that will happen is that many day care patients will be held in hospital overnight and that others may be asked to bear extra costs. I emphasise that I am in no way decrying a move towards a day care subsidy or towards the stimulation of more care being carried out in day hospitals. I am just worried that the mechanism the Government has adopted may not be the most sensible one. I finally just add a couple of comments about what we are trying to do for the Australian community in health-health as opposed to health insurance; health as opposed to the financing; health as opposed to the money; and health as opposed to Medicare and health wrangles. I start by acknowledging that the Government has shown an appropriate sense of priority by allocating $150m to New South Wales teaching hospitals over the next three years. The Opposition, like the Government, is concerned about the health of every Australian. The Opposition is concerned about the prevention of illness as much as it is about cure. Let us try to put all these Medicare upheavals behind us. Let us get this peace package in place. Let us get the doctors in New South Wales back to work. Let us get the hospitals working again and let us work for better health for all Australians. What we must be concerned about is health and health outcomes. We already know where the great health problems lie in Australia. Many of them are preventable. I remind honourable senators that Dr Knowles, an eminent American medical educator, when writing about health in that country, and he could have been writing about Australia, said: Many Americans have come to look on sloth, gluttony, alcoholic intemperance, reckless driving, sexual frenzy and smoking as constitutional rights, and they've come to expect government-financed 'cures' for all the unhappy consequences. He pinpoints in that one sentence many of the preventable known causes of illness in Australia. They are problems which will not be eased even by the most efficient method of paying for or providing medical services. It will not be until we come to grips with some of the underlying issues that we can really look to a healthier society. We know the damage tobacco does. Most of us in this place know that. We are loath as a nation, however, to take effective action, in spite of our knowledge. We know what causes much of the carnage on the roads but we seem overly sensitive to club and industry interests when it comes to doing anything about that problem or to putting any effective programs in place. We have a Special Premiers Conference on a National Campaign against Drug Abuse which does not really want to know about tobacco or alcohol, although together they account for 97 of every 100 drug related deaths in Australia. We would welcome more emphasis on measures to address these problems. We need more 'Life. Be in It', 'Quit for Life' and 'Belt up and Live' programs in this country-programs which we can use to try to prevent the need for some medical services. It only remains to say that in spite of this peace package we are still faced with the reality of Medicare and with the long term deficiencies which we believe Medicare poses for the Australian people. For that reason I intend to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, which I hope has been circulated to honourable senators in the chamber. I move: At end of motion, add: ', but the Senate notes that- (a) the long and unnecessary delay by the Government in implementing the changes to Medicare embodied in the Bill has caused intolerable pain and suffering; and (b) the amendments fall short of the urgent and fundamental changes required to Medicare to restore a high standard balanced private and public health delivery system.'. Having moved this amendment, we will support the Bill because it contains the peace package. We look to the Government to explain to us why the changes to the Commonwealth daily bed subsidy will not produce perverse effects in the community. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(8.46) — As has already been pointed out by Senator Peter Baume, the legislation before us tonight-the Health Legislation Amendment Bill-is the culmination of extensive negotiations between the Government and the Australian Medical Association to resolve the New South Wales doctors dispute. This is really a polite way of saying that the purpose of the legislation is to get the doctors off strike and back to work in the hospitals. It was with some keen sense of irony, therefore, that I heard Senator Baume castigate the Government for not moving fast enough to legislate to end this strike, when only some days ago the Liberal-National Opposition was in a veritable frenzy because the Government was actually legislating to end a strike in Queensland relating to the other end of the political, social and economic spectrum. So a delightful double standard applies to some honourable senators on this side of the House. During this dispute, however, the actions of one man have remained completely clear and are worth commenting on. I refer to the extraordinary perseverance of Dr Lindsay Thompson. It is important that we commend members of the executive of the AMA, and in particular Dr Thompson, for their perseverance not only in their commitment to fighting for the needs and the rights of their professional colleagues, but also in their concern about and commitment to the well-being of patients in New South Wales. They also deserve some commendation for their willingness to negotiate, to withstand the assault which came from the far right of their profession and to work for what in fact was of benefit not only to the members of the medical profession in New South Wales but also to hospital patients generally. Of course, this legislation is not a perfect package-everybody admits that no compromise is a perfect package-but it does deserve the full support of everyone here, and I think it will get that support if only because it goes some way towards meeting the concerns of ordinary members of the medical profession. For instance, the Bill provides for automatic annual review of fees in the Medicare benefits schedule. It deletes from section 17 of the Health Insurance Act the provisions inserted by section 18 of the Health Legislation Amendment Act 1983. It amends the National Health Act of 1953 to permit registered health benefit organisations to offer a greater range of benefits in the basic private table. It supports the community rating principle. It permits variations in the waiting period imposed on contributors by health benefit organisations. All in all, it goes a long way to meeting many of the complaints that the doctors on strike in New South Wales had of the treatment that they were receiving at the hands of the Federal Government and, of course, of the New South Wales Government, which, I suspect, was more than half to blame for the problems that arose in New South Wales. The main problem with the legislation, however-there is a significant problem with it-arises in regard to clause 8. Present legislation allows private hospitals to claim Commonwealth bed day subsidies when the patient occupies an approved bed for eight hours or more. This Bill will change that and require a patient to remain in hospital for what it calls part of an overnight stay prior to being eligible for benefits. However, there is no definition of 'part of an overnight stay'. Clearly, the legislation has confused a lot of people. The Australian Private Hospitals Association is particularly concerned at the effect that this will have on its running of hospitals and the impact it will have on patients and the benefits those patients receive. Hospitals generally admit patients at specific times of the day. For example, a patient would be admitted late in the afternoon for treatment the following day. However, as was pointed out to me by representatives of the Australian Private Hospitals Association on Monday when I was in Sydney to talk to them, today's increased technology and sophistication of services mean that many procedures can be performed, indeed should be, without patients needing to stay overnight. The first question I have for the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) is just what does 'part of an overnight stay' mean? Does it mean that one is in a hospital for more than that 12-hour period which is classified as day and we then move into night or is it a case of being there at midnight and turning from Cinderella into a pumpkin? Senator Peter Baume —Or the other way round. Senator HAINES —Or from a pumpkin into Cinderella, or the glass slipper, or Prince Charming. It really does not matter. Some metamorphosis must take place in the hospital, the bed or the patient at midnight if that is the way the Government regards the legislation. It is important, first of all, to find out exactly what part of an overnight stay is. It is also important to know why the Government has chosen to extend the eight-hour rule to include whatever part of the night time it envisages as relevant. Fairly clearly, if it means that one has to stay in hospital until one minute past midnight before one can claim the benefit it would involve a patient remaining overnight before a normal day's benefit can be attracted. Accordingly, a lower benefit can be expected in those instances in which patients are admitted in the morning and discharged in the afternoon or evening. That is something which frequently suits the patient, the doctor in attendance and the hospital. It does that because cost savings to private hospitals in cases where no overnight stay is involved are negligible as costs are related primarily to treatment. This Bill clearly compromises the position of private hospitals and private hospital patients. That section of the health care industry regards it-I think quite rightly-not only as unfair but also an underhanded way of affecting its day surgery and day care procedures. There are organisations other than the Private Hospitals Association which are concerned about this. For example, the Australian Catholic Health Care Association telexed me a couple of days ago indicating that it, too, was concerned and dismayed by the changes proposed in the legislation which redefine day patient rules. The Association was concerned at the potential such a change would have to disadvantage thousands of patients, not only through loss of Commonwealth benefits but also by reduction of fund reimbursements which will follow the new rule. The Association urges the Government to preserve at least the existing funding arrangements for day patients. Only a couple of days ago the Health Insurance Restricted Membership Association of Australia again wrote to me and it also referred to clause 8. It stated: The present position is reasonably well understood by our contributors and is a small bonus back from the compulsory 'Medicare' levy. Any change to the present will create confusion, but more importantly, will result in hospital operators extending the stay of 'minor' classification patients to enable them to qualify for the bed day subsidy. At the same time this will almost smother the attempt to consolidate the proposed feature of a 'Day Care' Benefit. I understand that in some States, at least, although perhaps not all States, if this legislation is put into operation on 1 September, if it is proclaimed along with the rest of the legislation, patients will be placed in the very invidious position of having to decide whether to pay what could be as much as a $40 excess payment for getting out of hospital early-on good behaviour, so to speak-or inconvenience themselves and stay in hospital an unnecessary length of time in order to qualify for the benefit. I ask the Minister whether he would consider seriously that some accommodation be made for the concerns that have been expressed by the private hospital sector about clause 8. I suggest that, in the interests of getting the Bill through the Senate tonight and not having to add it to the list of legislation that will go to the House of Representatives when it comes back tomorrow afternoon, the Government should give an undertaking to the Senate that this clause of the Bill will not be proclaimed; or, if that is somehow technically too difficult, the Government could undertake to the Senate that it will amend this section of the legislation in the Budget session after full consultation with the industry. All the industry wanted was full consultation to see, first of all, what the Government's intention was; secondly, what the outcome of the changes would be; and thirdly, whether any other means could be used to get the same effect without the impact on both the hospitals and the patients that this measure apparently will have. There are other concerns about the legislation, one of which comes from a number of friendly societies. In a telex they sent me three days ago, they indicated some concern that no provisions have been made within the Health Legislation Amendment Bill for the continued operation of ancillary health funds by friendly societies under respective State legislation. The telex stated: A number of friendly societies throughout Australia have conducted ancillary health funds for a number of years. Most of these funds are based on the community rating principle which the Federal Government is anxious to preserve. The proposed section 67 of the National Health Act 1953, however, will force all health insurers to register under the National Heath Act 1953. As one of the conditions for registration under the Act is that the organisation must operate a basic private hospital table, many societies who do not currently conduct a hospital fund will not satisfy the criteria and may be forced to wind up their ancillary funds. The telex continues: It is considered that provisions should be made within the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 for friendly societies to continue operating ancillary health funds under their retrospective State legislation provided they are based on the community rating principle and do not prohibit membership by means of age or state of health. Any comments that the Minister can give on that issue would also be much appreciated. Finally, some insurance people contacted me about a matter that requires clarification. They want to know, if a commercial insurer becomes a registered insurer following the passage of the Bill, will he still be able to continue cover commitments under existing or ongoing policies? They feel that this is not fully explained in the legislation as it stands, and any clarification that the Minister can give me on that I would also appreciate. The Liberals, through Senator Peter Baume, have moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading which we are certainly happy to support. It states the obvious-that in fact considerable pain and suffering have been caused by the long delay in the Government implementing changes to Medicare-which makes it all the more remarkable that it is getting itself worked up into a frenzy over legislation to correct yet another source of pain and suffering in another State but implemented from another source altogether. The second part of the amendment says that the Government's amendments to the legislation fall short of the urgent and fundamental changes to Medicare required to restore a high standard and balanced private and public health delivery system. I certainly support that. Indeed, when I opened the Australian Private Hospitals Association congress in Sydney on Monday one of the points I made was that, while the Australian Democrats certainly support the basic element behind Medicare-that is, that basic health insurance should be compulsory-we also say in our policy that we believe in a complementary and equal private and public health care system which includes the continuing existence of a viable and vital, but not spoon-fed, private hospital sector. I have no difficulties at all in supporting both the legislation before us, with the qualifications I have raised with regard to clause 8, and Senator Baume's amendment to the motion for the second reading. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(9.02) —In reviewing the latest shifts in the Australian Labor Party's health policy it would be pleasant to be able to say that the Hawke Government had seen the folly of socialised health care and had fundamentally changed its position. The truth however is otherwise. Despite some alterations, we still have a system which discourages self-provision, which is exorbitant and wasteful, which hurts the consumer, affluent and poor alike, and which does nothing to provide doctors with a fair and equitable go in pursuing their most important careers. We can of course be thankful that the Government has retreated from section 17 and the previously heavy-handed coercion of doctors. We should note, however, that this massive injustice was avoided only through the resolve of the medical profession, without which the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) would have persisted in his attempt to transform doctors into public servants and to decrease their salaries while pandering to the wage demands of militant unions. Indeed, that objective may still remain even though its future means of achievement will be more subtle and, hopefully, far more difficult. The Hawke Government clearly burned its fingers through the use of the notorious fraud and overservicing detection system, a classic socialist 'Big Brother' device. FODS proved to be bureaucratic, intrusive and inefficient, notable for its persecution of those making genuine mistakes in paperwork rather than for preventing actual dishonesty. It also penalised those doctors who may have seen fit to take more precautionary measures, by way of a variety of tests, than some of their colleagues. I always thought that doctors should be answerable to their peers for their actions, but this Government wanted doctors to be answerable to Dr, non-medical, Blewett and the bureaucracy. FODS's demise can only improve the health system even though the decision has been forced on the Government through political necessity and not through recognition of wrong policies. A blow to the private funds and their contributors is the withdrawal of the reinsurance subsidy. The $80m originally cut has not been restored and is now followed by a further $15m in the mini-Budget, leaving the Government contribution at $5m. Surely, however, there is a strong case for assistance to the health funds in their most difficult area, health costs of the chronically ill. There are no prizes for guessing that this requirement could push up the cost of premiums substantially for all customers in the years to come. The young and healthy will be further discouraged from taking out private insurance. Needless to say, the underlying disincentives for private insurance under Medicare have not changed. People still pay twice for their health care, with the one-plus per cent Medicare levy and the premium that attracts neither a tax rebate nor a tax deduction. The new hospital gap insurance will result in dual administration. The ban on one-stop shopping again is a tangible disincentive for taking out private insurance. At the beginning of April, the Executive Director of the Voluntary Health Insurance Association, Mr Schneider, warned that the Government's original package would cost an extra $100m that would have to be met by contributors. The Government has failed to address itself to the injustice of the 35-day rule whereby long term patients, the elderly and the chronically ill are either forced to leave hospital or be subjected to savage, unfair charges under the reduced allowance payable for nursing home patients. Members of this socialist Government are still persisting in telling this Parliament, and thereby all Australians, that they will be good fellows by keeping the levy at 1 per cent. I ask the question: How can the Government keep the levy at 1 per cent when it is already-and has been since last year-at least 1.7 per cent? This 0.7-plus per cent taxpayer robbery occurs by the Government needing to cover the shortfall between the levy income and the total cost of Medicare. The shortfall is growing continuously, as admitted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in April of this year. It has to be paid by someone, and naturally that someone is the taxpayer. It is projected now that the shortfall to which I refer will be in the vicinity of $1 billion. This is what will be picked up by the taxpayer. The same lack of concern appears in the pharmaceutical cut-backs in the mini-Budget. Raising the cost of prescriptions from $4 to $5 will be no hardship for generally healthy people who require pharmaceuticals only on an occasional basis. It will, however, be a very real cost for the chronically ill and for many families with young children. There are many other things that I would like to cover, but in the interests of time I will restrict my comments. I am particularly concerned about the selective restoration of gap insurance for hospital treatment only, which will only lengthen the queues that we have seen increasing, especially in Victoria and New South Wales, over recent months. That cannot be attributed wholly and solely to disputation by doctors, because it has been evidenced in various areas throughout Australia. Western Australia is yet to see this problem; Victoria has seen it already-and Senator Walsh jolly well knows it. That is why he is embarrassed about it. Medicare has come to mean free health care at the end of the queue, and those hardest hit will be the poorest in our community. Senator Watson —Shame! Senator KNOWLES —It is a shame; I agree with Senator Watson. What this Government has done is absolutely disgraceful. Those queues are attributable to people who are opting out of private health insurance because this socialist Government has made it impossible for people to afford private health insurance cover-the best cover of all. Let us see it restored. If the people have to pick up the tab for that $1 billion, it will be a sad state of affairs; but it is already on the books. So, nothing will prevent Medicare from becoming the running sore of this Hawke Government, especially in the expenditure field. Either it will wreak havoc with future Budgets or arbitrary ceilings will be imposed, to the detriment of those Australians who were promised cheap and comprehensive health cover. Cheap and comprehensive health cover it is not. Senator Walsh may well sleep in this Parliament, because that is the best thing he could do to save us from what he has to say. In the longer term the Liberal Party will restore true freedom of choice whereby people can choose what cover they want and what price they want to pay. We will give the people of Australia the choice of what they want for themselves-not what this Government sees best, because this Government is purely and simply a dictatorial government. Senator Walsh —Who wrote this for you-the General Practitioners Society? Senator KNOWLES —For the information of Senator Walsh: I wrote the speech, and I am sorry that it has distressed him so much. Never mind; he may get over it. I suggest that he go to a public hospital and seek medical attention. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(9.10) —It falls to my pleasant lot to follow Senator Knowles's little tirade. I can assure Senator Walsh that I know where Senator Knowles got her speech from. It is a large lift from the speech given by Mr Porter in the House of Representatives. Senator Knowles —Is it really? Senator CROWLEY —Yes, I have the figures here. Senator Knowles —Maybe you should compare the two speeches. Senator CROWLEY —Senator Knowles can throw in some quotations from Mr Carlton's speech too, if she wishes, but I do not wish to worry about that and I do not even require her to table the document from which she was reading. I refer to Mr Porter's comments in the House of Representatives because they indicate, as do many of the figures which Senator Knowles quoted from him and her other colleagues in the House of Representatives, that he does not understand all the history of this debate at all. On page 2920 of the House of Representatives Hansard for 22 May 1985 he is recorded as referring, as have many of his Liberal colleagues in the past, to the alleged cause of the New South Wales doctors' strike. He said: Last year the Minister caused the first doctors' strike in Australia's history. Senator Knowles's Liberal colleagues have said this on a number of occasions. Senator Watson —Didn't they go on strike? Senator CROWLEY —From Senator Watson or someone in the Opposition comes the added voice that that is right. I merely refer Opposition senators to the Senate Hansard for 2 April 1984, which shows Senator Crowley elaborating on three doctors' strikes that have happened previously in this country. I do not want to go over that again. For honourable senators' edification, it is recorded on page 1042 of the Senate Hansard for 2 April 1984 and proves that not only Mr Porter but also some of his colleagues who are here today do not know the facts. Do read it. Senator Knowles —Read it! Senator CROWLEY —At least those on the other side are alert and awake. I am glad, because honourable senators need to wake up when intelligent words are put up on the air. We know that the medical profession claims to be very happy about the repeal of the amendment to section 17 of the Health Insurance Act. I find that quite interesting. I listened to Senator Peter Baume's comments on this matter and, as he might expect, I disagree with his interpretation of why the legislation had to be changed by the Government. We know very well that members of the medical profession are very tender when it comes to an analysis or regulation of their incomes. They do not like regulation and, in the face of evidence that they do not restrain themselves to the schedule fee, still have the gall to insist that they ought not to be regulated. In fact, they insist on the right to do what they like in large part and very often charge more than the schedule fee. The schedule fee is a very reasonable setting of a scale of return or estimate of costs for services. The Australian Medical Association puts in a submission on behalf of the medical profession for the estimation of a schedule fee; yet, even in spite of that responsible decision on what a schedule fee should be, many doctors charge well above it. Doctors in my State of South Australia have a reputation for largely charging within the schedule fee but even they challenged that record during the recent fight over Medicare. Members of the public have reason to be suspicious of the good faith of doctors in terms of their ability to self-regulate. One has only to follow and understand what happened in the New South Wales doctors' strike. The strike was not about the care of patients; it was about conditions for doctors, which spelt how much they would be paid. It was very much a disgrace. It was not about the care of patients but about conditions for doctors. My comments here pertain largely to specialists, far more than to general practitioners, many of whom I know have experienced a real or relative reduction in their incomes over the last three to five years. They were not major players in the New South Wales dispute. Their vote in the AMA ballot indicated their difference from the specialists. The AMA ballot also indicated the great discomfort that many doctors had about the behaviour of the specialists and the bad faith that was being established for the medical profession. I think one point that Senator Baume and I have in common is the disappointment and unhappiness we would feel about the falling reputation of the medical profession as a consequence of that very protracted, unreasonable and nasty strike, as it turned out to be. I think the Government has reason to be suspicious about the doctors' ability to regulate their own fees. The Government bent over backwards to accommodate the doctors in New South Wales during that strike. Yet the doctors prove to be extraordinarily recalcitrant in negotiations, if and when they knew how to negotiate. In the early days of the strike they quite clearly indicated they did not even know how to do that. In the face of recent evidence, the public and this Government can take little comfort or consolation that the doctors have considerably shifted their attitudes. But I say again that I think we can take some heart from the Australian Medical Association ballot which indicated that a very large majority of doctors in this country were pleased to see the strike settled, were pleased to co-operate with the Government in negotiations and were pleased to see in sight an end to the bad name that the medical profession was getting as a consequence of that strike. Yesterday I sat in the Senate and listened to Queensland senators ranting and raving about the dreadful people in the Electrical Trades Union who went on strike and denied a necessity to the people of Queensland. Yet never did I hear the same earnest supporters of people's rights to access for necessary services complain about a doctors' strike in New South Wales. I think we should ask the Queensland senators: How necessary is health care, compared to electricity? I would have thought that both of them belong in the necessity category. I ask: How can people afford to be so outraged about the Queensland problem and so accepting of the New South Wales difficulties? I entirely concur with Senator Haines's opening comments to that effect. The doctors' strike was an outrage against the people of New South Wales, against the care and service provision, against good order and due process and against efforts over and over by this Government to negotiate a settlement. I congratulate the Government and the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, for patience, for persistence and for sticking in there until a solution was reached that allowed health care to resume in New South Wales and which also allowed for the upgrading of public hospitals in New South Wales to the tune of some $150m over three years and $16m for the remuneration of doctors for private work in public hospitals. One of the things that did emerge from that whole debacle was the difference between the provision of health and medical services in New South Wales from other States in this country. Both the medical profession and the people of New South Wales will be entirely satisfied with the contribution to upgrading the provisions of public hospitals in New South Wales. I am not suggesting they will be satisfied with the number of dollars, but they will be happy with the contribution. The acknowledgement for the need of that kind of upgrading will be of benefit to all the people in the State. If that is part of the solution to the strike I suppose we can be grateful for that. I wish to make one last point. All of these items, particularly the health insurance item-I do not wish to list them; they have been well covered by Senator Baume and Senator Haines-seem, in some ways, to be only remotely related to the negotiations required to settle the New South Wales doctors' dispute. Yet they are included here as part of the settlement, as part of, I suppose, a so-called gentlemen's agreement in reaching that settlement. So much of our society depends on honourable expectations of how people will behave. I suppose we can take up the debate about whether gentlemen and honour do equate on some other occasion. For the record, I merely use them analogously this evening. The Government, arising out of its negotiations, has moved these amendments as part of an understanding of the good faith and expectations that people will behave honourably. Members of the private insurance funds had the opportunity to contribute in arguing their case in this whole debate. In some ways some of these amendments do not directly pertain to the New South Wales doctors' settlement at all. It is interesting to consider that private insurance funds have won the right to allow front-end deductibles-one of the points which has been protested-to provide health insurance outside the community rating principle. I am not quite sure why something is wrong when it is outside one's care and acceptable when it is suddenly within one's parameters. It is a fine point. The point is that the health insurance funds, the New South Wales Government and the doctors have reached an agreement where legislation is only part of the settlement. The legislation has its limitations. In the end, much of the satisfactory outcome will depend on the honourable behaviour of people in acting out that legislation, in living within the terms and intentions of that legislation. I ask: Where was the gentlemen's agreement when matters of privacy, matters of agreed practice about doctors and patients anywhere in this country, matters of respect for privacy of doctors and their referring practices and matters of privacy about information on treatment provided by doctors to their patients, in that recent invasion of 47,000 records held in family planning clinics in Queensland? Again I find the juxtaposition of what is required under the provisions of this legislation and what is tolerated and encouraged in Queensland absolutely contradictory. In fact, I do not believe one could hold both views without being guilty of hypocrisy. It is a matter of serious import that tonight we are trying to negotiate, agree on or debate amendments to the Health Insurance Act and the National Health Act, the implementation and effectiveness of which require responsible and mature behaviour under the provisions of that legislation. What do we say about people who flagrantly break those understandings and rules about privacy, regard for patients, regard for doctors and regard for general good order in society? I have been accused in this place by honourable senators opposite of doctor bashing and many other things beside that. Tonight I say that I am appalled at what the Queensland Government has done in the nature of doctor bashing. It has named doctors and their treatment practices. Worse than that, it has named patients. I cannot let this occasion pass without drawing what I think is the contradictory parallel between what is required as part of the New South Wales settlement or this package of legislation before us tonight and the untenable behaviour of the Government in Queensland, which is actually a matter very close to the heart of medicine. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.22) —Tonight we are debating the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. These amendments represent a further backdown on Medicare by the Government. As Senator Baume has already said, they are a clear indication by the Government that it was wrong. The Opposition said early in the piece that Medicare just would not work as the Government had wanted it to work. The Government, with Australian Democrats support, assured us that Medicare would work, but it has all been proved a disaster. At last the Government has come to the recognition that it was wrong, much like it was wrong about the assets test. The Government was wrong about that and has already had to make many changes. We were told-indeed, the second reading speech of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) says this-that these alterations were a result of the doctors dispute in New South Wales. We were told that disputes such as that can be resolved only through consultation and negotiation and not by confrontation. The Government is in an incredible situation now when it is pretending that there was no confrontation. I will quote from one of the news releases put out by the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, during the early part of the dispute. He said: I am sure that the public will see the AMA's attitude for what it is-an arrogant determination that the public hospital system should be run for their benefit and not the patients. That was said of the Australian Medical Association. But now we are told that all this was achieved through consultation and not confrontation. Of course there was confrontation. Dr Blewett was even sent overseas as a last resort so that Mr Hawke could manage the situation. He and Senator Grimes tried to manage the situation because Dr Blewett was so confrontationist. We were told that the doctors were greedy, that the whole dispute was over the doctors' salaries. But then we find in the Minister's second reading speech that that really had nothing to do with it. He said that some of these changes would have been implemented as a matter of course in the coming months as the Government reassessed the Medicare operations over its initial 12 months. He said: The changes put forward in this legislation are all-- I stress 'all'-- sensible and rational changes to health insurance policy . . . What utter double-talk that is. We were told by the Minister that the majority of doctors-indeed nearly all of them-were behind the new changes in Medicare. We were told the doctors wanted to return to work. The Minister said that this was evidenced by the 75.6 per cent national vote for a return to normal services in the Australian Medical Association's plebiscite of all doctors, and the number of doctors who have now returned to work in New South Wales hospitals. What an absolute distortion that is. A total of 33,000 members of the medical profession were sent a plebiscite through the mail. That is the most comprehensive list of doctors that we know-33,000. Guess how many replied? We are assured that there was a 75.6 per cent vote of all doctors. How many replied? Only 13,000 replied. So roughly one-third of the doctors replied and 75.6 per cent of those voted in favour of returning to work. That was not 75.6 per cent of 33,000. Roughly only 10,000 doctors out of 33,000 were in favour of returning to work. Senator Peter Baume —Be fair. It was 75 per cent of those who voted. Senator WALTERS —That is exactly what I am saying. It was 75 per cent of those who voted. If one works that out, one sees that 13,000 out of 33,000 replied and 75 per cent of 13,000 means that roughly 10,000 doctors out of the 33,000 who received the plebiscite agreed with the AMA. I am just rectifying the figures in the Minister's second reading speech. It seems incredible to me that those figures were so distorted. Let us look at the things that have been altered in this legislation. First, patients have been given the right when they are admitted to a public hospital to have the doctor of their choice. They are not automatically classified as public patients. A patient is now asked if that is what he wants-to have a doctor of his choice. That is not necessarily a benefit to the doctor, but it is certainly a benefit to the patient. Secondly, there has been the acceptance of the recommendation of the Penington Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals on the need for new equipment in public hospitals in New South Wales. Over three years a total of $150m will be spent. This is because the hospitals were starved of funds. Again, because the hospitals were starved of funds, this is a benefit to the patient. Let us look at the increases in wages of New South Wales doctors. In total, $16m has been allocated to those very greedy visiting medical officers who we were assured were only on strike because they were after money. They have been provided with an amount that brings the funding base for visiting medical officers just on to a par with that enjoyed by doctors in other States. Another $10m a year will be provided towards meeting 50 per cent of the cost of sessional payments of visiting medical officers who currently are providing honorary services, without charge, and for the extension of fee for service remuneration to country hospitals where there is no resident medical officer. Of the 4,003 visiting medical officers, 1,401 were honoraries working free of charge. These are the terribly greedy doctors we heard Dr Blewett talk so much about-1,401 working for nothing at all. While on the subject of doctors' wages, I see that section 17 has finally been abolished. This is one area in which the doctors stuck out and the Minister has backed off. This section was introduced even though it was completely unnecessary. By the time Dr Blewett recognised that there was no need for it the dispute had really got under way. Let us look at some of the other benefits for patients, not doctors, that have been implemented because the doctors, not on strike but having resigned from their positions, forced the Government to bring them in. There have been alterations for gap insurance for medical services in hospitals. Many patients have come to me and said that they desired gap insurance, that it was essential to them as they felt they could cover themselves for that insurance. At last the Government has given way in that area. Medical benefits are now available for surgical implants-the replacement of joint implants-again a benefit for the patient and not the doctor. Clause 8, which is an alteration to the Commonwealth bed day subsidy, again is a benefit for the patient and not the doctor. The present situation, as Senator Baume said so clearly tonight, is an alteration to the Commonwealth bed day subsidy. Surgical bed day centres in private hospitals have been a cost benefit saving for the Commonwealth and for health care generally. Minor operations that require under eight hours hospitalisation have not to date incurred a Commonwealth subsidy, but anything over eight hours has incurred a Commonwealth subsidy. Now the Commonwealth has decided that if a patient is in hospital for over eight hours but does not spend the night in hospital he is no longer entitled to a hospital subsidy. That will mean that the health insurance industry will have to cover that, and of course that will put up the contribution rate. As Senator Baume has said, it could well alter the mode of looking after patients in hospital over eight hours. I believe the Government has been very foolish in this because if it does encourage hospitals to keep patients in overnight that will certainly be a backward step in cost saving in this area. Another alteration has been in community rating, and the opposition certainly agrees with this. The good risk patients such as the young and the healthy should certainly assist the bad risk patients, otherwise contribution rates will be too high for the elderly to afford. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, the principle of community rating, which ensures that the good risks assist the bad risks, is essential for a just health insurance industry. However, the Government recently undid all this good by taking $15m out of the reinsurance pool in the mini-Budget. That really underlines the fact that the Government has no commitment to community rating at all. It is not willing to play its part and pull its weight in that bad risk area that the reinsurance pool normally covers. Finally, the Government has said that the pre-existing illness provision should be reduced from two years to one year and that the two-month waiting period for the basic table again is to be waived for a period. We are told that all these additional costs to hospital insurance rates will not amount to very much, but that is not what the hospital insurance industry tells us. It believes that these additional costs will add quite considerably to the contribution rate of the patient. We have been told that Medibank Private is going to be pretty magnanimous. We are told that Medibank Private will totally waive the pre-existing ailment rule for three months. It will waive the rule not just from two years to one year but for three months to any of its former contributors who may wish to rejoin. I certainly hope that that does not result in the Government having to give Medibank Private a grant, which has certainly happened in the past when we have had to prop it up with a $10m grant out of the blue because it nearly went broke. I hope that it will not reach that stage by being too magnanimous. I am very pleased that the Government has backed off in this area and changed Medicare. It certainly needed changing. The assets test needed changing. The Government is gradually coming to its senses and taking account of what the Opposition has been asking it to do for some time. The only other thing I say tonight is that I hope the Government will not show as little concern for the Tasmanian railway workers as it has shown tonight for the ill. The Government has tried to abolish the railways in Tasmania and with it 1,100 jobs. If it tries to negotiate with my State in the way it has done in regard to the country's ill it will be doing a pretty poor job and a disservice to the contributors to Medicare. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(9.37) —I rise to give qualified support to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 and also to support the Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading of it. This Bill amends two Acts, the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973. It represents the Government's response to the doctors dispute in New South Wales. I noticed that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) says that this Bill is a result of consultation, negotiation and reconciliation. I do not know why he did not throw in all the words that his boss uses. Obviously, the Bill is not the result of all that. It is the result of a confrontation that almost became a conflagration. As the Minister marches in his little fumaric, socialist world-this is where I stopped reading his second reading speech-he thinks that the changes which are made by this legislation would automatically have been implemented over the next few months as the legislation settled down. That is just simply not true. If it had not been for the confrontation there would not have been any of these changes at all. The conflict between the Government and the medical profession, involving in fact a great deal of the whole health industry, has gone on for many years. It came to a head in New South Wales because of the circumstances in that State where the private doctors are more dependent on the use of public hospitals for the treatment of private patients than they are in other States. That is why the dispute happened in New South Wales. On top of everything else in this dispute, not only was the Federal Government ranged against the specialists in New South Wales but also it connived and colluded with the New South Wales Government trying to get the doctors to toe the line and behave in a manner towards their patients that the Government thought fitting and not in a manner the doctors thought would be fitting. This sort of situation is not seen just in Australia. The history of it is common to several countries around the world. I cannot recall there ever being doctors' strikes or mass resignations in the history of the medical profession until recent years. I think the first time I read about it, it concerned a doctors strike that occurred in Austria after the war. The Government decided to dictate to the doctors how it wanted the doctors to practise. The doctors rose up and went on strike. In more recent years, of course, there have been many more doctors striking. That has been seen in Canada. In fact, those strikes are continuing to this day. The reason is that the Government takes over the funding of medicine and in doing that it tries to control the way the doctors practise; the doctors revolt and so they go on strike. Senator Jessop —They strike because the system is not in the best interests of their patients. Senator SHEIL —That is right. It is the patients they are thinking of first. If the doctors find that their practices are interfered with, they just cannot bear to or want to work under that sort of system. The Medicare system that we have in Australia is based on the Canadian system. Our little Minister for Health went to Canada and studied that. It is a wonder that he did not learn from it because Canada has had nothing but trouble. The Federal Government ran it for a while and when it found it getting absolutely out of hand it handed it over to the provinces. All it did was hand all the problems over to the provinces and, instead of the strikes being federal strikes, they became provincial strikes. Senator Jessop —We seem to have followed the mistakes of other countries in Australia. Senator SHEIL —Yes. There is no need for us to go down this track. I am sure it is an ideological track we are going down. There is a difference between a professional and a tradesman. A professional is highly trained and is competent to do his work. He takes complete responsibility for his work and he does not have to have his work inspected. On the other hand, a tradesman is competent and highly trained but he does have to have his work inspected. A professional takes complete responsibility for his work. That does not mean that he does not have to have extra training. For example, the top tennis players take coaches around the world with them. Martina Navratilova takes a coach around the world with her. All professional people keep upgrading their work and doctors particularly are upgraded, not only by their peers, but by people who refer patients to them, by their work in the hospitals, even by the staff in the hospitals; so there is a constant upgrading process. In fact, they cannot survive if they do not keep upgrading. Nevertheless, governments keep trying to bring in peer reviews, service reviews and professional review bodies, all of which have been tried around the world. They have exactly the opposite effect to that which they purport to bring about. Instead of bringing about higher standards of work, they bring about lower standards of work. Instead of reducing costs, they increase costs. The evidence is there to see. Yet all these sorts of things are being introduced in Australia when there is no need for us to go down that withered road. When the Minister was tootling down this socialist road he started off by trying to get control of radiologists and then pathologists because they were the high expense areas as far as the Government computers were concerned-and no doubt they were because lots of tests were being done. The radiologists and the pathologists objected to this and, of course, the Minister for Health made the mistake of saying: 'This is just the crack in the door. We are going to put these same controls on the rest of the profession'. That is when the warning buzzer sounded and all the other doctors woke up to what he was trying to do. All this Bill does is retreat a little along the socialist road. The retreat has been forced because the thunder clouds gathered. Not all the fault can be sheeted home to the bully boy socialists in the Australian Labor Party. We have had a creeping paralysis in the health field ever since the introduction of medical benefits in Australia. Way back then the funding was a third by the Federal Government, a third by the medical insurance companies and a third by the patients. Once we had the Government paying a third of the bills, that immediately rendered the whole system uneconomic, and the system being uneconomic, the Government had to keep pouring more money into it in order to make it work. It was not until the Government was paying over 50 per cent of the medical bill that it took control of the medical insurance companies. They are really completely controlled by the Government now. Their rules are set by the Government. Their rebates are set by the Government. The contribution rates are set by the Government. The reserves they have to keep are set by the Government. They are really all just little arms of government which think that they are private insurance companies. This is a very sad situation. We realise now that the way to get back to private medicine is to reduce the amount of money that the Government is putting into all these areas so that we can get back to working on an economic basis and so that once again we will have the best and cheapest medicine in the world. Once the Government stepped in to the pharmaceutical industry and said to the people, 'Here you are-free pharmaceuticals are available to all', it had to start restricting their availability. The system was very good until the Government realised that the number of prescriptions was more than it could afford. So it started telling doctors how many pills and repeat prescriptions they could prescribe and what pills they could use for certain diseases. This extended through the whole practice of medicine. The Government told the medical profession the conditions for which people could be put in hospitals and how long they could be kept there. It was a system of regulation that just got bigger and bigger and worse and worse. On top of that, the big government computers have now started analysing doctors' prescribing, visiting, consulting, operating, hospital admission and referral habits. Every part of a doctor's practice is analysed on computers. The statistics on each doctor are compared with the area average. If a doctor's statistics differ from his area average, the Federal Government sends out a counsellor to counsel him, to bring him back to the area average. This is done because the basis of the entire exercise is to reduce the costs to government and not to give better medicine to anybody. It is a reduction in costs. It is a restricting, limiting- Senator Jessop —There is the classic example of some practices treating mainly pensioners. Senator SHEIL —Some doctors mainly treat pensioners. We call some doctors 'referologists'. They keep referring people to others in the medical profession. They do not have any equipment in their surgeries. This creates a lower and poorer standard of medicine. If doctors persist in not obeying the counsellor they are called before a fraud and overservicing detection system panel or committees of inquiry and star chamber tactics are used. This sort of action has created enormous resentment in the medical profession. There is now great hostility between the vast bulk of practising doctors and the Government. This is the exact opposite to what we set out to do in the first place-namely, to create a better health care system and to make it easier for people to get access to medical services. I know that we have a time constraint. There are a couple of measures in the Bill which I am pleased about. At least the Government has reintroduced gap insurance for private hospital insurance. It should have gone the whole way because by ruling out by law gap insurance for medical benefits it is virtually forcing people out of private medical insurance and pushing them to join Medicare. In turn, this is increasing Medicare costs. I am pleased that benefits have been reintroduced for specified surgical implants. I note the anomaly relating to single day care. That will cause dislocation and distortion in private hospitals. It is discriminatory against private hospitals. In public hospitals day care patients can be treated on day care trolleys rather than on beds. Private hospitals are licensed for a certain number of beds. They have to use those beds and are not allowed to have any extra. So if they wish to treat extra patients on a day care basis, they have to use the beds normally required for acute patients. I ask honourable senators to look at the anomaly that will cause. These hospitals cannot have their acute beds occupied by day care patients when they are in the middle of the ordinary week day rush hour. I point out that anomaly to the Government. I hope that the changes that the Minister felt would be introduced naturally over the next few months will extend to fixing the day care anomaly that has not been rectified in the Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.50) —I thought we were to hear the view of just the General Practitioners' Society of Australia in this debate, but we seem to have heard some views that have gone beyond even that. It seems that Senator Sheil is advocating the withdrawal of subsidies to private hospitals and the withdrawal of any subsidy on pharmaceuticals. Senator Sheil —Too right. Senator WALSH —I am glad that I interpreted Senator Sheil correctly when I said that he wanted to charge the consumer the full cost of the pharmaceuticals. Senator Haines asked whether the existing contracts of commercial insurers will be affected by the requirement that they become registered under the National Health Act. The answer is that contracts will continue as they currently stand until they become due for renewal. Contracts that are guaranteed renewable will not be affected and will continue so long as the insured party desires. Section 14 provides that liabilities assumed before the announcement of the section are not affected. Both Senator Peter Baume and Senator Haines asked about the Government policy on day care benefit. The Bill provides that the Minister for Health shall determine the rate for day care benefits in private hospitals or surgical day centres. The Minister can also determine different rates of benefit for different categories or classes of patient. No rates have yet been set. Such rates will be determined after full consultation by the Commonwealth with interested parties such as the Voluntary Health Insurance Council of Australia and the Australian Private Hospitals Association. The Government has access to a variety of material on day care costs, including material on Australian day care centres. These studies show that there are definite savings in cost to the hospital or surgical day centre and hence to patients in providing simple surgery through day care as opposed to overnight accommodation. The Government is prepared to undertake that the level of day care benefits eventually set will be in line with the costs incurred by hospitals and day surgery centres in providing such care. To give the Senate an idea of the general benefit level for day surgery, I can give an assurance that the benefit will be at least $70 a day. As I said earlier, there is provision in this legislation for the Minister for Health to set a range of benefits for day surgery. A higher benefit can be set for a particular class of patients who, while they do not stay overnight, still incur a high level of treatment costs. The particular example- Senator Peter Baume —You say it can be done. Can I take it that if it is reasonable that is the course that will be taken? Senator WALSH —That what in particular will be done? Senator Peter Baume —For higher cost patients there may well be a higher benefit. Senator WALSH —I do not know whether I can give that assurance. Senator Peter Baume —You have raised that as a possibility. Senator WALSH —I would interpret that as meaning it may be. The particular example that comes readily to mind is that of renal dialysis. Because of the expensive equipment and staffing involved this treatment is relatively more expensive than most day hospital treatment. While renal dialysis in private hospitals is not common, I can give the Senate an undertaking that where this occurs the Minister for Health will set a higher benefit in line with the particular cost of treating renal dialysis patients. This matter and the higher benefit for such classes of patients will be determined after consultation with the hospitals affected. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D.J.Baume, Peter Macklin, M. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Mason, C. V. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Missen, A. J.Collard, S. J. Parer, W. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Evans, Jack Scott, D. B.Haines, J. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Townley, M.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D. B.Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. Hearn, J. M.Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D.Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.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.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N.Carrick, Sir John Tate, M. C.Short, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Jones, G. N.Chaney, F. M. Grimes, D. J.Chipp, D. L. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 7-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 8 (Daily bed payments) Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.02) — I did not enter the second reading debate. I have had discussions with a number of honourable senators about clause 8. I feel that there needs to be some clarification of the comments made by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) a moment ago as he concluded the second reading stage. This clause seeks to omit from section 33 the words 'of more than 8 hours' and to substitute the words 'that includes part of a overnight stay'. This concerns daily bed payments. On pages 924 and 925 of the Senate Hansard of 22 September 1983 it is recorded that the words 'of more than 8 hours' were put into the legislation by total agreement of this chamber, and indeed Senator Baume quoted Senator Grimes as saying that it was an excellent suggestion. Now it comes before us with no explanation and without any suggestion that it is part of the package. I ask: Is this actually part of the package? Why was it decided to insert this provision without any consultation with the persons or groups most likely to be affected? I heard what the Minister said about the Minister for Health deciding on certain amounts for particular procedures. What effect will that have? For example, under the present legislation, if a person stays for more than eight hours, of course that person qualifies for the daily bed Commonwealth benefit payment. That then entitles the patient to payment from the health insurance company for the daily rate, as I understand it. If the Minister for Health determines a particular sum in respect of a particular procedure, what will be the result insofar as the payment from the health insurance company is concerned? I think that is an important question. The Minister will appreciate that one cannot deal with these things on a pro rata basis. There are standard costs for beds, and one really cannot deal with that on a pro rata basis. I also draw the Minister's attention to the request by Senator Haines and by Senator Peter Baume for an interpretation of what the term 'part of an overnight stay' means. What does that term mean? With that request, I believe that Senator Haines, in her speech at the second reading stage, sought some guarantees from the Minister in the hope that either this will not be proclaimed until such time as there have been consultations, or, alternatively, some more satisfactory amendments are presented to the Parliament. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.06) —On clause 8, I, too, would like some clarification of what the Minister said. I appreciate that Senator Walsh, as Minister for Finance, is not terribly au fait with this particular piece of legislation. I understand that it is difficult for him to give off the cuff comments about it. But I would like clarification of some points in the answer that Senator Walsh gave to the queries that were raised by me and by Senator Peter Baume. Did I understand the Minister to say that the Government is meeting the private hospital sector's concerns about the impact of clause 8 by setting different rates of Commonwealth benefits according to the type of treatment required by patients who do not stay in hospital for part of an overnight stay-whatever the definition of that term turns out to be? Secondly, I repeat Senator Harradine's question: What effect will that have on the private health insurance benefit that is paid to those patients? The private hospitals are obviously concerned that patients will stay overnight, because obviously, they would not stay until one minute past midnight, if that turns out to be the magic hour, and then go home. Patients will not want to do that and hospitals will not want their procedures changed like that. To do so, of course, would place an extra cost on everybody concerned. It would be extremely awkward for patients and hospitals, or a nuisance, anyway. Furthermore, this practice could take up a bed which could well be occupied by someone who genuinely needs to stay, not just for part of the night, or partly overnight, but for the whole night. Finally, the Minister started to tuck his chin down into his neck towards the end of his answer and he muttered some words that I did not quite catch. Will he clarify this: Did he say that as far as the Government is concerned, clause 8 will be essentially non-operating until full discussion has been undertaken with the Australian Private Hospitals Association, the Australian Catholic Hospitals Association, the health insurance funds and anybody else who needs to be consulted and whose views need to be taken into account over the impact of this particular clause? It is important that on this matter we have quite a clear undertaking about what the Government intends to do to hold this clause in abeyance until full discussions have taken place with those sections of the industry that are concerned and full explanations have been given by the Government concerning the impact on the hospitals, the patients, the funds and everybody else. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.10) —The basic intention of clause 8 is to put the free-standing surgical centres on the same basis for subsidy as private hospitals. I am advised that there are already three free-standing surgical centres-one in the Australian Capital Territory, one in South Australia and one in Victoria. The Government believes that, at least in the case of some medical services, these centres will deliver services in a more cost-efficient way than private hospitals, but for the same sorts of services the same levels of subsidy will be provided. In answer to one of the other questions that Senator Haines asked, the subsidy is likely to be at least $70 for standard services, but under special circumstances such as the one to which I referred before-renal dialysis-significantly higher levels of subsidy will be provided. The proposal is that this clause should commence operation on 1 September, and in the time between now and 1 September the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) will be holding discussions and consultations with the health insurance associations and the private hospital associations. Senator Harradine asked what the term 'part of an overnight stay' actually means. I am advised that in practical terms it means a patient's stay when that patient is in hospital for a period that extends beyond midnight, although not necessarily to daybreak the next morning. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.11) —I thank the Minister for his response. I am a little concerned about his remarks equating private hospital day care with surgi-centres. While I think everybody fully approves of the establishment and the development of additional surgi-centres, there are only three of them at the moment-as the Minister pointed out, there is one in South Australia, one in the Australian Capital Territory and one in Victoria-they are not the sort of thing that everybody who needs day surgery can attend. It sounds suspiciously to me as if this clause is some kind of back door cost cutting exercise to force the private hospitals to conform with some pricing, cost effectiveness or provision of service arrangement, something that I am still not particularly clear about. I would have thought that incentives should certainly be given to encourage more private hospitals to establish surgi-centres, but that cannot be done overnight and I do not think that in the meantime we should have absolute disincentives applying to private hospitals that want to provide short term care, the sort of care that does not require an overnight stay or even part of an overnight stay. As to the other matter, I would like to know, albeit that the clause will not become operative until 1 September anyway, whether the consultation that the Government is undertaking to have with the industry will be undertaken with a view to changing that clause or not putting it into effect at all if it turns out that the effect will be damaging not only to day care but also the real health care needs of the patients who need something less than an overnight stay or part of an overnight stay, if that means remaining in hospital until a minute past midnight. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.14) —I do not know that I can say much more than I said before. The Government's intention is that where the same sort of service is delivered the same level of subsidy will be provided. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why anyone would object to that or would want to object to it. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.15) —I understand what the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, has said but both Senator Harradine and Senator Haines have raised an important matter. Senator Walsh has given an accurate answer, but the way in which equality is going to be obtained is by reducing the subsidy to one class of patients to bring them into line with all the others. That is the concern that really has not been answered. One group is having a benefit taken from it. If these subsidies do not come into effect until 1 September, as I think he advised the Committee, and if these concerns have been expressed I urge that the Government, as a matter of common sense, undertake really urgent consultations with the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Australia to iron out some of the problems it sees because otherwise we fear that some perverse effects will be produced and some of the concerns expressed by Senator Harradine and Senator Haines may well prove to be all too real. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.17) —Can the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) indicate what regulations are likely to be involved with the implementation of clause 8 and any of the clauses that have an impact on clause 8? We are all aware in this chamber tonight that the passage of this piece of legislation is important if the peace package is to be put into effect. None of us wants to jeopardise that at all but, by the same token, none of us wants to be put in a position where a piece of the legislation which is detrimental to a type of care and to the patients who want that care is sneaked in, for want of a better word, on the grounds that we are, indeed, keen to see the rest of the legislation passed. I think it is important that we are told quite clearly that the private hospital sector in Australia will not be adversely affected by this legislation, indeed that it is not going to be affected by it at all, until an opportunity is given for it to consult with the Minister and the Department and, if necessary, have changes effected-either a repeal of the clause or picking up any necessary consequential changes in the Budget session. I do not think that that sort of undertaking is too much to ask from the Government when we consider the seriousness of the alternative steps. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.18) —Senator Peter Baume asked whether I would give an undertaking that urgent consultations would commence. I will not be doing the consultations, but I understand that it is the intention of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to do just that. Senator Baume seemed to assume-this incorporates the further assumption that the actual cost for delivering a comparable service in a free-standing surgical centre is lower than it is in a private hospital-that the level set for all would be the level of the lowest cost and most efficient surgical centre. I think that is not necessarily the case. But more generally, I am advised that when the levels of day care are set it will be done by a regulation, which is subject to disallowance by the Parliament anyway if anybody at that time thinks that it is not appropriate. If Senator Haines thinks she cannot trust Dr Blewett or somebody else, she will have a chance to dispute the decision that is finally made then. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.19) —I think we have all been forced into a position, partly because the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is not normally the Minister who would be dealing with this matter, of accepting it as far as it goes. I must say that I am still extremely uneasy. I can foresee, if what I think is the Government's intention is actually put into effect, that we are going to have private hospitals changing their whole admission procedures, doctors changing their lifestyle and people being admitted at 6 o'clock at night, having the treatment that they need and being let out at five minutes past midnight. That may not be a bad way of circumventing any particularly insidious prospects the Government has for the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association and the people it represents. Obviously I cannot get any further information out of the Minister. I appreciate the position he is in, but I would also like the Government to appreciate the position the Committee is in. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.20) — I think Senator Haines has put the point squarely. We are concerned particularly about the patients. Many of these patients do not wish to be in the situation where they have to stay in hospital overnight. They have families to go back to and so on. I would like the Minister to answer two of the direct questions that I asked. The first question I asked was: Is clause 8 an integral part of the settlement of the doctors' dispute in New South Wales? Was the inclusion of that clause insisted upon by the doctors in New South Wales? Secondly-I repeat the question-in the event of the establishment of certain fees for procedures, what effect will that have on the payout from health insurance funds to the individual contributors? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.22) —As to the first question, clause 8 was discussed with the Australian Medical Association during the last couple of months. However, it probably should not be regarded as an integral part-I think that was the term used-of the settlement with the doctors in New South Wales but, rather, as an improved housekeeping measure. I think I heard this correctly: I am advised that the payment from the private health funds to the individual contributor would be the same regardless of whether the service was provided in a free-standing surgical centre or a private hospital. The payment would be the same if the service was the same. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.23) — I have just a very brief statement to make. I did not mean to ask whether the payment would be the same regardless of whether it was provided in a free-standing surgical centre or in a private hospital. What I meant was that at the moment, under the current provisions, if a patient is in the hospital for more than eight hours that patient qualifies for the Commonwealth benefit. That qualification, in turn, qualifies that contributor to the appropriate payment from the hospital benefits fund, as I understand it. If that is to be turned into an entitlement to receive a payment for a medical procedure, what effect will that have on the current amounts being paid from the health insurance funds to the contributor? It is terribly important to the individual contributors throughout Australia to know this. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.24) —I am not sure whether I have understood the question properly or whether my previous reply has been understood. The payment will be at least $70 a day and for some of the special services it will be more than that. But I think, if I understood Senator Harradine's question correctly, it really dealt with the procedures which would establish the entitlement of a contributor to a payment from the private fund. I am advised that they would be entitled to the private fund benefit but there would not be a Commonwealth benefit for day surgery. The funds will pay benefits at the levels determined by the Minister, which is the existing procedure, if I recall correctly. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.26) — I just wish to raise the question that was raised originally by Senator Haines in relation to clause 14. This matter was raised with her by the friendly societies, which have telexed quite a number of senators. They have been in existence for many years under State Acts-some more than 100 years-and they have over 80,000 members and more than $15m in funds. Senator Haines asked earlier why friendly societies should be put to the expense of obtaining Federal registration when they are now operating under State registration. The Minister responded that current contracts would still be able to be honoured and would not be affected by the legislation until they ran out. He also said that current liabilities would be honoured and would not be affected by the legislation. However, that does not go to the question of the additional expense and paper work that will be involved in these funds which are now registered under State registration. They have made it perfectly clear that they agree with the idea of community rating. They are upset about some of these other individual funds-not friendly societies-which are going after the healthy and issuing cut rates for premiums. I am concerned that these funds have not been consulted and I wish to register my concern because the people who belong to them are mainly rank and file people, including many unionists. Many of them have belonged to these funds for many years and it is of concern to note that the Government has not really consulted the funds before putting this amendment through in clause 14. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.28) —Most of the friendly societies are already registered under the National Health Act, but there are a few small ones that are not currently registered. The reason that registration will be required from these very small friendly societies is in order to enforce effectively the community rating principle. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 21 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.30) —I wish to speak to Supply Bill (No. 1), which appropriates the sum of $7.1 billion for extra expenditure to several departments- Senator Peter Baume —Mr President, are we considering the three Supply Bills together? If not, I suggest that we deal with the three Supply Bills together. The PRESIDENT —Order! Is it the wish of the Senate that the three Bills be debated cognately? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator MacGIBBON —I still wish to speak to only one Bill, and that is Supply Bill (No. 1). As I said, it appropriates the sum of $7.1 billion. The largest appropriation there is $2.4 billion for the Department of Defence. Defence is the most important duty of this Government and, regrettably, all we ever hear from the Australian Labor Party are a few platitudes from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he is seeking some votes at election time. Yet in the last week we have had two of the most important defence decisions that the Labor Government has brought down. They have been brought down in a clandestine way and sneaked through this Parliament without any comment. The first one is the decision on the project definition study for the new submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. The second is on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence following its defence inquiry last year. I will have something to say about that at another time. Since there is expenditure in this Supply Bill relating to the submarine contract, I wish to take a few minutes of the Senate's time tonight-regrettably, nowhere near as long as I would like-to canvas a few points about this most important issue. It is important because we will be asking men to go to sea in these ships and in times of war they will live, fight and die in them. In all the time I have been a member of the Senate I have had one inflexible rule, that is that I would never ask anyone to fight for Australia in any form of equipment that he did not have a fair chance of surviving in. I think that is a fundamental point that everyone in this Parliament must observe. That does not mean that we always have to buy the most expensive equipment. We probably always buy the most expensive equipment when we are dealing with fighter aircraft because the front edge of technology is always expensive. In other cases we might be able to compromise on quality provided survivability and use are there. But we must always buy equipment that gives a fair chance of surviving, and that is very important in relation to the submarine contract. The second point is that if we are involved in a war we have to win it, and if we have the wrong equipment and we lose the war because the equipment is inadequate, incompetent or the wrong type, we pay the price of our freedom. The third point is that here we are dealing with an enormous amount of money. People think of the F18 contract as being the most important and most valuable one we have had. This is a magnitude beyond. We are going to pay $2.6 billion in today's prices for these submarines and that will mortgage the whole of the defence vote for 10 to 15 years ahead, so it is important that we get it right. I am talking about this because no one in this country, least of all people in informed circles, thinks that we have got it right. There is a feeling around that a blunder of a magnitude that no one appreciates has been made here. I am calling on the Government to come across with the information and justify the decision it has made. What do we need from submarines in this country? Since we have lost our aircraft carrier, we are in a situation where the under-surface arm of the Navy becomes more important than the surface fleet, because in a contested situation where we do not control the air, we will not live on the surface of the water. I do not have time tonight to debate the pros and cons of the carrier and the decision of the Government to get rid of the Fleet Air Arm, but a submarine force becomes more important than it has been formerly. Many people think that, because the movies of the Second World War showed submarines fighting the battle of the mid-Atlantic, in a war situation when our surface ships are attacked we will be in a position to torpedo ships on the high seas. That is the least likely situation our submarines would be involved in in time of war. They would be used the way the British used their nuclear-powered submarines against the Argentinians-by blockading the harbours and cutting off the ports from which the enemy ships come. In the Australian geographic environment that means a sector of operations from the east coast of Africa right around to Petropavlovsk on the Asian mainland. It means enormous distances that have to be covered. Sydney to Yokohama is about 4,500 nautical miles. Sydney to Mombasa is about 6,500 nautical miles. One would probably get it down to 4,000 miles if one sailed out of Fremantle. That is why the decision not to consider nuclear submarines is so critical and why there is such a compelling case for the Government to answer. The advantages of moving at three times the speed at which a diesel-electric submarine will move, the ability to be concealed and not to surface off the harbours, not giving one self away with an infra-red signature from the exhaust as one charges batteries, and coming up and presenting something that can be picked up either on radar or visually, are so important. The reason why we did not consider nuclear-powered submarines is a case for the Government to answer. It is also a case for the Navy to answer. It must answer for being so weak that it did not put to the Government that in the 1980s, the 1990s and beyond the only way to go is nuclear power. We have elected to go for a diesel-electric submarine. If we have gone that way, we have to get the best we can, and this is where the trouble starts. There are two parts to a submarine, as I explained to the Senate a couple of weeks ago. There is the weapons systems fit-the way one finds the targets, the way one puts the information together, the offensive weapons one carries, and the way one launches them. That is one group. It is really an electronic group. The other group is the hull and the propulsion system. This Government has selected two consortia of manufacturers to compete to supply the weapons system part of the contract. There is no argument that the best weapons system suppliers in the world are the British and the Americans. I do not want to go into weapons systems in detail. I do not know much about the high technology part of it. I have some information, but it is moving into an area that is highly classified. All I will say is that the leading electronic suppliers in the world are not on the list the Australian Government has selected. We are definately operating in the second league with the firms we have selected. On the evidence I have and from my experience, I do not believe that there is any possibility of their putting the weapons system together with the sophistication we need. Then there are the hull manufacturers. The Government has put up two manufacturers, the German firm Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft and the Swedish firm Kockums. The Kockums group has been put in just for the contrast, the way the ladies of the Spanish Court used to keep monkeys so that they looked attractive. Kockums is there to make HDW look attractive. What about this HDW company? When the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) answered a question last week he misled the House of Representatives because he implied that HDW was a reputable company. He said that HDW produces something like 50 per cent of the boats sold in the conventional submarine area. That may be. On my information, HDW has sold 60 boats since 1960, but it has sold them to countries such as Ecuador, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Colombia, Greece and Turkey-hardly the front rank of submarine powers in the world. It has sold boats to Norway, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Indonesia and India. They are all low-technology boats. There is no confidence at all, with a boat that exists purely on paper and is four times the size that HDW supplied to the Federal Republic of Germany for its navy-the largest ship the FRG has in its submarine fleet is 450 tonnes-that HDW can come up with the paper boat the Australian Government has bought. By coincidence, in the early 1980s the United States Navy considered the provision of diesel-powered submarines as a supplement to its nuclear attack and strategic fleet. The Americans went into this very thoroughly. They were not interested in building the boats themselves. They were interested in buying them from a European source. I quote from a paper by Mr Lehman, the Secretary of the United States Navy and one of the great historic Secretaries of the United States Navy, a person who will rank in history with Forrestal. Lehman said in that report that the HDW design was found to have 'some attractive features' but does not meet current American standards relating to submarine silencing, safety, maintainability, and manning. There can be no more damning criticism of a design than that it did not meet the standards of submarine silencing because that is how submarines are found and killed. He went on to say: In order for a German-designed submarine to be sufficiently upgraded to be acceptable for US submarine operations it would be necessary for the government of the United States to convey an extraordinary amount of engineering, development, and design technology to the Germans. The transfer of this information would eliminate exclusive US control of the advanced submarine silencing technology that currently provides much of the advantage US submarines have over those of other nations. There are many other technical shortcomings with this boat, but I suggest to honourable senators that the company that we have selected has not built a boat of the capabilities of the present class of submarine we have and to assume that it will suddenly acquire that skill in the fulfilment of the Australian contract requires a very great deal of optimism and faith. One of the strangest parts about this is that there is a good boat that is available-and that is the British 2400 design. Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd has been building submarines for over 100 years. It has been building them both in nuclear-powered and conventionally-powered forms. The important thing about the Vickers boat is that it incorporates all the nuclear submarine technology. A nuclear submarine operates in an entirely different field from the field in which the short range, shallow diving, light weight boats that the Germans and the European powers build. They operate at far greater depth. They operate under far greater stress. They operate at high speeds and high turning rates. They operate with steep descent and steep ascent profiles. They are very much stronger and very much tougher. They are built to withstand the blase of nuclear depth charges. This is the engineering that is in the British boat that is offered to us. Furthermore, the British have offered us the choice if we go this way of modifying their fleet so that we have commonality with a fleet which is actually being built for the Royal Navy. Most importantly, in light of the remarks I made first of all about a nuclear-powered version, the Vickers boat will be available with a nuclear-powered engine in the years to come. There is the great advantage of having the best of both worlds; having a common fleet and common equipment with two power sources. As I said earlier, there is no confidence in the defence community that the right decision has been made. If we look at previous decisions of Labor governments, if we go back to the Whitlam years and look at the Leopard tank and the FFGs-two of the worst buys this country ever made-we see a parallel between them and the submarine contract. It is for the Government to justify what it has done, to justify the expenditure of money, the way the Royal Australian Navy's future is being mortgaged on what is on the surface a very inferior and very third rate weapons system that the Government is proposing to lock the Australian Navy into for the next 20 or 30 years. If the Government does not do that, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have made it very clear what they will do. When we get into power-in six weeks, six months or 12 months or whatever it is-we will go back to first principles and we will examine this contract from the first and get the best boat for the Australian Navy. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.44) — The Opposition does not oppose the passage of Supply Bill (No. 1) 1985-86, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86. Senator Withers —Shame! Chuck them out. Senator PETER RAE —My colleague behind me suggests that we should chuck them out. I can well understand why he, having regard to some historical precedents, might think that is a good idea. Whilst I totally agree with what my other colleague Senator MacGibbon has said about the total misfortune of the way in which the Royal Australian Navy submarine purchase is proceeding, it is not our business to hold up Supply. It is not our business to prevent the Government from being able to misspend the taxpayers' money in the way in which it wishes. Unfortunately, the vote which it received in the last election was sufficient, just by a fraction, to enable it to govern and have the power to determine how the taxpayers' funds will be spent. Whilst we complain bitterly and say that it is the highest spending, biggest taxing government in the history of Australia and whilst we say that it has engaged in one of the most despicable slight of hand exercises in recent times with the recent mini-Budget, we do not propose to hold up the passage of the Supply Bills, which Bills will enable the operation of government in Australia to proceed for the next few months. In case anybody does not understand what the Supply Bills are all about, the purpose is to provide temporary Supply between the end of the current financial year and the passage of the Appropriation Bills which follow the introduction of the Budget in August. We will have a great deal to say about the Budget which will be introduced in August. The Supply Bills are simply facilitatory to enable government to continue to operate. While we entirely support my colleague Senator MacGibbon taking the opportunity to talk about something of extreme importance to Australia as the disastrous decision taken in relation to the submarine purchase, we do not intend to hold up the passage of the Bills and we will support their immediate passage. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.47) —Mr President, I have no response. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Questions with regard to the remaining stages for the passage through the Senate of the following Bills, viz: Supply Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86, being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.48) — The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 21 May, on motions by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.50) —For the reasons I have already explained, the Opposition supports the passage of the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86 forthwith. These Bills are to provide temporary supply to enable government to operate pending the introduction of the Budget in August. For that reason we do not wish to hold up the Committee in any way at all whilst debating the matter. Senator Haines —Then sit down. Senator PETER RAE —I do not wish to be asked to sit down. I just wish to explain why we do not want to hold up the Committee in relation to these Bills. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator BLACK(Queensland)(10.52) —Last evening I discussed matters relating to National Free Enterprise Ltd, a company which was formed by leading Queensland National Party identities on 27 September 1984 for the purpose of passing money on to the Queensland National Party and avoiding the disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Eight days after the company was formed on 5 October 1984 it donated $300,000 to the Queensland Branch of the National Party of Australia. The company's memorandum of association specifically allowed this company to make that extraordinary donation to the National Party. One relevant clause, clause 2 (t), empowers the directors to: . . . make donations for patriotic or charitable purposes. This large amount of money, raised at the rate of $37,500 a day, represents an extraordinary fund raising drive, unparalleled in Australian political history. It represents more than 90 per cent of the total donations declared under section 3 by the Queensland National Party in its returns lodged recently with the Australian Electoral Commission. It also represented more than one-third of the total Queensland National Party campaign expenditure of some $842,000 during the last Federal election. It was more than adequate to cover the $260,000 spent by the Queensland National Party on television and radio advertising. Because the Queensland National Party has gone to such extraordinary lengths to hide the source of this $300,000 donation I think it is only fair to ask the question why it has done so. Did the money come from a number of wealthy individuals or from companies representing very wealthy individuals? When examining possible sources of donations I uncovered the Free Enterprise Welfare Foundation- Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is contrary to Standing Orders to be reading a speech. What is happening at the moment is the most blatant exercise of an honourable senator reading a speech because he does not even know what he is talking about but providing an opportunity to put something prepared by somebody else into Hansard. Senator Robert Ray —That is a reflection on the senator and you know it. Senator Peter Rae —And I mean it. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Robert Ray —You are smearing someone without evidence. Senator Peter Rae —He is reading it. Senator Robert Ray —That does not mean he didn't prepare it. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Robert Ray not to interject. Senator Peter Rae, I take it that you have finished your point of order. There is no point of order. I assume Senator Black is reading from copious notes. I call Senator Black. Senator BLACK —Thank you, Mr President. When examining possible sources of donations I uncovered the Free Enterprise Welfare Foundation Ltd, a company incorporated in Queensland on 18 February 1983. This company was formed ostensibly for the purpose of welfare assistance yet it has included among its memorandum of association clause 2 (x) which empowers the directors to: . . . make donations for patriotic or charitable purposes. This clause is identical-word for word-with clause 2 (t) included in the memorandum of association of the National Free Enterprise Ltd that empowered that company to bankroll the last Queensland National Party campaign. The company includes among its directors Mr Brian Ray, company director, of 47 Albatross Avenue, Knobby's Beach; Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, Premier of Queensland, of Bethany, Kingaroy; and Florence Isabel Bjelke-Petersen, senator, of Bethany, Kingaroy. As Mr Brian Ray is currently before the Melbourne Magistrates Court facing charges of conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth and conspiracy against a law of the Commonwealth, I feel that it is completely inappropriate for me to comment any further about him or this company. However, I should point out that Mr Ray has been described openly in the media as a collector of funds for the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. I am currently conducting investigations into a number of other Queensland companies which may have made donations to the National Party through National Free Enterprise Ltd as I believe that the Queensland public has a right to know who is bankrolling National Party campaigns in my home State. I am doing this not simply for the Australian Labor Party in Queensland but, of course, for the Queensland Branch of the Liberal Party, which is even keener than the Labor Party in Queensland to uncover the sources of these funds. I will be putting these facts before the Senate at a later date. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.56) —I wish to take some time in the adjournment debate tonight to speak on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Australian Defence Force's structure and capabilities which was tabled in October 1984. In particular I refer to the response last week of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). This report involved the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee in a great deal of work. It is a report whose scholarship will stand up to any examination. It is very disappointing first of all that the response of the Minister was sneaked through the-- Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for Senator Black, having just made what may be regarded by some as a rather dastardly attack, firstly, to hand over the written notes from which he has read and, secondly, to leave the chamber immediately he finished speaking? The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator MacGIBBON —I was saying that the way in which the Minister presented the response-it is the response of the Executive Government-to a closely reasoned and important report on the Australian defence forces was a long way short of satisfactory. We have had no opportunity to debate it so I have to raise the matter tonight in the adjournment debate. The Committee report was unanimous with respect to all its major findings and recommendations. It is true that Senator Lewis and Mr Shipton put in minority reports but they were on fine detail and had nothing to do with the general line of argument in the Committee's report. I could paraphrase the findings of the report in a few sentences. First of all, we found that the capability of the defence forces at present to react immediately in a general sense to a low level threat was very inadequate. We found that supplies of ammunition, fuel and the rest of it were not adequate to sustain any operations for more than a very brief period. More importantly, we rejected the concept of the no threat doctrine on which Australian defence has rested for many decades. Instead, we put forward the concept that the defence forces should be told that their duty is to protect Australia, and that means not only the Australian mainland but also our island possessions such as Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands because they are very important to us. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands get very little attention at all. I put this to the Senate: India is certainly the largest democracy in the world, but unfortunately Mrs Gandhi was murdered last year and it is not impossible for the democratic Government in India to change and for India to take an aggressive view of its activities in the region. If India took the Cocos (Keeling) Islands the key to the whole of the Indian Ocean would be lost. If the Cocos (Keeling) Islands were taken there would be no way in which Australia could take them back. So it is very important to be able to hold them and deny them to an aggressor. That was the first task we set. We said: 'Your first duty is to hold the Australian mainland. Your second task is to have such a deterrent capability that you will make the cost prohibitive for anyone in the region to attack or invade Australia.' That deterrent capability is within Australia's capability. The report was very well received by the Services. All three Services thought that the report had a lot going for it. There were detailed comments by each relating to its own part of the Services but the overall view was that it was well worth while and it provided something to be seriously thought about. The reaction from the civilian component of the Department of Defence was one of shock and horror because the report shot its sacred cow-the no threat document-and drew attention to the shortcomings in the present structure of the defence forces. The Department of Defence embarked on a burial operation of submerging the report and hiding it. We can see the consequence of that in the way in which this report, written by the civilian component of the Department of Defence, was presented by the Minister for Defence in the dying hours of the Parliament. All I can say about the Minister, despite his charming personality, is that he did not read the report presented by the Committee. Senator Button —Are you speaking about me again? Senator MacGIBBON —No, not at all. Senator Button —I heard you refer to a charming personality. I naturally assumed it was me. Senator MacGIBBON —I was referring to the Minister for Defence. If the Minister had read the Committee's report, he certainly did not understand it; and he does not understand what a defence force for Australia is about. I cannot understand how anyone who knew anything about defence could have had the lack of pride to present this report, which is an intellectually barren document and a document which fails to deal seriously with the reasoned case put by a bipartisan committee of this Parliament. The hour is late and I do not propose to go through this report in the way it should be done, but there are a couple of points I wish to make in passing. In the introduction to the report, the statement is made that the Committee's report displays some misconceptions about defence. It does not go on to say what those misconceptions were but it creates the belief in the reader that perhaps the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was wrong. Later, on the same page, it says: . . . the report then attempts to address the nation's defence capacity and priorities. It is in this discussion that the Government has reservations about some of the conclusions, particularly the scope for them to be implemented within realistic financial planning estimates. So the Government cast light on the credentials of the Committee, first of all, by referring to misconceptions, then it invoked the sacred cow about cost. Later in the introduction, the Minister hides behind the fact that a review into defence is to be undertaken by a respected consultant, Mr Paul Dibb. Mr Paul Dibb is a respected strategic analyst, but he knows nothing at all about weapons systems or force structure. He knows nothing at all about the operational doctrine of our forces. Quite bluntly, Mr Dibb's capabilities to do the assessment are less than the capabilities of the parliamentary committee which looked into the same matter. Mr Dibb is being used to delay any hard decisions by the present Australian Government in defence because, by putting Mr Dibb in to review the defence forces, the Government is employing a technique which allows it to get away from making the hard and difficult decisions that need to be made to get our defence into shape. Again in the introduction, while we are on the subject of errors, the claim was made by the Minister that most of our maritime, combat and transport aircraft could be made ready in a matter of weeks, if necessary. The Committee had criticised the lack of capability of our maritime aircraft. It is nonsense, and it is quite untrue for a Minister to claim, that maritime aircraft can be brought to readiness in a matter of weeks. We have fewer than seven operational crews in each of the two long-range maritime patrol squadrons we have. Crews cannot be trained in much under six months. LRMP captains cannot be trained in that time. It is blatantly untrue and misleading of the Minister to make a claim such as that. Then we move to the detailed response of the Department to the Committee's reports. The Department, selectively, chooses only 48 points out of the many that were raised there. I do not propose to deal with all of those 48 points; I shall deal with a mere half dozen or so. The first point with which I deal is the business where the Minister claims: A supposed attack out of a 'clear blue sky' is simply not a sensible basis for judging Australia's defence preparedness. This is a complete reversion to what the Committee disproved, and that is the belief that there is any sense in supporting a no-threat doctrine. There have been about 67 major wars since the end of the Second World War, and there have been hundreds of minor ones. I would say that 95 per cent of those armed conflicts have not been preceded by any warning at all. The doctrine that the Minister puts forward in this paper is the old doctrine, the rejected doctrine-rejected by this Parliament-that we shall get warning before an attack. What the Department is saying here is, first, that there is no threat at present; if a threat emerges, we shall see a dramatic shift in the political situation in a country in the region. Following on that, it says, we shall see overt military preparedness. We shall notice that preparedness, the aggressive intent, and we shall react and prepare against it. That is simply not true, and it is the point that the Committee took considerable pains to demolish. The response also says: Some elements of the Australian Defence Force are structured to meet higher level contingencies which are credible only in the longer term. It is not necessary to keep these elements at a high state of readiness at present. One can only assume from that that the Government has further cuts in mind with respect to our meagre preparedness. I said in my introduction that the Committee said that we had essential areas of interest, yet the Department rejected this view with one of the most glaring examples of bureaucratic journalese I have ever read. It said: Given the nature of the strategic region in which Australia is situated, and the absence of formal defence alliances between Australia and its neighbours (except for New Zealand), there are presentational and practical constraints in defining the area within which our forces would be required to operate in the way suggested by the Report. Rather the Government believes we should take account of the influences right across the region . . . That means nothing at all. We can know what is going on in the region, and if our priorities are that we defend Australia first and have a deterrent capability, what is going on in the way that the Minister suggests is irrelevant. The Committee came up with certain recommendations of priorities. Those priorities were that we developed a capability to know what was going on in the area, with surveillance equipment; that we had airborne refuelling capabilities; and that we had some decent maps and charts. The Minister makes the claim in his statement that the Government has done a lot to improve the charting of the country. The evidence the Committee got was that if the navy worked as hard as it was going, it would be 60 years before we got modern charts. That is hardly, in any sense at all, dealing with this is a matter of priority. I do not wish to go into this matter at great length tonight. I come back to where I started: The statement fails to answer the serious points raised by the Joint Parliamentary Committee; it deals with them with an intellectual barrenness, which guarantees that the report was written right at the senior levels of the civilian component of the Department of Defence; and it is a matter that I shall debate in detail at a time when the Senate has a little more leisure. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.10) —I wish this evening to raise a few matters that have particular relevance to South Australia. The first is a matter raised in the Senate on 13 May in the form of a question in relation to the Adelaide Access Handover Centre. The response was given by Senator Gareth Evans on 14 May. In his response he indicated to the Senate that an independent valuation of the Handover Centre pilot project and comments by the Adelaide Central Mission, which ran the service, had been received and were being examined. He went on to make a few other comments, but he finalised his response by saying: . . . no funding to the Adelaide Centre by the Commonwealth is being considered at this stage. I wish to make two points in relation to this matter. Firstly, I regret that Senator Evans chose not to inform the Senate that the independent evaluation that had been received and was being considered concluded that the Centre was a good idea. It recommended that it should continue. I would have regarded that as a fuller, more appropriate and perhaps more decent answer to give to the Senate. I do not wish to impute any improper motives to Senator Evans in not informing the Senate that the independent evaluation recommended that this pilot project should continue; nonetheless, the fact is that he did not inform the Senate of that. There has been plenty of comment in the Press over the last couple of weeks to the effect that if a person is old, young or an ex-serviceman the Australian Labor Party wants to get him, and it seems that the same thing applies if one happens to be divorced and is having trouble sorting out access arrangements. I commend the Government for having funded this pilot project and for having had an independent evaluation of the project undertaken. I condemn it, however, for choosing to ignore the advice offered in that independent evaluation and for choosing not to continue funding that Centre. It seems to be somewhat of a waste of money to set up a pilot project and then set up a system to work out whether the pilot project was a good idea and, having been informed that it was a good idea, decide not to continue anyway. I referred several days ago in this chamber to the second matter I wish to raise; that is, the setting up at Elizabeth of a special primary school particularly for Aboriginal children. Mr President, you may recall that I expressed some anxiety over the setting up of this school and urged that its development be watched closely. I had that concern because we had heard from other countries that separate development is good development, and that parallels could be drawn between the separate development in education at Elizabeth and the separate development in South Africa that people in this Parliament, and indeed the whole country, are so very rude about. Senator Georges —And rightly so. Senator VANSTONE —I agree with Senator Georges-rightly so. I feel duty bound to inform the Senate that I now know a bit more about South Australia's view with respect to this school than I knew at the time. There have been many letters to editors in relation to this school. I think some of the comments made are worth repeating in the Senate. One person wrote informing us that the State Minister of Education, Mr Arnold, alleged that: . . . being constantly in a minority, constantly on the fringe, it is clear many Aboriginal children are not able to succeed in the normal school system. The writer went on to say: Yet more than 100 ethnic groups in Australia are in a similar minority position. Can each of these demand a separate school fully funded by the Government? Some of the other letters informed us that the Minister was reported to have said that a separate school would improve race relations. The person who wrote that letter went on to point out that she thought this would set up an apartness, drawing an analogy, obviously, to apartheid. Perhaps a bit more telling about politics in South Australia is the comment by a person named Cucksey from Elizabeth East who says: Elizabethans have been waiting since the December by-election to discover what form of punishment would be meted out for their impertinence in electing the people's choice in preference to the party's-- that is the Labor Party's- choice. The Minister for Education has ended that wait by decreeing that Elizabeth will be subject to yet another social experiment. We are to be the guinea pig for black and white separatism. I think it is disgraceful that this school has been developed in an environment that is not conducive to improving racial relations in this country. It was clear from the comments I made the other day that the school council and various other bodies that were consulted voted against this school proceeding. As I pointed out the other day, nonetheless, the State Minister chose to proceed. I simply inform the Senate that the expressions by the people of South Australia seem to be confirming the view at the moment that they, as I, would not condone separate development on a racial basis. The third matter I wish to raise, admittedly in a somewhat lighthearted manner, but as this is nearly the end of the session I feel that is not necessarily out of place concerns a small clipping out of the Adelaide Advertiser of 30 May 1985 with the headline 'Queensland dispute Bill passes Senate'. I remind honourable senators that the Australian Democrats' advertising for the last election ran roughly along the lines of 'You can change the world-vote Australian Democrats'. These advertisements-I congratulate them-did pass on an implication of power and a capacity to achieve. In anticipation of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) being in the chamber I was racking my brain trying to think of the non-sexist terminology for impotence, frigidity or barrenness. I could not come up with a non-sexist term for these, so I will simply have to draw my conclusion in sexist terms. I invite other members of the Senate to do just the same; that is, to reflect on the performance of the Democrats in this chamber over this session and to ask themselves just how much people who voted Democrat have been able to change the world and just how impotent, frigid or barren the Democrats are more and more appearing to be. I turn to the bottom of this article, which states: Earlier-- that is earlier than some time referred to in this article- the Australian Democrats in SA said they opposed the Federal Democrats' support of the legislation. Their parliamentary Leader- that is the State Democrats- Mr Milne, described the legislation as 'another chip away at States' rights'. I do not know whether Mr Milne was having a bit of a pun with the 'chip', nonetheless I simply draw this article to the Senate's attention because it has come to my notice that the Democrats have quite often joined with members of the Opposition in cajoling and rubbishing the Labor Party for the factionalism and problems that they have at the moment, all a part of the stern stuff of opposition and debate. I think it is fair to point out to the Senate that as there are those divisions in the Labor Party so this article would indicate that there are those divisions in the Australian Democrats. Mr President, I thank you for your time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(11.19) —In the closing stages of this Parliament, the Government of Queensland has come under continued attack from members of the Government who have set themselves up as the de facto opposition and opposition in exile. I believe that they think the Queensland Government has no chance of ever achieving government in its own right so they have taken the matter upon themselves to be the opposition down here. That is probably correct because the latest polls show that in Queensland the popularity of the Australian Labor Party has fallen a further 4 per cent. But the situation is becoming very unhealthy in Canberra. The obsession of the Labor Party senators in relation to Queensland is becoming quite ridiculous. The reason is clear: The Queensland Government is a conservative government and the Labor Party in Queensland is in tatters. The stories are getting more inaccurate and ridiculous as this parliamentary session draws to a close. The outcome will be that those people who handle the truth lightly will lose their credibility; it will be destroyed, if it has not been destroyed already. Yesterday at Question Time a number of tall stories were told by way of dorothy dixers asked of Ministers. Let me go through the stories one by one. The first story was that the Queensland State economy is mismanaged. That is rubbish. In this place we hear of one or two negative figures and never positive indicators. For example, with only 16.1 per cent of the Australian population, Queensland accounted for 19.9 per cent of the dwelling unit approvals and 20.5 per cent of the value of the other building approvals for the eight months ended February 1985. With only 16.1 per cent of the population, Queensland accounted for 24.4 per cent of the non-building home constructions and commercial developments- Senator Robert Ray —What does 'non-building home constructions' mean? Senator BOSWELL —If Senator Ray wants to know, it means commercial constructions. Queensland accounted for 24.4 per cent of the commercial constructions for the six months ended December 1984; 23.7 per cent of exports for the six months ended December 1984; and 16.1 per cent of the retail sales for the seven months ended January 1985. There is only one thing wrong with the Queensland economy and that is what is in the minds of the Government senators in this place who should be standing up for their States and who do not. The second tall story is that there is no sex education in Queensland. Honourable senators opposite are wrong again. Sex education is provided by the Education Department for any student who wishes to attend such classes out of school hours. Senator Reynolds —At night, after school. Senator BOSWELL —Let me remind Senator Reynolds that there are parents who feel that it is incumbent on them to educate their own children about sex and they do not want it taught in the school classrooms. The third tall story is about a $5m dam on the MacKenzie River to water a property owned by John Bjelke-Petersen. Honourable senators opposite are wrong for the third time. The dam is 45 kilometres away from the property which has its own anabranch of the MacKenzie River. The fourth tall story was that the five pilots employed by the Queensland Government were sacked because they wanted to record passengers' names in the log books. That is wrong again. The fact is that the State Government reshuffled the air wing. The pilots were given three months notice and told that they could apply for new positions to pilot the aircraft within the Police Department. The air wing was split into the police air wing and the ministerial air wing. The fifth tall story was that Queensland had accumulated the highest per capita debt of any State. That is wrong again. The explanatory notes of the Australian Bureau of Statistics government financial estimates warn about the use of deficit figures. To save the time of the Senate I seek leave to incorporate a document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Although this information is reclassified to be on a consistent basis using the ABS classification schemes, a consequence of obtaining data from such a variety of sources is that the figures reflect different accounting practices and this may give rise to differences between States and subsectors in the way the transactions are classified. 'This should be taken into account when making State by State comparisons of the forward estimates which are prepared from data sources providing considerably less detail than those used to compile the historical series of statistics on government outlays and revenue.' 'In recent years the Queensland Government has entered into special agreements with private sector enterprises to cover financing and loan servicing relating to the construction of railways and port facilities solely or mainly used by the enterprises concerned. As a result a substantial amount of capital expenditure on new fixed assets by the budget sector have been financed by security deposits received from the private sector, which are classified in this publication as deficit financing because they are repayable. 'However, a major feature of these agreements are provisions for minimum shipping tonnage requirements and the determination of freight rates and other charges, to be paid by the enterprises concerned, which are designed to ensure that sufficient funds are available to allow the Queensland Government to service and repay these deposits. Senator BOSWELL —I now come to Senator Black, who has been in this Parliament for only a short time and who wants to be an overnight star. He wants to see his name in lights and in print. He will have to learn very quickly that in this place fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Last night he tried to make an attack on National Free Enterprise Ltd and he found that he has miscued there. Senator Robert Ray —Why did he miscue? Senator BOSWELL —Because he could not even get the numbers; that is why. He comes back tonight and continues that attack. For years the Australian Labor Party has tipped buckets over the National Party, the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation and groups supporting the National Party. Then the ALP does a complete back flip and sets up its own foundation, similar to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. Not only did it do that; it got the same fund raising organisation that set up the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation to set up its fund. What about the T. J. Ryan Foundation in Queensland, organised to collect money for the Labor Party in Queensland? It would be quite easy to look up the articles of association and the directors of the fund if one wanted to grovel in the gutter with Senator Black. Why should not people in private enterprise support a private enterprise Premier and a conservative government? After all, the Queensland people's lives would be wrecked if the socialists took over in Queensland too. But there is not much chance of that ever happening. Senator Black failed to address himself to the hundreds of thousands of dollars of union funds that pour into the ALP's campaign coffers and operating funds Australia wide. He failed to say anything about the compulsory levies imposed on unionists which unions direct to ALP funds and their contributions by way of affiliation fees. Many unionists would not want a bar of the ALP. They do not support it electorally and they do not want to support it financially. But of course they do not have much choice in the matter. I ask Senator Black, the Government and all the ALP Senators who support the Electrical Trades Union and the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association whether this is a pay back for the legislation that went through the Senate yesterday. It is an attack on my State rights. Both those unions were mentioned as substantial donors to the ALP in the Electoral Commissioner's report. The National Party has been honest in dealing with these matters as the law requires. All donors are listed in its report to the Electoral Commissioner. The ALP has not disclosed contributions to some New South Wales candidates. It has chosen to release its reports to the Commission piecemeal so it is harder to put together a clear picture of all its operations. Has not the ALP included in its disclosures the operations of its New South Wales money laundering fund-the Australia Labor Party New South Wales Gift Pty Ltd. The company articles of association and aims are very clear yet there are no disclosures about what it has raised. Do we, as a party, have to make company searches to find out who the directors are, to embarrass them? Those directors could genuinely believe that the ALP has something to offer Australians. Should their names have to be dragged through cowards' castle and should all sorts of innuendoes be poked at them and their families? That is what Senator Black is doing-getting right down into the gutter. Do we have to delve into the Curtin Foundation in Western Australia and the Curtin Foundation federally? Do we have to look at every State to find out where funds are raised and who the directors are? Do we have to embarrass people and their families? Do we have to snoop around the Companies Office in every State to find out the Foundations in those States? I say to the Government and to Senator Black: They were elected to govern Australia, not to act as a Queensland opposition in exile. I give Senator Black a bit of advice. He should play the ball, not the man. Senator Colston —Mr President, through you I ask whether Senator Boswell will table the documents from which he was reading. The PRESIDENT —Senator Colston, you can move for that. Senator Colston —Mr President, I am well aware that I can move for that, but I thought I would do it in the gentlemanly way and through you ask Senator Boswell whether he will table the documents. The PRESIDENT —Senator Boswell, do you intend tabling the documents? Senator Boswell —Mr President, this is the only copy I have. I would be quite happy to photostat it and then table it. The PRESIDENT —Senator Boswell will table the documents. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.31) —Mr President, this has been a terrific debate on what we hope is the last evening of the session, and I am sure it has made us all feel much better and got the adrenalin flowing through our veins and so on! I must say that I do find the debate in some aspects rather pathetic. What we have had is an attempt by Senator Black to play the game of blackguarding Queensland, which has been going on in this place for some time and which I guess reflects the frustration that people such as Senator Black feel from being in a rump party in Queensland which has put in a rather pathetic performance for so long. In any event, let me say that the one thing that honourable senators opposite can be quite proud of is that they probably gave the greatest fillip to public funding and to some examination of these matters with the support of their party, the Australian Labor Party, for the Iraqi breakfast. They ought to remember that their Leader and senior members of their Party sat down with representatives of a foreign government and tried to raise hundreds and thousands of dollars in campaign funds. That is probably the most disgraceful single episode in Australia's history. Senator Robert Ray —It is; I agree. Senator CHANEY —I am glad to hear that Senator Robert Ray, who is distinguished in this place for being a pretty straightforward fellow, thinks that that is an absolute disgrace. A great deal of parliamentary attention has been given to the question of how we ought to run these matters in Australia now. I think Senator Robert Ray was one of the people on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform-there were others from both Houses-who recommended that we should have a new arrangement in Australia governing electoral matters. I understood that we had an Electoral Commission to supervise these matters, receive complaints and examine the sorts of matters which have been raised by Senator Black. I would have thought there were avenues open to him if he believes there have been fund raising practices which contravene the letter of the law which has recently been passed in this place to refer them to the appropriate authorities. I can only say that I doubt Senator Black's sincerity in this matter, although I think under Standing Orders I am not allowed to impugn his motives. I simply say that I would have thought that if there was a serious complaint it could have been referred to the appropriate authorities. But the way in which Senator Black has gone about it suggests that this is no more than just part of the bucket Queensland campaign that we have seen mainly from the front bench of the Labor Party. There has also been a good deal of it from the back bench as well. It really fascinated me to see the papers tabled by Senator Gareth Evans, who answered a dorothy dix on this matter, and to find that there had been contributions to his answer from at least three different sources. We had first of all a nice typed answer for the dorothy dix, then another form of typewriting and then a whole lot of Senator Gareth Evans's own writing. It is obviously a sad but true fact that senior Ministers in this Government have had time to sit down and work out how they might bucket the Queensland Government because obviously it is a thorn in their side. In response to Senator Black I simply say that if he believes there have been illegal actions on behalf of any party in Australia, whether it is his own or any other, no doubt his complaints can be referred to the Electoral Commission, the Australian Federal Police or whomever. No doubt if there are deficiencies in the law they are matters which can also be addressed by the parliamentary committee which I understand still exists to consider these matters. The night is late. It has been a lot of fun for Senator Black. Senator Colston's gall-I have not heard him stand up much for Queensland in here-in getting up and saying that Senator Boswell should table his notes when there was resistance to the point of order about Senator Black reading his speech, which was promptly handed to the attendant and taken off to Hansard, adds to my repugnance about the debate tonight. I think it has been a fairly pathetic end to a long session. I am sure that if Senator Black thinks he has any substance to his complaints he will forward them to the Electoral Commission, the police or somebody other than to the Senate who will have the authority to deal with the matter. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(11.35) —Talking about pathetic endings, we have heard two pathetic speeches in a row from the Opposition benches. The trouble with Senator Boswell is that he really thinks that his State is in tip top condition. Five Australian Labor Party senators represent Queensland. They do their very best but they are hampered by the fact that there is a regime in Queensland which is doing its very best to grind the Queensland economy into the ground. We have only to look at some of the indicators. The indicators have been mentioned here previously and I will not mention them again. Queensland is in a parlous situation because of the regime which is administering the Public Service there and doing what it can to make sure that Queensland is not going to get anywhere. I sometimes wonder whether the Premier of Queensland is deliberately doing what he is doing so that he can have a large pool of unemployed and he can further impose on the Commonwealth to pay unemployment benefit to the vast number of unemployed in Queensland, thinking that the Australian Government will be hampered by having to pay all that money. Sometimes I wonder whether that is deliberate. Senator Boswell comes into the chamber quite often and picks out a few statistics which he thinks will prove that Queensland is in a rosy state. It is not, and that is due to the Queensland Government. We five Australian Labor Party senators do our best to represent Queensland. Senator Boswell —It is not good enough. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Boswell is out of order for two reasons. Senator COLSTON —He is out of order again. Senator Boswell's Government is what really hampers us. If he wants to come in here time after time with spurious statistics to try to indicate that everything is rosy in Queensland, eventually we will have to go after him every time, show where he is wrong and indicate how poorly the Queensland Government is looking after its citizens. It is often not known that about 38 per cent of the Queensland population voted for the Government of the Party to which he belongs. Senator Boswell —Thirty-nine. Senator COLSTON —It was about 38 per cent. If Senator Boswell wants 39 per cent, he can take it. However, I am taking 38 per cent because I do not count those two renegades, Lane and Austin, as having gained their votes for the National Party of Australia. They stood as Liberal Party candidates. Even if one includes those two renegades who stood for the Liberal Party and who, immediately after the election, swapped horses and joined up with the National Party and even if one claims that their votes are for the National Party, that Party still did not get 40 per cent of the votes in Queensland. If one were looking at a two-party preferred vote one would say that the National Party and the Liberal Party combined probably had a majority. However the fact is that the National Party is ruling on its own with less than 40 per cent of the popular vote. This is the sort of thing we will have to come into this chamber and tell the people of Queensland about and let them know exactly what is happening in their State. I repeat: The only thing that is hindering the five Labor senators from doing better than we are doing in Queensland is what the National Party is doing through its regime to the people of Queensland. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(11.40) —Much to the concern of Senator Georges and probably of Opposition senators, who might find my speech boring in view of the recent events in this place, I wish to speak on a number of topics tonight. However, I cannot let the opportunity pass without saying something about Senator Chaney, who in his normal hypo- critical way made a contribution. Senator Chaney is a bloke who at the Seventh Australasian and Pacific Regional Parliamentary Seminar in October 1984 said: What I have found in my ten years in the Parliament is that the same sets of arguments are trotted out on both sides. If there has to be a change of government, what the Liberals were saying in government is said by the Labor people who are now in government and what the Labor people were saying in opposition is said by the Liberals when they are in opposition. The credibility of Senator Chaney is pretty well rock bottom when it comes to making an assessment of what he is saying tonight. We should also remember that Senator Chaney is one of those members who represents Western Australia. We all recall very well the sort of respect they have for the processes of law and order. Senator Chaney and his colleague Senator Durack presided over a government that kept in the bottom drawer of some junior public servant's office in the Attorney-General's Department a file that was very crucial to bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. Millions and millions of dollars were evaded because of the inactivity and negligence of people such as Senator Chaney and Senator Durack. We have come to expect that from that side of the House and it is a course of conduct we do not really find very surprising. The subjects I want to discuss tonight are hardly important in the context of the debate that has gone on tonight. I am glad to see that Senator Boswell has shown some sense in leaving this chamber. Mr President, I know that the topics I wish to raise are of interest to you, and for that purpose I shall pursue them. Senator Messner —Are they about football? Senator BOLKUS —Senator Messner mentions football. He would know better than most people in this place that the last thing I wish to talk about tonight is the fact that my football team in South Australia is not winning very many matches. However, next time we play Senator Messner's team I am sure that will be reversed. What has provoked me to speak tonight is what is called an Urgent Message from Europeans to Congress to support the Nicaraguan resistance. The other matter that has provoked me tonight is a matter that was discussed last night, and that is the subject of telephone intercept powers and the question of those powers being given to State Parliaments and State governments. I shall discuss that later in my speech. The question of Nicaragua is something which I think is extremely important, although it may not be as important to Queenslanders as it is to people in the rest of the world. This Urgent Message from Europeans to Congress is signed not only by Europeans but by a person called J. Malcolm Fraser, who now pretends to be a European-a former Prime Minister of Australia. It is a message to the United States Congress that has been signed by Malcolm Fraser. It is loaded, it is filled, it is ridden with falsities, lies, and nothing more than that. I feel quite sad that Malcolm Fraser, who I think in his term of office showed a great degree of strength and a great degree of perceptiveness, saw fit to sign this document. Despite the rhetoric and abuse that we on this side threw at Malcolm Fraser over eight years of government, one could not say that the man was a fool. Furthermore, one could not say that the man was not perceptive. However, in signing this document I think Malcolm Fraser was totally misled and totally ignorant. It is a document which states- Senator Peter Baume —Ring, ring. Senator BOLKUS —The Krondorf champagne is telling on Senator Baume over there. There are four major points in this message from Malcolm Fraser. He believes that the Government in Nicaragua is a totalitarian dictatorship. He calls on the United States Congress and a sense of morality to aid the Contras in Nicaragua. He believes that the Sandinistas are a Marxist-Leninist junta, and he believes that they are acting as an object of Soviet policy. I do not pretend tonight to go through the whole of the evidence against the case that has been pursued by J. Malcolm Fraser. However, what I do wish to say is that on all objective assessments, on the objective assessments of those impartial observers who have taken an interest in this country, whether it be the International Committee of the Red Cross, whether it be the America's Watch organisation, or whether it be any other international organisation, the statement to which Malcolm Fraser has signed his name is totally wrong and false. He talks about four years of dictatorship, when the Sandinistas have been in government for six years. He talks about the Sandinistas being a Marxist-Leninist junta from the start, when he full well should know that for the initial period of their government the American Administration supported them in government. He calls them a totalitarian ruling party. Anyone can perceive that the Sandinistas in government have the support of the Nicaraguan people. They showed their support in an election which was supported, witnessed and observed by international bodies throughout the world, be it the Canadian Government, the Swedish Government or any other international observer. Mr Fraser says that there is a state of emergency in Nicaragua, which shows that the political agenda of the Nicaraguan Government is that of a totalitarian dictatorship. One wonders where his voice is at the moment while Joh Bjelke-Petersen calls a state of emergency in Queensland. One wonders why he does not see that action as an indication of a totalitarian dictatorship. Mr Fraser went on to say that he believes that the people of Nicaragua need to choose freely their own political future. They have done that. They have done it to the satisfaction of international observers throughout the world. The most obscene part of the message that J. Malcolm Fraser has signed is that call on the United States Congress, in the spirit of democratic solidarity, in the call to morality, to support those who are seeking to exercise the right of free men. He calls on the United States Congress to support those so-called freedom fighters, the Contras. Time after time, report after report, the International Court of Justice, the America's Watch organisation, the International Committee for the Red Cross or whatever, any independent international organisation, has told Malcolm Fraser and anyone else who wishes to listen to the truth that the Government in Nicaragua is nothing like that at all. If Ronald Reagan and his lackeys throughout the world are prepared to continue to say that the Contras are the freedom fighters, let them look at some of the hard evidence. Let them look at some of the evidence from respected international independent organisations that can tell Malcolm Fraser and others that the Nicaraguan Government is the most liberal government in Central America and has been for the last 160 years. Let Malcolm Fraser listen to the fact that in Nicaragua prisons are open. Let him listen to the fact that the Somozan generals and colonels and whoever are free to move as they wish. Let him also listen to the fact that although the Nicaraguan Government made some mistakes in the early days it is now prepared to negotiate and is negotiating with whatever organisations exist in Nicaragua in order to provide for and to ensure a democratic system, be it an opposition party such as the Coordinora Democratica, the International Red Cross or any other organisation that wishes to prevail in that country, be it the newspaper La Prensa, the Church or the minority group, the Miskitos. The Sandinistas are showing tolerance on all internationally accepted values. They are showing a degree of sensitivity which other countries in that region-countries supported by Malcolm Fraser and Ronald Reagan and others-are not showing. As I have said, I do not want to go into this issue in depth; to do so would take quite some time. All I wish to say in conclusion about this matter is that I feel quite sad that Malcolm Fraser in his retirement days has chosen, quite misleadingly, to support this call as a European. One wonders whether he has seen the new map of the world. Even with the new map as it is presented today, I do not think that Australia fits within Europe as we know it. The other question I wish to canvass tonight was raised in the Senate last night. I refer to the transferring to State governments power to intercept telephone communications. As honourable senators will know, this question was raised last night in the course of the debate on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. In response to that Bill the Opposition moved an amendment, with which I did not agree. It is an amendment with which I believe many members of the Australian Labor Party throughout the country and within Caucus do not agree. Once again I think that to canvass all the issues involved in this matter would take too long and I do not wish to do that. However, what I wish to say very succinctly is that the proposal canvassed by the Opposition and proposed by some members of the Government is that State governments be given powers to intercept telephone communications in pursuit of organised crime and drug related offences. I have two reservations in respect of this particular proposal. One is that I do not think it will work and, in not working, it will lead to an uncontrolled situation which will give State governments and State police forces power to infringe civil liberties. The second is that I believe that there are alternative proposals which any government within Australia can pursue. These are proposals which have been recommended over the last five years or so by royal commission after royal commission. I believe those proposals would be more fruitful and less of an infringement of civil rights than the Government's proposal would be. My initial point is that the Government's proposal will lead to uncontrolled interception of telephone communications. The proposal is well meaning. The Government is intent on stamping out organised crime, particularly when it involves drug related offences. I believe that is a motive which should be supported. However, I believe that in supporting such a motive we need to be extremely sensitive, aware and perceptive of what we are doing. We are proposing that the States be given the facilities and power to intercept telephone communications. I believe these facilities will cost about $500,000 for each State. I believe these facilities, once they are set up, will not in practice be controllable by any Federal or judicial organisation. Let us look at the last few years and see what has happened under State government, State bureaucracies and State control. In recent years we have seen police officers, in collusion with the Commonwealth police, tapping telephones from Five Dock police station in Sydney. Illegal those taps may be. Contrary to the decision of government they may be. But the New South Wales police took it upon themselves to intercept telephone communications. The way that they achieved some sort of notoriety was to leak these communications to the Press. Not one person has yet been arrested or convicted because of the material obtained illegally by those people. I am concerned that if this sort of activity can continue with the collusion of senior officers, once one gives the toys and the facilities legally to State governments there will be no control over what State police forces do. It does not take all that much imagination to see what a Queensland government would do with a power to intercept telephone communications. As we have seen in recent days, in Queensland the course of justice has been perverted time and time again. The law provides that when an accused appears before a court he or she can be deprived of a statement of the charges alleged against him or her. Despite deprivation of those basic essentials for fair trial, a court, judges and courts of appeal have no right under the law to ensure that the accused has details of the charges. That sounds like an incredible situation but it has happened in the last few weeks in Queensland. With the sort of regard for civil liberties and natural justice that has been displayed by the Queensland Parliament, it does not take all that much imagination to work out what a Queensland government could do with the power and the facilities to intercept. The Government, in its good intentions, has said that there will be controls over this power of interception. The Government has said that it will be limited to organised crime. It has said there will be imposed on this power of interception conditions which I believe to be in conformity with some of the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission. These are recommendations which pertain to the power of intercept of a Federal Government. However, let me once again state the point that I do not believe that these powers can be controlled. For example, Joh Bjelke-Petersen could become aware of the fact that certain activities were being conducted in Queensland-activities which would be legal in the rest of Australia and the rest of the world. Let us take the freedom to organise held by the trade union movement. He would not be stopped from ensuring that the media soon became aware of breaches of the law no matter how wrong the law was. The Premier or the media would not be stopped from ensuring that the power that had been given to the States was extended. All sorts of communications would be covered by this power of interception. In essence, what we are talking about is the thin end of the wedge, a wedge that cannot be controlled by any government or any court in Australia. As I said earlier, I believe that organised crime should be combated in this country and that there are more effective ways of doing it. I could go through a list of something near 100 recommendations from recent royal commissions-for example, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs or reports of Special Prosecutor Gyles or reports of Robert Redlich. When one goes through these reports one finds somewhere in the vicinity of 100 recommendations of such commissions and bodies that would be more effective in pursuing organised crime and drug related organised crime than the proposal to give States the power to intercept telephone communications. There are recommendations affecting the banking and financial institutions in this country, recommendations affecting foreign exchange controls, recommendations affecting income tax assessment procedures, recommendations affecting evidentiary and procedural aspects of the courts, and I can go on. As I have said there are in the vicinity of 100 or so recommendations. I do not wish to go through them tonight. I believe that in the next few months I will have an opportunity to go through them again. Alternatively, one could look at another system of operating and conducting telephone intercepts when drug related offences and organised crime are involved, and that is to vest power in the National Crime Authority. It is an Authority which, under the authority and support of this Parliament, has been given the power and responsibility to pursue organised crime in this country. The National Crime Authority has the facility and the responsibility to pursue organised crime and I do not think it would take all that much to ensure that the States, in their pursuit of organised crime, worked in concert with the National Crime Authority to pursue the people who all of us in this Parliament wish to have brought before the courts and ultimately put in gaol. As I said at the start of my contribution tonight, I do not believe that I will canvass the issues properly. I do not think this is the appropriate time to make a lengthy speech on them. However, what I wish to do tonight in respect of Nicaragua, and Malcolm Fraser's signing of the message to Congress and the proposal to give power to intercept telephone communications to the States is to raise at this stage some of the issues involved for the notice of the Senate and also, hopefully, to provoke some sort of awareness on both matters. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.59 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 19) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Is Australia a signatory to the UKUSA Agreement; if so, when did Australia become a party to the agreement. (2) Has the agreement been reviewed since Australia became a signatory; if so (a) when; and (b) were there any alterations to the agreement and what were those alterations. (3) Does the UKUSA agreement have a termination date; if so, what is that date. (4)What other nations are party to the UKUSA agreement. (5) What is the purpose of the UKUSA Treaty. (6) What actions or obligations has Australia undertaken as a party to the UKUSA agreement. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) and (6): The policy of successive Australian Governments has been not to provide information that might confirm or deny speculation on this subject. This remains the policy. I do not therefore intend to comment on the matters raised in this question. (Question No. 142) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: Will the Government give an assurance that Australian military and bilateral infrastructure aid is not being used by the Marcos regime to suppress human rights in the Philippines, as has been alluded to by several aid authorities and Father Brian Gore. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government is aware of criticisms of the human rights situation in the Philippines and has on many occasions reaffirmed its commitment to the international protection and promotion of human rights. It has taken a particularly active interest in various aspects of the human rights situation in the Philippines, including those associated with the case of Father Brian Gore and his co-defendants. The Government has made its concerns known in the Philippines at the very highest level. The Australian Embassy in Manila maintains continuing contact with human rights and civil liberties groups in the Philippines and the Government closely monitors reporting by Amnesty International and other non-governmental organisations. Australian development assistance is given to support individual projects which are carefully assessed in the light of our own special criteria and objectives, the basis of which is a genuine concern for the interests of the people of the country. We also seek to take advantage of particular Australian expertise. Australia's development assistance to the Philippines is concentrated in the two rural development projects in Zamboanga del Sur and Northern Samar. These projects seek to establish a framework within which the standard of living of essentially poor, rural populations in their respective provinces can be improved. They concentrate on increasing rural incomes through expanding, improving and diversifying agricultural production. Infrastructural development is essential to support this program if the rate of economic growth in these areas is to be accelerated. Road improvement undertaken by these projects is designed strictly to promote economic development and not for military purposes. Recent studies have demonstrated their important economic impact. The Government has considered suggestions that Australian aid to the Philippines should be discontinued but has firmly taken the view that such suggestions overlook the fact that the result of such action would be to punish the most needy people in a developing country without influencing those who direct affairs. At the same time, the Government believes that Australian aid in developing infrastructure and alleviating some of the social and economic problems in developing countries can play a positive role in promoting human rights in recipient countries. Apart from economic and humanitarian aid to the Philippines, Australia also has a small Defence Co-operation Program with that country. This has increased from $0.804m in 1979-80 to $1.66m in 1984-85, although it has remained about the same in both real terms (taking inflation into account), and as a proportion of the overall Defence Co-operation Program (3.4 per cent). The modest Philippines DCP is, with the Singapore DCP, the smallest in South East Asia. In the region, the Philippines DCP is far smaller than that of Papua New Guinea ($15m), and about the same as the Vanuatu DCP ($1.5m). The DCP with the Philippines comprises mostly training and technical advisory assistance related to Australian equipment previously supplied under the Program. No weapons or armaments are supplied to the Philippines under the DCP. The Government believes that the DCP with the Philippines does not contribute to, or exacerbate, human rights problems in that country. (Question No. 147) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: Where in the Australian Capital Territory are devices available to enable deaf people to communicate by phone. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Telecommunications Commission: For people affected by deafness, Telecom supplies the following range of facilities: Gliding tone callers Extension bells Visual signalling Volume control telephones Hearing aid coupler Loud speaking telephones These facilities are available from Telecom Business Offices at: MLC Building, London Circuit, Canberra City Gallery Level, Belconnen Mall, Belconnen Special Purposes Building, Phillip Offices, Woden. (Question No. 160) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: What sort of extension, if any, is being envisaged to the Special Broadcasting Service's current program in view of the introduction of AUSSAT. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service reported to the Government on 31 December 1984 and the Report contains recommendations on the extension of SBS-TV and utilisation of AUSSAT. A small working group has been established within my Department to examine the report in consultation with other departments and relevant bodies. My Department is formulating a revised plan of extension beyond the current approved program which will include provincial cities in Australia to be determined in accordance with the perceived planning and technical criteria. This plan will be submitted to the SBS Planning Committee for endorsement. I hope to include details of this plan in the submission to Government on the SBS Committee of Review's recommendations so that it may be considered in the full context of the future of multicultural broadcasting. (Question No. 196) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How much Australian Government aid is currently going to Nicaragua and for what projects. (2) Is the Government aware of a project being sponsored by an Australian community group, Committee in Solidarity with Central America and the Caribbean, to build a small hospital in the town of Achuapa, Nicaragua; if so, is the Government prepared to contribute to this project. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Australian Government aid to Nicaragua from 1 July 1984 to the present has consisted of $75,000-grant to the International Committee of the Red Cross for its care and maintenance programs in Nicaragua. $26,000-for infant milk formula, purchased in Australia through the Head of Mission Discretionary Aid Fund. $1,515-subsidy to Community Aid Abroad for a film on Development Projects and Strategy in Nicaragua. $10,000-to Norcote City Council under the Non-Government Organisations Projects Subsidy Scheme. The city has a sister city, Masatepe, in Nicaragua. The project involves the building of a small factory for the production of concrete construction materials. These materials are to be used to provide low cost housing, water pipes, latrines and drainage. (2) Yes. The Government has not been approached to contribute to this project at this stage. Any application for assistance would be considered by ADAB under the guidelines established for the Non-Government Organisations Project Subsidy Scheme. (Question No. 198) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: Who invited the Premier of Queensland to open a Telecom Business Sales Centre in Brisbane on 6 February 1985. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: This was a management decision taken solely within Telecom. (Question No. 231) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: Has work on the new Darwin International Airport and associated facilities been cancelled permanently; if so: (a) has over $10m been spent on the project and much more committed by contract; (b) what compensation will contractors and sub-contractors receive for the cancellation of contract; (c) how many contractors and sub-contractors are involved; (d) how many workers have become unemployed as a result of the broken contracts and will the Government give an assurance that no contractor will be forced into bankruptcy; (e) is it correct that the only contract to be completed is for the water tower; (f) in light of the vast sums of finance being invested in the travel industry of the Northern Territory, particularly in the Darwin area where the airport terminal would play an integral part of the rapidly growing international and national tourist industry, what action, if any, does the Government intend to take to overcome the problem; (g) does the Government intend to take any action, as an interim measure, to upgrade the present terminal, an old Second World War hangar, which, with its surrounds, is in a disgraceful condition and does nothing to complement the huge sums invested by private enterprise; and (h) is the present facility in such a poor structural condition that the building must be evacuated in the event of a 75 knot per hour wind, such as Cyclone Gretel, which put Darwin and other settlements under test on 13 and 14 April 1985. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Work on the Darwin international airport and associated facilities has not been cancelled. The Government has deferred further contracts on the project pending a complete reappraisal of the scope of works to be undertaken. (a) It is estimated that approximately $7.1m will be expended on the project by 30 June 1985 since its commencement in 1983-84. (b) The question of compensation negotiations will be between the contractors and the principal for the contracts, which is the Department of Housing and Construction, and it will be within the terms and conditions of the contracts as to what amount will be admissable. It is expected to take some time to resolve and the Department of Housing and Construction is not in a position to provide a realistic estimate at this time. (c) and (d) The number of contractors, sub-contractors and workers who are and will be affected is not currently known but will be considered in the works reappraisal. (e) It is not correct that the only contact to be completed is the water tower. The installation of ducts for communication cables is also to be completed. (f) The Government has asked for a complete reappraisal of the Darwin international airport works and until this reappraisal is completed the Government is not going to pre-empt the findings. (g) As mentioned previously, the Government has announced that complete reappraisal of the project will be undertaken, including examination of any interim works required to upgrade the Darwin Airport terminal. (h) The current safety criteria employed at the terminal is that when winds in excess of 60 miles per hour (54 knots) prevail, evacuation procedures are instigated. (Question No. 232) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1985: (1) Did the President of the International Red Cross, Mr Alexandre Hay, say during a press conference in Geneva on 10 January 1985, that: (a) East Timor was one of the few countries where the IRC is prevented from giving relief to the victims of a military conflict; and (b) many countries, including Indonesia, were making it impossible for the IRC to operate in accordance with Geneva Conventions governing the conduct of war. (2) What agreements currently exist between the IRC and the Indonesian Government concerning East Timor in the areas of: (a) monitoring, distribution and supervision of humanitarian aid requirements, by IRC personnel on mainland East Timor as well as Atauro, Oecussee and Jaco Island; and (b) visits to detention centres (inside and outside East Timor) holding East Timorese detainees; (3) What is the expiry date of the agreements referred to in (2) above. (4) In which places, and on what dates, have East Timorese detainees been visited by IRC personnel since December 1982, and what number of prisoners were seen on each occasion. (5) Do IRC personnel have free access to all East Timorese political detainees; if not, what are the current limitations on access. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) At a press conference in Geneva on 10 January 1985, Mr Alexandre Hay, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, referred briefly to East Timor. Mr Hay said it was difficult for ICRC to visit some areas of interest to it in East Timor. (b) At the press conference, Mr Hay referred to the Geneva Convention but these comments were not related to Indonesia. (2) (a) The ICRC has not been involved in general relief activities on mainland East Timor since mid-1983. However, other ICRC activities in East Timor, including its program of protection visits and its relief and medical program on Atauro Island have continued without interruption. There is no specific ICRC assistance program in Oecusse or Jaco Island. The ICRC and the Indonesian authorities are in regular contact concerning ICRC activities in East Timor. In this context, the ICRC hopes to be able, in the near future, to conduct a general survey of possible humanitarian assistance requirements on mainland East Timor. (b) There is agreement in principle between the Indonesian Government and the ICRC whereby the ICRC may visit all 'GPK detainees' (Gerambalan Pengacau Keamanan-'persons arrested as a result of the events in East Timor'). This agreement covers Timorese held in places of detention in East Timor and in Jakarta. (3) The expiry dates for the agreements referred to above are not specified. (4) From December 1982 until the end of 1984, the ICRC made the following visits to East Timorese detainees: Numbers Detention Centre Dates visited L. P. Dili (Comarca) 12-13.3.1984 129 16-17.6.1984 160 1-2.10.1984 188 L. P. Kupang 13.6.1984 14 L. P. Cipinang, Jakarta 28.6.1984 12.9.1984 12 12 L. P. Tangerang 28.6.1984 1 12.9.1984 1 Kodim Detention Centre in Los Palos 19-29.9.1984 78 Kodim Detention Centre in Baucau 23-24.9.1984 29 Kodim Detention Centre in Viqueque 27-28.9.1984 23 The ICRC made a further protection visit to East Timorese detainees in April-May 1985. During this visit, the ICRC visited 182 detainees in Comarca Gaol (Dili), three detainees in Becora Gaol (Dili), and 42 detainees in Cipinang Gaol (Jakarta). The Government is aware that 50 East Timorese detainees have subsequently been released from Comarca Gaol. (5) The understanding between the Indonesian Government and the ICRC is that the ICRC should have access to all 'GPK' detainees. All visits accord with the standard ICRC requirements, including the absence of third parties during interviews. The Government understands that the ICRC is generally satisfied with the access to East Timorese detainees over the last 18 months. (Question No. 233) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1985: (1) Is the Government aware of a list of 42 East Timorese, allegedly held in Cipinang Prison and Tangerang, Java, Indonesia, which was published by the British human rights organisation, Tapol, in March 1985; if so, can the Government confirm whether the East Timorese listed are or were imprisoned in Java and provide information on the reasons for their detention; if not, will the Government undertake to determine this information. (2) Can the Government provide information on the total numbers of East Timorese being detained: (a) inside; and (b) outside East Timor, for reasons of a political or security nature; if not, will the Government seek this information. (3) Can the Government provide information on the numbers of East Timorese: (a) tried and (b) convicted; in (i) civil, and (ii) military courts, on charges of a political/ security nature since June 1980; if not, will the Government seek this information. (4) Is the Government aware of any observation of trials of East Timorese, charged with political/security offences, by any international legal bodies or Indonesian human rights organisations such as the Legal Aid Institute of Jakarta. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Government is aware of the report in 'Tapol' of March 1985 which published a list of East Timorese allegedly detained in Cipinang and Tangerang prisons in Java. The Government is aware that there are at present 43 East Timorese imprisoned in Jakarta, all of whom have been tried and sentenced in East Timor. No further details about the prisoners are available. (2) There are at present approximately 153 East Timorese being held in detention in East Timor and 43 being held outside East Timor. (3) The Indonesian Government has stated that it intends to bring to trial all detainees. The Australian Embassy in Jakarta has been advised that, of the approximately 196 East Timorese in detention, some 143 have been tried and sentenced. There are no details available concerning the number of East Timorese tried in civilian and military courts since June 1980 on charges of a political/ security nature. (4) According to the Indonesian Government, trials and detentions in East Timor are conducted in accordance with procedures followed throughout Indonesia. The Government is not aware of any move by an international legal body or the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute to witness or seek to witness such trials. (Question No. 234) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1985: (1) Is the Government aware of a report in the West Australian on 2 March 1985, in which the present head of the Catholic Church in East Timor, Monsignor Belo, claimed that he saw graves holding the bodies of 84 Timorese executed by Indonesian troops, and a subsequent claim by Governor Carrascalao that up to 10 people may have been killed in crossfire. (2) Does the Government have, and will it provide, any more definitive information on the incident referred to in (1) above, with particular reference to the number of East Timorese killed and the circumstances of their deaths. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Government is aware of the report in the West Australian on 2 March 1985, concerning the claims by the Apostolic Administrator in East Timor, Monsignor Belo, and of the reported claim by Governor Carrascalao about recent killings in East Timor. (2) The Government has no information concerning these reports.