Wednesday, 18 September 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: To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your Petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ``X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 116 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embyros deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 76 citizens), Hill (from 21 citizens), Richardson (from 784 citizens), and Short (from 342 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 Hawke Government's failure to correct the anomalies arising from the application of the assets test on pensioners, with the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill to repeal the assets test, is causing unnecessary hardship for Australia's aged, particularly those living in rural areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will itself take action to repeal its iniquitous and anomalous test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Goverment has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85 per cent of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care. 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985. 3. resolve its concern over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hill (from 166 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The undersigned are convinced that an alliance, including full military co-operation, between Australia and the United States is indispensible to the defence security of the Australian Commonwealth; that every alliance involves co-operative arrangements of a practical nature; and that the following arrangements are indispensible to the effective conduct of A.N.Z.U.S. and any similar agreement, to wit: the reception of U.S. naval shipping (nuclear and non-nuclear) in Australian ports; the maintenance of the present U.S. nuclear installations in Australia; reasonable co-operation by Australia in U.S. missile testing programmes. Your Petitioners, therefore, pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled, that you will give this matter your earnest consdideration, and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions or benefits. That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable. That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 639 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: -Capital Gains Tax -Hidden Death Tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' -Gift Tax -Increased Company Tax -Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of the assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 563 citizens) and Sheil (from 324 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium businesses in Australia, destroying incentives and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 5,327 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the present Federal tax system is not equitable, readily understandable or manageable. It is making a material contribution to the decline in ethical standards in Australia, and in the opinion of many eminent Australians it is a tax system that basically makes us into a nation of cheats. 2. Some classes of taxpayers are more heavily taxed than others and two groups, wage and salary earners and small businesses, through the impact of inflation on the progressive rate structure, have suffered disproportionately in recent years. 3. A great many people see cheating the tax system as a necessary response to what they regard as cheating by Governments. 4. Through excessive marginal income tax rates, the spirit of free enterprise and hard work is being stifled. The groups in the community who generate savings are being discouraged from investing those savings in capital for business. 5. Any reform of the taxation system needs to be comprehensive and not piecemeal. Further, it requires an unimpeachable commitment from all political parties and parliamentarians to adopt a totally bi-partisan approach in debating tax reform proposals and legislation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government will use the forthcoming Taxation Summit meeting as the occasion to announce the formation of one or more working parties committed to the development of a taxation system that will ensure that the necessary Government revenue is raised in the most equitable and efficient manner possible and that such working party (parties) be provided with adequate resources so as to permit the tabling of their recommendations in the Parliament not later than June 30, 1986. Further, your petitioners believe that one of the most significant ways this country could celebrate its Bi-Centenary is through the introduction, by 1988, of legislation that will give the people a fair and equitable taxing system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain undersigned citizens of Australia shows that the proposed private member's Bill introduced by Senator Harradine-An Act to Prohibit Experiments Involving the Use of Human Embryos Created by In Vitro Fertilisation-disadvantages infertile members of the community seeking treatment through the current medical procedure known as in vitro fertilisation because the inadequate definition of terminology relating to the proposals in the said Bill will prevent any further development and improvement in the relevant medical research anywhere in Australia and, hence, lead to the cessation of the freeze/thaw technique currently associated with the preservation of excess embryos created and intended specifically for the purpose of later implantation into the uterus of an infertile woman seeking treatment. We strongly believe that research should be allowed to continue under the strict guidelines already laid down by the National Health and Medical Research Council and Victoria's ``Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984''. Since the proposed Bill infringes on the personal rights and liberties of infertile couples to have children, your petitioners as in duty bound therefore humbly pray that the Senate will view with sympathy our opposition to the aforementioned Bill and NOT support its passage through the Senate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Short (from 40 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 Short (from 43 citizens). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I present two petitions, which are not in conformity with Standing Orders, from 125 and 84 petitioners respectively, requesting that the Senate support the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, in the following terms: We the undersigned, wish to see a law introduced to prohibit any experimentation on frozen embryos from any In Vitro Fertilization Programme as we believe human life begins at conception and therefore deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —by leave-I present the following petition from 122 petitioners which is not in conformity with Standing Orders: We the undersigned residents request the installation of a Street Post Box at the location adjacent to the Newsagent at 441 Magill Road, St. Morris on the following grounds: 1. There is a need for an Australia Post Street Box in the vicinity of the St. Morris Shopping Centre for the convenience of local residents. 2. The current location of nearby Post Boxes are inadequately located to meet the needs of residents, particularly aged persons. Petitions received. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expressing its deep concern at the consequences for the rest of Australia of what the Prime Minister describes as the `stronger than ever' solidarity between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU); (b) noting the ACTU's `declaration of war' on profits and the Government's acceptance of the ACTU's demand that profits be curbed through stronger use of the Prices Surveillance Authority; (c) recognising that growth in the number of jobs depends directly on growth in profitablility and that the profit curbs required by the ACTU must inevitably worsen unemployment; (d) taking into account the Government's reneging in response to instructions from the ACTU on its Budget-time commitment to fully discount wage rises for the currency devaluation; and (e) having regard to the severe additions to business costs and reductions in profitablility involved in those parts of the Government's tax package that the ACTU has allowed to survive, condemns the Government for putting the best interest of the ACTU ahead of those all Australians, and particularly for advantaging those ACTU members in jobs, to the disadvantage of those 600,000 Australians seeking jobs. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators and I seek leave to incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. The Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)-annual report and financial statements for 1984-85-pursuant to section 53 (3) of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946. 2. Trade Practices Commission-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 171 of the Trades Practices Act 1974. 3. The legal needs of institutionalised people-report by the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council. 4. Australian Bureau of Statistics-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 24 (1) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. 5. Australian Statistics Advisory Council-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 24 (2) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. 6. Text of a statement by the Minister for Defence made in the House of Representatives on the 17 September 1985. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —by leave-From January 1984 a number of changes to arrangements for recurrently subsidising hostel care for aged and disabled people were introduced. Subsidies were restructured to relate assistance more closely to the extent to which hostel residents need and receive care services as well as accommodation. The changes were primarily intended to speed the attainment of some of the Government's most important objectives for care of the aged. The new arrangements provided incentives to encourage hostels to cater predominantly for frail aged and disabled people. As well, the Government wanted to ensure that people who were financially disadvantaged had equal access to subsidised hostel accommodation and that short term respite care was available in hostels to enable people caring for aged or disabled friends and relatives within the general community to have a break. Eligibility conditions for personal care subsidy were tightened and a new hostel care subsidy was introduced for provision of accommodation-related services for those residents who did not need personal care. As well, at least for all new hostel residents, eligibility for hostel care subsidy and personal care subsidy was made conditional upon assessment to determine that such care is needed. New assessment arrangements were therefore another element of the changes. Two new conditions of Commonwealth subsidy required that hostels include at least one financially disadvantaged person in every five new admissions and provide one respite care bed for every 50 hostel beds. Given the sweeping nature of the changes I agreed to a review of the new arrangements from 1 July 1984 and invited representatives of the hostel proprietors and a consumer representative to join with Commonwealth officers in the task. Their report was completed in June 1985. I am pleased to report that the joint review found that even in the short time since the introduction of the new subsidy arrangements and its examination of their effectiveness, there is clear evidence that government objectives are being realised. For example, the Government's efforts to place greater emphasis on care services for the frail aged have been successful. Hostels are employing more staff, especially for personal care services. There is a clear indication that hostel residents are now increasingly those who really need supported accommodation-the frail aged. Furthermore, the requirement that one resident in five be financially disadvantaged is generally being met. The joint review found that while the provision of respite care is becoming established this requirement has been waived by the Commonwealth in a large number of cases. There are other requirements, notably architectural ones, which have also been waived on a significant scale. A priority for my Department in future will be to reduce the total number of waivers outstanding to the minimum level possible. It is anticipated that only in exceptional circumstances will new waivers be granted in future. It is pleasing to note that the majority of hostels have not been adversely affected financially as a result of the changed subsidy arrangements. The review found that the average subsidy paid per bed has increased and, in fact, that 78 per cent of hostels are receiving more subsidy than previously. The review makes around 50 recommendations on matters such as the arrangements for agreement between the Commonwealth and hostels on services and standards, consultation with the hostel industry, residents' rights, rates and payments of subsidies, changes to assessment arrangements for establishing levels of care, and improved information services on hostels and the program in general. My response to individual recommendations of the review is detailed in the schedule attached to this statement which I will be seeking leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Recommendations on subsidy levels and the conversion of subsidy payments to a daily basis have already been approved for implementation in the Budget. My Department will be committing resources to implementation of these and a substantial number of other important recommendations made by the review. It is anticipated that this process will be complete by the end of 1986. Honourable senators will see from the schedule that some of the review's recommendations require further consideration. A number of these imply fundamental changes in the nature and direction of the hostels program and hence must be considered carefully in relation to other policy initiatives already in train-for example, the home and community care program. I regard the report as a very significant step in ensuring that the Government's commitment to the provision of appropriate facilities and services for aged and disabled people continues to be met and commend it to members of the Senate. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the schedule attached to the statement distributed, which details the response to each of the recommendations in the report of the Joint Review of Hostel Care Subsidies Arrangements. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- REPORT OF JOINT REVIEW OF HOSTEL CARE SUBSIDIES ARRANGEMENTS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Policy recommendations No. Recommendation Response Comment 1 That the Commonwealth: 1(a) replace the existing Hostel Care Subsidies Agreement by an expanded Gazette notice of services and standards to operate in conjunction with a Terms and Conditions Statement, as specified at Appendices G and H respectively. Supported The objective of this proposal is to simplify administration by setting out in the Gazette non-negotiable requirements as regards services and standards to operate and by negotiating a Terms and Conditions Statement at appropriate intervals with proprietors rather than annually. Implementation of the latter measure will proceed on the basis of negotiations with individual hostels for possible completion by the end of 1986. Existing agreements will be extended until these arrangements are in place. 1(b) undertake adequate and timely consultations with organisations represented on the Joint Review prior to any significant future changes to hostel care subsidies arrangements other than those recommended in this report. Supported In situations such as the Budget context which require confidentiality the ideal expressed in the recommendation may not be possible. 1(c) replace the present temporary absence provision by introducing a condition of subsidy, preferably consistent across all residential care programs, whereby a resident may be absent from the hostel for a total of (say) 28 days in each successive 12-month period without forfeiting payment of subsidy for that period of absence. Supported This provision is fully consistent with arrangements for nursing homes funded under the National Health Act. 2 That the Commonwealth: 2(a) while recognising hostels' right to admit residents ineligible for subsidy, continue to encourage the provision of subsidised hostels predominantly as care facilities for frail aged and disabled people by relating its subsidies to the provision of care services and continue to seek to ensure that financially disadvantaged people have equal access to subsidised hostels. Supported This endorses current policy. 2(b) consider funding separate hostels for younger disabled people under whichever program it considers most appropriate. Supported Current provisions under the Handicapped Persons Welfare Program (HPWP) are restrictive insofar as provision of residential accommodation is tied to other prescribed services. The Handicapped Programs Review Report recommended significant changes to arrangements for residential provision for those with disabilities, which address, among other things, this issue. Pending implementation of the Report's recommendations suitable projects for the younger disabled will continue to receive priority under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act. Such proposals will generally be required to reflect the principles of the least restrictive alternative as identified by the Handicapped Programs Review. 3 That the Commonwealth: 3(a) while continuing to provide grants to organisations operating existing separate care facilities for ambulant dementia sufferers, consider funding pilot programs, research, data collection and education on dementia and on appropriate forms of care for dementia sufferers. To be further considered The Government recognises the seriousness of the problem of dementia sufferers. It is for that reason that special grants are already available to assist hostels which accommodate those suffering from dementia. There is also provision for evaluation of such programs and the outcomes of that work will be used as a basis for urgent policy development in this important area. Further consideration needs to be given to the respective responsibilities of Commonwealth and State governments in relation to care of dementia sufferers. 3(b) consider extending both recurrent funding (on a pilot or special grant basis) and capital funding to organisations establishing new separate care facilities for ambulant dementia sufferers, unless new arrangements for funding care for ambulant dementia sufferers may soon be incorporated within a more general restructuring of residential care funding arrangements. To be further considered See comment on Recommendation 3(a) above. See also Recommendation TR10(b). 4 That, as conditions of Commonwealth recurrent subsidy: 4(a) Hostels enter into an agreement with each resident: (i) whose form and substance are acceptable to a delegate of the Minister for Community Services, (ii) that provides residents with security of tenure while the agreement remains in force, (iii) that has indefinite term, subject to defined conditions under which the agreement would terminate and to certain clauses having effect for more limited periods or being expressed in conditional terms, (iv) that provides for termination of the agreement, in defined circumstances, on the grounds of a resident's deteriorating health or of unacceptable behaviour by the resident, (v) that specifies a mutually acceptable procedure for resolving disputes or grievances, and (vi) that guarantees residents access to their personal file within the hostel's records. Supported This is intended to be implemented in conjunction with the proposed Terms and Conditions Statement for possible completion by the end of 1986. Timing and the exact nature of the response will depend on the outcome of discussions with industry and consumer groups. The broad intention is to set goals rather than to make detailed prescriptions concerning precise content and form in this area. 4 (b) Hostels ensure that all residents have a genuine opportunity to form, or be represented on, a residents' council. Supported 5 That consideration be given to establishing a new Commonwealth authority, along the lines suggested in Section 6.5, to which complaints and disputes concerning Commonwealth subsidised accommodation and services could be referred. To be further considered As the Joint Review Report acknowledged, the question of complaint and dispute resolution mechanisms goes wider than hostels and has been the subject also of recommendations in the Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure `In a Home or at Home: Accommodation and Home Care for the Aged' and in a recent report by the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes `Private Nursing Homes in Australia'. A Task Force has been established by the Minister for Community Services and the Attorney-General, to examine the issues and consider possible options. An interim report covering all of the Department's programs will be provided by the Task Force for the two Ministers in November 1985. 6 That respite beds not be used for: trial periods before permanent residency; assessment; long day respite; care for residents of self-contained units within retirement villages who already receive support services from the institution; or convalescent or rehabilitative care (unless therapeutic services are available from outside agencies or within the institution). Supported This clarifies existing policy. Further consideration is being given to links with services provided under the Home and Community Care (HACC) Program and to encouraging hostels to undertake outreach programs. 7 That rural and remote hostels be required to meet the same terms and conditions of subsidy as apply to all hostels, but be similarly able, where circumstances warrant, to negotiate exemption from any relevant terms and conditions set out in the proposed Terms and Conditions Statement at Appendix H. Supported It is anticipated that only in exceptional cases would exemptions be granted. 8 That, to overcome the present pattern whereby transfer from a hostel to a nursing home is effectively irreversible, the Commonwealth consider development of assessment and funding arrangements that would permit introduction of an explicitly recognised transition period between hostel and nursing home care, as proposed in Section 9.4. To be further considered As the Joint Review acknowledges in para 9.35, this particular recommendation needs to be looked at in a broader context including the rate at which appropriate assessment processes and facilities become available. There would also be a requirement to address the issue of additional costs that would be incurred if beds were held for hostel residents during any transition period. It is recognised that any such arrangement should not limit appropriate admissions from the community. 9 That: 9 (a) rates of HCS, PCS and RCS be reviewed annually and increases reflect movements in the overall costs of operating hostels, with some relative emphasis on increases in HCS. To be further considered Subsidy rates are reviewed regularly but on the basis that they are a contribution to the total cost of providing accommodation and care within hostels. The rate of Hostel Care Subsidy was increased from the equivalent of $1.60 per day to $1.80 per day in the 1985-86 Budget while the current rate of Personal Care Subsidy was retained. 9 (b) payment of HCS, PCS and RCS be converted to a daily basis without reducing the total amount of Commonwealth recurrent subsidies for hostel care and without changing the 28-day basis for assessment arrangements. Supported The conversion to daily rates of payment was announced in the 1985-86 Budget and will be introduced from a date to be announced in early 1986. 9 (c) to eliminate certain inequities while maintaining present protection for financially disadvantaged residents, present provisions on fees that financially disadvantaged residents may be charged be replaced by new provisions on permissible fee levels for all hostel residents (see also Technical Recommendation 9 (a)). To be further considered Recurrent subsidies paid under the hostels program are provided as a contribution to the costs incurred by hostels. They are not intended to meet those costs in full. Greater Commonwealth control over fee levels is not considered desirable in the light of this limited funding role. Further, the administration of permissible fee levels of the type suggested would prove difficult for both the Commonwealth and hostels. 9 (d) consideration be given to making resident-funded not-for-profit hostels eligible for recurrent subsidies where they: (i) meet the same terms and conditions of subsidy (including financial disadvantage and respite care provisions) as apply to all other subsidised hostels, or (ii) like other hostels, have negotiated exemptions on an individual basis from normal terms and conditions of subsidy that they do not meet. To be further considered In a period of expenditure restraint the immediate Commonwealth goal must be to give priority to the provision of care for those less able to meet the cost of it themselves. 9 (e) the Commonwealth move towards: (i) consistent accounting requirements across all residential care programs based on audited, facility-level accounts that are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices and that draw upon the chart of accounts used in deficit-financed nursing homes, and (ii) a requirement that hostels provide such audited accounts annually to the Commonwealth and to residents and give the Commonwealth access to supporting information. To be further considered The implementation of any new standards would take several years to implement and would be dependent upon discussions with the Professional Accounting Associations and the Voluntary Care Industry. Moreover, the introduction of the recommended requirements across all residential programs including nursing homes, would require a great deal of consideration and discussion. This proposal should also be examined in the context of the level and type of control the Commonwealth should have over the provision of hostel care. 9 (f) the Commonwealth consider reviewing capital subsidy arrangements for hostels so as to enable a provision to be introduced into residents' agreements that a resident who decides to leave a hostel permanently within 6 months of entering it would be entitled to a refund of 90 per cent of any entry donation made. To be further considered This recommendation is consistent with the thrust of the Report for a clearer definition of residents rights. An assessment of the impact of Recommendation 9 (f) on the ability of organisations to raise capital funds and identification of possible administrative implications is required. 10 That: 10 (a) residents of self-contained accommodation in retirement villages who do not receive care services from those institutions be given equal access to HACC-funded services. To be further considered In principle it is agreed that those in retirement villages should be treated equally with other members of the community in circumstances where they do not otherwise have access to care services. This is a matter which will need to be considered and discussed with State organisations delivering care services in the context of the development of HACC over the next year. 10 (b) the priority of ``flexicare unit'' and similar proposals be evaluated relative to other aged care proposals requiring government funding. To be further considered The Joint Review acknowledged that this and similar proposals need to be considered in the broader context of the development of both residential care programs and home and community care programs. TR1 That the Department of Community Services: TR1 (a) develop a manual aimed at residents, assessment authorities, review authorities, hostel operators, Departmental officers, hostel staff, and other interested people outlining the hostels program as a whole. Supported This is a major task which will require substantial resources. It will be undertaken in consultation with representatives of the hostel industry, consumer groups and other interested parties. It is recognised that the focus of any manual will vary according to its purpose and target audience, TR1 (b) ensure that hostel organisations and residents are informed of any significant future changes introduced in the hostels program. Supported TR2 That the Department of Community Services: TR2 (a) maintain separate statistics about patterns of usage of hostel accommodation and care needs among ethnic and Aboriginal residents. To be further considered The Department has recently commenced a consultancy to identify statistical and other information needs for program management. TR2 (b) both directly and indirectly, actively encourage hostels to have regard to any special needs (including dietary needs) of ethnic or Aboriginal residents. Supported TR3 That the following changes be made to the range and definitions of gazetted services: TR3 (a) Personal laundry be regarded as a personal (rather than hostel) care service, and be incorporated in the ``bathing, showering and personal hygiene'' service category. To be further considered To be considered in the context of possible changes to assessment arrangements. (See TR8 (a)) TR3 (b) a separate ``treatment services'' category of personal care services be added, to include such treatments as ointments, dressings, eye drops, back rubs and urine tests. To be further considered To be considered in the context of possible changes to assessment arrangements. (See TR8 (a)) TR3 (c) Two distinct ``emotional support services'' categories be defined which recognise different levels of care requirements, namely. To be further considered (i) provision of long-term emotional support where needed by an eligible person diagnosed as suffering from a form of dementia, or from a functional psychotic condition which requires long-term anti-psychotic medication, and (ii) provision of emotional support, to meet needs of a kind which are usually reversible and short-term, to any eligible person who is diagnosed as requiring such support due to a mental condition other than those in (i) above, such as depression, grief, or other conditions causing confusion. TR3 (d) meals be required to be appropriate, of adequate quality, and served at reasonable times with reasonable serving arrangements. Supported TR3 (e) hostels be required to adhere to relevant legislation and regulations on administration of medications. Supported TR4 That, in respect of the level of services and care provided, the terms and conditions of recurrent subsidy: TR4 (a) require hostels: TR (a)4 (i) to provide, in each 28-day period, at least an average of 20 hours of hostel care staff time per resident plus at least an average of 12 hours of personal care staff time per PCS recipient. Supported TR4(a) (ii) not to charge residents for community nursing and other outside services brought in by hostels to provide personal care services (as hostels already receive a subsidy for their provision). Supported TR4(a) (iii) generally to provide in-house social programs free; Supported TR4(b) not make it mandatory for hostels to employ nurses Supported This endorses current arrangements. TR4(c) provide that standard telephones shall not be regarded as on-call equipment. Supported This endorses the Department's current requirement in this regard. TR5 That the Department of Community Services: TR5(a) encourage hostels to regard social programs and rehabilitation services as important and integral components of their overall care plans. Supported The recommendation as it relates to social programs is supported. The most effective approach to the provision of rehabilitative services needs to be considered in the context of the avail- ability of day care type services and community care services. The roles of professional therapists and personal care givers in hostels also need to be examined. TR5(b) develop educational measures to increase awareness among the medical community and the general population of the differences between hostels and nursing homes and of the objectives of the Commonwealth's hostels program. Supported This will be an important element in information and educational materials prepared by the Department covering the full range of services provided for the aged. TR6 That the Department of Community Services: TR6(a) prepare a booklet for prospective hostel residents outlining: (i) major features of hostel living, (ii) care and accommodation services normally available (including respite care), and (iii) things to look for when considering particular hostels. Supported This will be available in 1986. TR6(b) Continue to consult with representatives of service-providing and consumer-oriented organisations with a view to: (i) developing a mutually agreed upon standard content for residents' agreements. (ii) identifying alternative models for residents' councils, and (iii) preparing guidelines on how residents' councils can be successfully established Supported TR6(c) Regard either: (i) a legal agreement, or (ii) an exchange of letters between hostel and resident, or (iii) a booklet describing the rights and obligations of hostel residents and management which is signed by both the resident and a representative of the hostel organisation as acceptable forms for residents' agreements. Supported The Report specifies that agreements used should ``give rise to legally enforceable rights'' and should be acceptable, in form and content, to the Secretary of DCS. TR6(d) encourage hostel managements to provide for resident representation on any committees that are responsible for making day-to-day policy decisions affecting life within the hostel community. Supported TR7 That the Department of Community Services continues: TR7(a) to encourage the provision of respite beds on an evenly distributed regional basis. To be further considered This recommendation will be examined further with other options for improving access to respite care. TR7(b) to apply current time-occupancy limits for respite care residents. Supported This reflects current policy. TR8 That: TR8(a) the current alphabetical system of assessing provision of personal care services be replaced by a numerical scoring system, as set out at Appendix K, and reduced recording requirements be introduced in respect of those residents eligible for PCS whose care requirements have remained constant for at least 6 months. Supported The change from an alphabetical to a numerical scoring system for assessing provision personal care services is supported in principle. It will be implemented subject to some minor modifications and the outcome of further considerations of TR3(a), (b), (c)(i) and (ii) and TR8(d)(i). The matter of reduced recording requirements will be examined in the above context. TR8(b) provision of personal care services on a daily basis be interpreted as requiring either actual assistance on a daily basis, or actual assistance on a regular basis in conjunction with close direct supervision on intervening days. To be further considered To be considered in the context of possible changes to assessment arrangements. (see TR8(a)). TR8(c) personal care assessment authorities be entitled to regard a report from a regional assessment team that a person needs daily personal care services as relevant evidence in determining eligibility for PCS for the current assessment period. Supported TR8(d) in respect of assessment practices and criteria: TR8(d) (i) the status and care requirements of residents diagnosed as needing emotional support, to meet needs of a kind that are usually reversible or short-term, be reviewed by a medical practitioner on a 4-monthly basis. To be further considered To be considered in the context of possible changes to assessment arrangements (see TR8(a)). TR8(d) (ii) the Mini-Mental State examination be withdrawn as a standard against which to diagnose dementia for subsidy purposes. To be further considered TR8(d) (iii) assessment of social support needs reflect whether a person is suffering an adverse effect from limited social contact. To be further considered TR8(d) (iv) Assessment Form SR215, `Eligibility for Hostel Care Record', be amended to reflect the changes suggested in Subsection 9.3.3. To be further considered TR8(e) the Secretary of the Department of Community Services be authorised to appoint a regional assessment team, where one is available and prepared to assume the function and where relevant State authorities are agreeable, as a hostel care assessment authority. Supported These arrangements are in place in most States and Territories TR8(f) to assist hostel managements to determine staffing needs and to satisfy Departmental auditing requirements, hostels be required to maintain comprehensive staffing rosters using a pro-forma staffing roster, to be developed by the Department of Community Services in consultation with industry representatives. To be further considered TR9(a) the present provision on permissible fees for financially disadvantaged hostel residents be replaced by the following pair of provisions on permissible fees for all hostel residents: * any hostel resident may be charged an amount equal to 85 per cent of the sum of the standard rate of pension and the maximum rate of supplementary assistance. * however, residents may be charged a greater amount than this provided that no resident may be charged a greater amount which would leave him or her with less disposable weekly income than that available to a resident receiving the minimum amount of supplementary assistance. To be further considered See comment on Recommendations 9(c). TR9(b) all hostels be required to state their fee policies for current and potential residents. Supported TR9(c) the `prescribed date' be amended from a date on which services are to be made available to an administrative date defining the end of a 28-day period: (i) in respect of which subsidies are paid for services provided; and (ii) which is the period in respect of which each hostel resident's need for services is assessed. Supported Point (i) is to be considered in the context of possible changes to the basis of assessment arrangements (see 9(b)). TR9(d) subject to an evaluation of experience with the direct credit method of payment recently introduced into the social security system, the Commonwealth consider changing the present hostel care subsidies payment system to payment by direct credit through electronic transfer of funds Supported While there are advantages in direct credit arrangements this change is not given high priority at this stage. TR10 That: TR10(a) a flexi-unit scheme, involving co-located units linked to a conventional hostel building by covered ways, etc, be preferred on grounds of practicality to a proposal submitted for funding of `flexicare units' and that the presence of a stove in such units not preclude their being deemed hostel units. To be further considered TR10(b) any overall review of residential care funding arrangements consider whether a general mechanism explicity for funding care for dementia sufferers (or a sub-group of them) would facilitate more appropriate such care. To be further considered Further consideration needs to be given to the respective responsibilities of Commonwealth and State governments in relation to the care of dementia sufferers. See comment on Recommendations 3(a) and (b). Senator GRIMES —Printed copies of the report are available to all honourable senators. In the near future they will be sent to all hostels and associated organisations and groups to allow for the widest dissemination of the findings. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.13) —It is clear from the statement made by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) and from the report of the Joint Review of Hostel Care Subsidies Arrangements which has been tabled that we are dealing with a matter of great complexity and detail. The report contains a number of quite detailed comments on matters which go to the heart of the administration of some of these subsidy programs. What the Government is doing in this area is consistent with the approach of the Liberal Party of Australia, which is to look to welfare provision based on need and to make the appropriate administrative arrangements to ensure that we are responding to need and that need is the basis of welfare provision. The moves in regard to hostel care subsidies, such as those which have been announced in the Minister's statement, are consistent with the Liberal Party approach. The report covers a number of issues which go to the efficiency of operation of the subsidy schemes. We are interested in those. However, more importantly, we are seeing an attempt to offer more options to the people who use these services-options such as community living arrangements as opposed to residential care. If we can achieve this as a nation, the people who benefit will be those who use the services now. This has been a continuing concern of Liberal governments and, I believe, is a continuing concern of the present Government. There is no guarantee that any one system of provision of services will be perfect or permanent. As new situations arise there may be a requirement for new arrangements. One of the consequences of what is occurring now is that, although the subsidy levels have increased, so has the amount of control which is being exerted over organisations. So, one has to balance the question of increasing Commonwealth control. We on this side of the Parliament will continue to be available to listen to those who are administering programs involving hostel care and to those who are trying to make alternative arrangements for people to undertake community living even if they require assistance. We will be available to listen to the residents and to the providers of these services. We will remain available to explore new options and to monitor need in this area as that need changes. Of course, it is changing as the demography of our society is changing. There is no system or set of arrangements which is perfect. Although we welcome what has happened here, we recognise that arrangements will have to be watched. Reviews like this can assist us in understanding what is happening and what should happen. I do not wish to speak at any length. I understand that in a moment we will have the resumption of the Budget debate and that three new senators will be making their first speeches in this place. I understand that one of them, having the same surname and in fact the same grandfather as me, will lead off for that group of new speakers. So, on behalf of the Opposition, I say that we have a continuing interest in what has been covered in the Minister's statement. We believe much of it is consistent with what the Liberal Party of Australia is trying to achieve. I look forward to being able to follow this program further into the future. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.16) —The Australian Democrats welcome the report of the Joint Review of Hostel Care Subsidies Arrangements and the statement on that report from the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). Much concern has been expressed in the community generally and to at least one Senate select committee over the past few years about the needs of elderly and disabled people in the community so far as health care, hostel type care and nursing home care are concerned. As we have become a somewhat more humane and more knowledgeable society, we have turned our attention not just to providing institutionalised care for people of the sort that I have just mentioned, but also to providing quality care which has a large element of flexibility in it and which contains opportunities for the dignity of the people involved in hostel care, indeed hospital care and nursing home care, to be maintained. This report covers a wide area of issues from administrative arrangements which seek to implement flexibility of movement of residents in and out of residential care programs, through to special considerations for younger disabled people under these sort of programs and on to considerations of things such as residents' rights, respite care access and the special needs of hostels in rural and remote areas. Special attention has been paid to the needs of people in hostel care who have been moved to nursing home care with a warning that that should not be a final resting place, so to speak, for those people but that there should be opportunity for movement back again as maintenance and rehabilitation projects are effective. We are happy to see in the data that the Minister has had incorporated in Hansard that a significant number of recommendations in this report either have already been accepted by the Government and are in train or are supported by the Government in principle. Of course, I hope that that in principle support is reflected very soon in action taken by the Government to implement those recommendations. However, more important are those recommendations which the Government lists as being for further consideration. I trust that is not a euphemism for the Government's saying that it will not accept those in the near future. I hope that what it means is that it will indeed put them under consideration and accept those in which it sees merit and not reject the ones that it may decide to reject, if there are any, simply because additional funding is required and recommended. As I said, we welcome this report. We welcome what appears to be an enthusiastic adoption by the Government of at least some recommendations contained in the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff) agreed to: That the time for presentation of the Report of the Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes be extended to 26 November 1985. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Economic Statement to the House of Representatives on 14 May, announced that the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) scheme was to be revised, effective from 20 May 1985. This Bill gives effect to the changes announced in the media release of the Minister for Trade dated 14 May. The EMDG scheme was first introduced in 1974 and has been amended on several occasions since. It is based on the same principles as the Export Market Development Allowance scheme which operated from 1961 to 1974. The EMDG scheme aims to encourage Australian exporters to seek out and develop overseas markets for goods, services, industrial property rights and know-how which are substantially of Australian origin. It provides financial incentives in the form of taxable cash grants for eligible expenditure incurred on overseas market research and development such as advertising, overseas representation, the cost of participating in overseas fairs and exhibitions, overseas travel associated with trade promotion, and the cost of bringing agents or buyers to Australia. For some time, however, the Government has been concerned about the operation of the scheme. Apart from its rapidly escalating cost and concern over its abuse, increasing doubts arose over the scheme's effectiveness. The Government is concerned to ensure that public funds provided for export incentives are used in a cost-effective manner and result in an improvement in sustained export performance. It is mindful that the EMDG scheme is an incentives scheme to encourage Australian exporters to seek out and develop overseas markets and not a subsidy for industry. Against this background, last year the Government asked the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel, chaired by Mr Bill Ferris, Group Managing Director of Barlow Marine Ltd, and comprising representatives from the export sector, to examine the EMDG scheme, in the context of providing general advice on the most effective marketing strategies through which the Government can assist in increasing Australia's exports, particularly of manufactures and services. I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Ferris and his panel for their very thorough report. At the same time, the Department of Trade undertook an evaluation of the scheme based on a random sample of EMDG claimants. Subsequently this year the Department undertook a second evaluation of the scheme based on a separate random sample which confirmed the results of the initial evaluation. It can be seen then that the Government's examination of the scheme has been most extensive and underpinned by solid analysis. It involved consideration of the Ferris Report, which, incidentally, was the subject of extensive consultations with exporters and export organisations, including through public seminars in all States, as well as two evaluations of the scheme by the Department of Trade. The outcome of this examination was quite unequivocal. The Ferris Panel concluded that the existing EMDG scheme was badly designed and that there was a need for significant reforms if the scheme is to provide a positive inducement to genuine exporters in a cost-effective and measurable way. The panel made 15 recommendations designed to make the scheme more accountable and ``results orientated'', to remove the backlog of unprocessed claims and to tighten up and streamline certain administrative procedures. Similarly the Department's evaluation disclosed major deficiencies in the scheme. Almost 50% of claimants were shown to be dropping out of the scheme after three years, having generated little or no export earnings. The scheme enabled recipients to obtain grants of up to $200,000 per year for the first three years without necessarily generating any export earnings at all. Thereafter, claimants had to have export earnings of only $25,000 ($10,000 in the case of industrial property rights and know-how) to be eligible for further grants. In other words, it was possible for them to receive grants up to eight times the level of their export earnings under the existing export performance test. Another important finding was that less than 5%, or some 300 claimants, generally the large exporters, were receiving almost one-third of total EMDG payments. Many of these were subsidiaries of large international corporations with access to their own ``in house'' marketing networks and therefore with a questionable need for assistance from scarce public funds. Not surprisingly, therefore, usage of the scheme and its cost was escalating dramatically. In the four years ended 1984/85 fiscal year the number of claimants under the scheme rose by some 40% and the total cost by around 120%. In turn the mounting cost of the scheme has led to it being underfunded in recent years by successive Governments resulting in a large backlog of unprocessed EMDG claims. The Ferris Report recommended that urgent action be taken in this area. The Government shared this concern and towards the end of 1984/85 provided funds of $54 million by way of advance to the Minister for Finance to reduce the backlog of outstanding claims. These funds were additional to the $125 million provided for the EMDG scheme in the 1984/85 Commonwealth Budget. With the provision of these additional funds, the carry-over of unprocessed EMDG claims as at 30 June 1985 was reduced to a more normal level. In reviewing the scheme, naturally enough the question was raised-``why have any export incentives at all?'' After all, a report of the Industries Assistance Commission in 1982 had recommended that the EMDG scheme be terminated with effect from 30 June 1985. This threshold question was thoroughly examined by the Ferris Report which concluded, inter alia, that an export incentives scheme is needed to motivate Australian companies into export action and, in particular, to counter the legacy of the post-war import replacement strategy for industrial development. The Ferris Panel examined a number of alternative export incentives schemes, falling into three categories: tax-based schemes; advance approval, project-type schemes; and a general access, reimbursement scheme. It came out in favour of the third option-a general access, but reformed, EMDG scheme. The Government accepted the broad thrust of the recommendations contained in the Ferris Report, in deciding that a general access EMDG scheme be continued. It was clear that a general access scheme was supported overwhelmingly by major export organisations and industry groups. In reaching this decision the Government was mindful of the IAC's views but influenced even more by Australia's relatively poor trade performance and the urgent need (as outlined in the Minister for Trade's statement on Australia's trade to the House of Representatives on 13 May 1985) to improve our performance as a trading nation. The Bill provides for the amended scheme to continue until 30 June 1990. While the Government accepted the main thrust of the relevant Ferris Report recommendations, it was not able to endorse some specific elements for a variety of reasons. Apart from the important question of cost considerations, the Government was mindful that the recent large depreciation of the $A and reduction in the rate of inflation has improved the international competitive position of Australian exporters. It was also anxious to address the shortcomings of the scheme which emerged from the Department of Trade's evaluation of it. Let me now outline the major changes that are being introduced in this Bill. The provisions are being strengthened to ensure that only firms which export can continue to receive EMD grants beyond two years. The maximum grant entitlement will remain at $200,000 per year. New claimants will be eligible to receive grants of up to $200,000 in their first two grant years without being required to achieve any export sales. The decision by the Government to depart from the Ferris Report recommendations in order to provide this two-year ``no exports'' period of grace for new exporters resulted from the consultations held on the Ferris Report. The Government accepted that new exporters often require a lead time between market development and export sales. Thereafter, however, the maximum grant which can be received will be the lesser of $200,000 or a percentage of export earnings declining progressively over a five year period, as proposed by the Ferris Report. That is, the maximum grant entitlement will be determined by export performance. Firms which have been receiving the benefit of grants for some years will be subject to the percentage of export earnings applicable under the amended Ferris Report formula to their next grant year. As under the existing scheme, ``approved bodies'' will be exempt from the export earnings test since these are organisations which promote the exports of members of an industry but do not export in their own right. Grants will not be payable to claimants with export earnings in excess of $20 million. The Government believes that, at a time when there is a need to reduce Government expenditure, such large exporters are less in need of the support of a Government export incentives scheme and that scarce Government funds are better directed towards assisting committed small to medium size exporters. Because of its unique nature, tourism did not sit easily with some aspects of the EMDG scheme. Obviously there were difficulties in applying an export performance test to the tourism industry. Accordingly, the tourism industry is to be excluded from the scheme. However, given the importance the Government attaches to tourism as one of Australia's fastest growing industries, and as a foreign exchange earner, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) recently announced the introduction of a new Tourism Overseas Promotion Scheme to be administered by his Department to meet the tourism industry's particular needs. This scheme will continue the provision of Government assistance to the tourism industry. It will have the advantages of producing a more co-ordinated and efficient promotional effort and will enable specialist advice to be given to prospective tourism promoters. Statutory authorities, except those primarily funded through industry charges, those subject to income tax or those which provide eligible educational services will be excluded from the scheme. This is to eliminate the element of `double dipping' in the past where authorities which are already funded by the Government have also been claiming Government grants under the EMDG scheme. This will be effected by Regulation. Grants will only be paid on the amount of eligible expenditure in excess of $5,000 incurred in a grant year. The Government believes this represents a reasonable amount of expenditure which claimants should be prepared to bear in order to demonstrate their bona fides as well as some financial capacity to mount sustained export activities. It considers that this threshold of eligible expenditure represents an important safeguard against the possibility of public funds going to claimants not genuinely interested in, or indeed engaged in, serious efforts to develop export markets. The threshold also obviously contributes substantially to the necessary reduction in the cost of the EMDG scheme. Significantly, analysis by the Department of Trade showed that the drop out rate of claimants with eligible expenditure of $5,000 or less was up to 50 per cent greater than for claimants as a whole. The $50 per day promotional visit allowance will be discontinued and, where first class air travel is undertaken, reimbursement under the scheme will be restricted to 65 per cent of the fare. These measures again reflect the Government's resolve to limit abuse of the scheme and to reduce its cost to the Budget. In recognition of the potential for considerable export earnings, education and hospital and medical services are to be added to the list of services eligible for grants under the scheme. As the cost of defending patents can be extremely high, insurance premiums paid in protecting Australian patents, registered designs or trademarks overseas and copyrights open to infringement outside Australia will also be eligible. Several technical and administrative amendments will be made to the scheme to improve its operation and to limit abuse. In particular, section 38 is to be substantially strengthened following close examination by the Export Development Grants Board and the Department of Trade, to curtail abuse and manipulation of the scheme. A decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1984 highlighted problems with the interpretation of the section as it now stands. In the amended section, the Board will be clearly given the power to adjust grant entitlements where claimants, to obtain a larger grant, have taken action to re-arrange their affairs in a way that is not in accordance with the spirit of the legislation. The Export Development Grants Board will be empowered to collect statistical information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme, as recommended by the Ferris Report. Provision is also made in Clause 9 of the Bill for the Republic of South Africa to be declared a proscribed country. This will enable the Government to implement the decision announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on 19 August 1985 to exclude majority owned South African companies from the scheme from that date. Grant entitlements up to that date would, of course, be honoured. Bona fide contractual arrangements entered into before the exclusion date but acquitted after this date would also be honoured. The provisions relating to South Africa will also enable the Government to withdraw at short notice all or any of the remaining EMDG benefits in respect of trade with South Africa in the light of the Government's assessment of developments in South Africa and international responses to these developments. Other elements of the existing scheme are not being changed. Given identification of major shortcomings with the existing scheme, urgent remedial action was obviously required. The Government therefore took the view that the 1984/85 grant year (for which grants are determined on the basis of the old scheme) should be terminated on 19 May 1985 to enable the amended scheme to come into effect on 20 May. Early implementation was also necessary if the Government was to make some cost savings in the 1985/86 financial year. This is because the cost of the EMDG scheme to the Budget in any fiscal year relates to expenditure by exporters in the preceding fiscal year. To have provided a greater period of notice for changes to the scheme by, say, not making them effective until the 1985/86 grant year, would mean that resultant Budget savings would not be made until the 1986/87 fiscal year. Notice of the date of implementation was given by the Treasurer in his Economic Statement on 14 May. Other factors considered relevant in introducing the changes as from 20 May 1985 were the long period over which exporters were aware that the Government was reviewing the scheme and the scope for expenditure to increase markedly during any lengthy period of notice of changes to the scheme. The Government has, however, accepted that, in some cases, the early termination of the 1984/85 grant year could pose particular problems for those claimants who were relying on a full 12 months grant year to satisfy the old export performance test, and the Bill makes appropriate provision for exports between 20 May and 30 June 1985 to be taken into account in such cases. The Government sees the amended scheme as maintaining a worthwhile level of assistance to committed smaller to medium sized firms in a more cost-effective and measurable way, and at the same time contributing to its efforts to restrain spending and reduce the Budget deficit. The Government estimates that, in its first full year of operation, the amended scheme will result in cost savings of approximately $80 million. This is notwithstanding the eligibility of new types of services and costs under the scheme which is estimated to cost approximately $1.6 million per year. I would emphasise that in developing proposals to amend the EMDG scheme the Government, after extensive analysis, has very carefully selected the main elements such as the $20 million cut-off point on export earnings, the $5000 minimum eligible expenditure test and the export earnings test. This has been done in order to produce a balanced package, which will best address the identified shortcomings in the scheme, and effectively allocate the Government's assistance to the export sector, via the scheme, consistent with its intention to reduce spending and control the deficit. Honourable Senators will be aware of the Government's decision to establish an Australian Trade Commission from 1 January 1986. The Commission will have a senior part-time Board drawn from the private sector and a Managing Director, a position open to anyone from the community. It will provide exporters with the full range of advice and assistance but in a more consolidated and co-ordinated fashion. As such the Commission will encourage a more efficient and targeted approach to Australia's export effort. A separate bill to establish the Commission will be presented later in this Session. The Commission will assume the responsibilities, functions and powers of the Export Development Grants Board and administer the EMDG scheme as amended by Parliament. However, given the need for urgent amendment of the EMDG scheme so that processing of EMDG claims for the 1984/85 grant year can proceed, the Government is proposing that the EMDG Act should first be amended to give effect to these changes. The Bill now before the Senate seeks to do this. In conclusion, I would emphasise the importance the Government attaches to prompt passage of the legislation which, as I have indicated, forms part of the package of cost savings announced by the Treasurer in his May Economic Statement. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to authorize the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Limited to finance the purchase of a Boeing 747-300 Extended Upper Deck aircraft. Acquisition of this aircraft by Qantas will bring to four the number of B747-300 aircraft in Qantas' fleet and will bring Qantas' total fleet in March 1986 when the aircraft is delivered to twenty eight. Qantas' decision to purchase an additional B747-300 aircraft was a result of market growth, and the Company's need to participate fully in that growth. The fourth aircraft will join the Company's existing three 747-300 aircraft on the Sydney to London route, and will enable Qantas to operate a daily B747-300 service on the Kangaroo Route to maximise the marketing impact of the new aircraft type. A number of the Company's competitors already operate, or are planning to introduce, this type of aircraft on the Kangaroo Route, and the fourth aircraft will also allow Qantas the option of introducing upgraded services on other routes. The Extended Upper Deck aircraft has proved very popular with passengers, particular with business travellers. Like the Company's existing Extended Upper Deck aircraft, the new aircraft will also be powered by the latest generation of fuel efficient Rolls Royce engines. In addition, satisfactory offsets arrangements have been concluded by the Government with both the air frame and engine manufacturers, and these arrangements will provide benefits by way of manufacturing activity and technology transfer to Australia's aircraft manufacturing industry. The provision of a guarantee for Qantas' payment of, and payment of interest on, amounts borrowed for this new aircraft and related spare parts and equipment will be limited by the Bill to $US115m or its equivalent in other currencies. The provision of the guarantee does not involve the Government in any cash outlay, but does create a contingent liability for the Commonwealth. The terms and conditions of Qantas' proposed borrowings for the new aircraft are to be subject to the Treasurer's approval. The Bill also provides for proper security to be given to the Commonwealth over such property as the Treasurer deems satisfactory, and Qantas is to undertake to maintain adequate insurance of the items under the Loan Guarantee, and to protect the security of the Commonwealth against the sale or mortgage of the aircraft. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —by leave-I move: That Senator Coleman be granted leave of absence for three months, on account of ill-health. I inform honourable senators that Senator Coleman, after her very serious illness and operation, is progressing very well now. Many of us have seen her. However, on medical advice she has asked not to attend Canberra and the chamber, and I believe that this motion is well justified. We are very happy that she is recovering and I hope to see her on Friday of this week. I am sure that all honourable senators wish her well. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers. upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all worth after `That' insert: `the Senate condemns the Budget because- (a) it is only half a Budget which fails to outline any approach to the urgent problem of tax reform and tax relief; (b) it fails to remove the threat of new taxes on investment and jobs, such as a capital gains tax which will include death duties and gift taxes; (c) it condemns 750,000 Australians to higher marginal tax brackets during the year; (d) it fails to remove the fundamental problems facing the Australian economy, particularly high inflation, the lack of international competitiveness and the need for further cuts in Government spending; (e) it fails to provide clear direction on the Government's approach to discounting wage indexation for the effects of depreciation of the dollar, so potentially destroying its employment benefit; (f) it fails to move towards the deregulation of labour markets required to give all Australians a chance for a job; and (g) it burdens Australia with the threat of continued high interest rates which hurt not only home buyers but hit business investment and jobs'. The PRESIDENT —Before I call on Senator Michael Baume I remind all honourable senators that this is his first speech in this chamber and I would ask that he be accorded the normal courtesies. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.25) —This is no place for the faint-hearted. After three terms in the House of Representatives, I am only too well aware of the pressures of politics. I come to the Senate with no illusions, either about myself or the manner in which this place is being used, and in some cases unfortunately misused, by its occupants. The role we have here is a most important one, ensuring, if we can, that Australia is being well governed, that our laws are just and that the rights of all Australians are protected. As senators, our responsibilities, like our privileges, are substantial. It is our duty, and certainly it is my intention, never to shirk those responsibilities or abuse those privileges. Unfortunately, the public perception of politicians is not always favourable on those scores. Deceptive and misleading statements, dishonest promises and the other paraphernalia of political pragmatism have rightly earned politicians and politics a bad name. The standard of behaviour in the Parliament itself-the personal abuse, the reliance on invective rather than sound argument, the constant use, for example, by a Minister of the Crown of a bottom drawer labelled `dirt'-is a poor substitute for decent debate. As the old proverb goes: `He who throws mud only loses ground'. I do not believe that the process of government is in any way advanced by this behaviour. I will have no part of it in my stay in the Senate, whatever its length. I am here to represent the voters of my State and my nation as best I can. I am not here to settle my personal scores or to vilify or belittle my opponents, although I will energetically attempt to do that to their policies when I believe that these threaten our way of life. I hope that I will be judged here on my contribution to the Senate's performance in making or, in some instances, unmaking the laws under which we live. I hope that that judgment will be on the substance of what I do because it is substance that really matters. The dependence on demagoguery and the reliance on rhetoric that has so often diminished political debate in this chamber no longer carries weight with thinking Australians. We owe them something better. I will try to provide it, just as so many on the long list of my friends and colleagues in this chamber are doing. I am honoured that the President, a long-standing and respected friend, is in the chair to hear this maiden speech. The presence of my cousin, Senator Peter Baume, is a special pleasure to me. There are many others with whom I established enduring friendships during my three terms in the House of Representatives as the member for Macarthur before coming to the Senate. Some others in the Senate have followed the same course from the other place. These include the Deputy President, Senator Hamer, Senator Jessop, Senator Chipp and Senator Coates who have, like me, had the benefit of experience in both Houses, as has Senator Short. I hope that I will be able to use that experience to advantage, particularly in providing alternative representation to the people of the Illawarra and southern regions of New South Wales who are covered by five Labor-held electorates. From my office in Wollongong it is my intention to service the huge area from Sutherland to the Victorian border, to provide the assistance and parliamentary representation that some residents may feel is not being adequately supplied by the Labor Party members of the House of Representatives for the five electorates involved. But my main task as a senator is not simply to be a surrogate representative. It is to review legislation and today I wish to examine the economic policies of the Hawke Government, as expressed in its Budget, its monetary policy, its deals with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its present fiasco on tax. Let us begin by examining whether the Budget is the sort of non-event that it has been paraded as. In fact, it has been described as a Budget in two parts. The reality is that it is a Budget in three parts. The first part was back in May, the second part is what we are now discussing and the third part is what we expect to see, Caucus willing, later tonight before the House is removed from consideration of it. In other words, it is being brought down on the eve of the rise of the Parliament so that we will not have an opportunity to discuss it immediately. Instead the Government will have the opportunity to try to promote its rag bag package-what is left of the proposals of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), after they have been savaged by the ACTU and examined by the left wing in the Caucus. What is this three-part, partial Budget we are dealing with right now? Let us recognise that, in the first place, last year this Government was saved by a devaluation and this year it has been saved by an injection of inflation. The Budget must be seen in that context. The Senate will remember that the Government in its first Budget squandered the good luck of the breaking of the drought, the world economic recovery and the inherited wages freeze, with a big-spending monster that created problems for subsequent Budgets. The Senate will also remember that before that Budget the Government had a mini-Budget in which it claimed it was showing great restraint; it was cutting enormous amounts of money off government spending. When the 1983 Budget eventually came out we found that all those cuts were monumentally overwhelmed by massive additions of government spending. An amount of $2.5 billion of additional spending in new programs was added after the rhetoric of May was totally destroyed. It is worth while remembering that this was in the context of an alleged fiscal inheritance; in other words, a prospective deficit of something like $9.6 billion. I put to the Senate one simple proposition: If, after adding $2.5 billion of new programs, the Government ends up with a deficit of about $8 billion, some simple mathematical questions are raised about what sort of deficit it really did inherit. I suggest that to continue to hear from the Government benches the nonsense about this inherited deficit, when the figures so clearly show that after $2.5 billion of extra spending it still ended up with a deficit of about $8 billion, renders absolute nonsense the allegations. There is no doubt in my mind that that $9.6 billion was put up as an Aunt Sally against which this Government's appalling performances in its big-spending patterns would appear to be reasonable. That appearance of reasonableness is in fact a massive deception. Let us recognise that that 1983 Budget was the worst we have ever had in terms of deficit. Let us recognise that the following Budget was the second worst ever and that this is the third worst ever. This Budget has a deficit bigger than any of the previous Budgets, except, of course, for those of previous Hawke governments. It has a bigger government spending program than any previous Budget, and it is the biggest taxing Budget ever. It raises more money for the government sector than any previous Budget ever has. Let us recognise that devaluation saved the Government from the consequences of those appalling first two Budgets. Let us recognise that economic activity was slowing down towards the end of last year, that the Government was massaging the economy. It was certainly fiddling with interest rates before the election. We could see from the broad economic statistics available that the economy was slowing down. The Government needed a devaluation to provide the stimulus to keep the recovery going. There is no doubt that from the Forward Estimates, for example, it was evident that the criteria used by the Government to judge what its spending would be like included an estimate that was a massive reduction in the rate of economic growth this year. That devaluation was needed to keep the recovery going. That is why the Treasurer praised the devaluation, and has continued to praise it, as something that is magnificent, when the reality is that the devaluation would not have been anything like as severe as it was had it not been for the massively inappropriate economic policies of this Government in its first two big-spending Budgets. The Government is being saved again. It is being saved this time by an injection of inflation. We have heard how the Government knows what it is doing, how it has fiscal responsibility. but let us recognise that without a massive increase in inflation which is to take place this year the Government would be in serious economic difficulty, certainly in serious budgetary difficulty. It would not be having the sort of growth in revenues that it can get away with-and they are growths in revenues that appear not from any increase in taxes but because of this monster called fiscal drag. In fact, the Government's taxation revenues are going up, as I said, to a record proportion of gross domestic product. They are going up because inflation is helping to rescue the Government from its economic problems. This simple impact of inflation is increasing income tax revenue, for example, by 12.3 per cent and increasing sales tax receipts by 21 per cent. This, of course, is a handy and unlegislated $5,400m increase in the Government's income, and as I mentioned, that has lifted Budget revenue to the highest ever percentage of gross domestic product, to 27.7 per cent. The cost of all this is the thing that we have to examine. What are the costs to all of Australia of these things that have rescued the Government from its inappropriate economic policies? Of course, the cost is that inflation is to wipe out, over time, those benefits in competitiveness that we have achieved from devaluing. I am afraid that there is nothing in the current budget which reverses that trend in any way. This Budget, in fact, will continue the policy of excessive government spending, of excessive demand on the money markets, which pushes up interest rates, and will continue, I believe, the inappropriate, overall economic policies that have damaged this recovery, not assisted it. That, I think, is the essential point. The Government has continued to take the benefit of everything that has happened in this economy. It has taken the benefit for the fact that it rained. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did coyly admit that God was mainly to be praised for the coming of the rain that broke the drought; but the benefit was only largely due to God, not entirely. The wages pause certainly had a dramatic impact on slowing down the inflation that had been a problem in the previous period as a result of some extraordinary wage decisions through a continuation of a sort of centralised system at that time. The main benefit, of course, was the recovery in the world economy. Those benefits, have been dissipated by these inappropriate policies for which we are now paying the price. Exactly what are these prices? I put it very strongly that the price is diminished economic growth, a lower rate of growth in employment, and certainly much higher interest rates and worse unemployment than should be the case in such a recovery. But basically, the Government's failure is a simple one. Every time it says that it will do the right thing, and every time it issues these statements which are full of the rhetoric of restraint, it is found that what it does is exactly the opposite. I must say that in many instances I agree totally with what the Treasurer says is the prescription that is required. I agree totally with what his intentions appear to be. I agree entirely with his rhetoric of restraint. The problem is that, having said the right thing and having recognised what should be done, he then fails to do it. The recent mini-Budget, for example, has now been wiped out. Let us look at May's $1,290m cut in government spending. It has already been halved in new spending plans in the present Budget, and next year spending on these new programs in the present Budget will grow to $1,459m according to the Budget Papers. This more than wipes out, in their entirety, the so-called responsible savings in the May Budget. So you can see, Mr Deputy President, that the gap between the rhetoric and the reality in this Government is now causing a massive economic problem in Australia which, I submit, will certainly worsen our economic situation and diminish our ability to compete. I put it to you that it may well be that it will push Australia dangerously near to the sort of slide we have seen in the South American nations. I want to deal with the need in this Budget for a smaller deficit than in fact took place. The Government has claimed great credit for the fact that it has cut the deficit substantially, while ignoring the fact that it is still the third worst in our history. The need for a smaller deficit is underlined by the warnings in the recent annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia against excessive government demands on capital markets. In stressing the need to maintain a firm restraint on money supply, the Reserve Bank admits that growth of money and credit was still stronger than desirable last financial year. This year monetary policy will have to play a greater role because of inadequate fiscal restraint in the Budget at the same time as the Government's reduced but nevertheless substantial borrowing requirement will be competing with the expanding private sector demands for funds. It seems, just from the Reserve Bank's analysis, that hopes of any sizable cut in interest rates are unlikely to come good unless our economic growth turns out to be far less than the Budget's remarkably optimistic forecast of around 5 per cent. Let us recognise this. If in fact the devaluation was caused by Australia spending more than it was earning, it is ridiculous to increase our capacity to spend in order to wipe out that competitive advantage. So, on all scores, we can see the Government's economic policy diminishing our competitiveness. It has done deals with the Australian Council of Trade Unions which have increased business costs. It seems to me that it is flying in the face of what the Reserve Bank warns is the right kind of economic policy. The Bank was warned that devaluation, even with wage discounting, may not be enough and that it is essential that the excesses of domestic demands on capital markets, including those of governments over the supply of domestic savings, be reduced. The Reserve Bank, in its annual report, is clearly uneasy about the Government's economic policy. I will point out later that, in fact, the Treasury itself has issued in the Budget Papers massive warnings to this Government about its economic behaviour. How meaningful, however, are the enormous warnings that we have seen in full page advertisements in newspapers, in many statements by people such as John Leard and Professor Fred Gruen, about whether Australia is going broke? Let us have a quick look at the way the Government has handled its financing of the deficit. On page 78 of Budget Paper No. 1 we can see that $3.4 billion of the $6.7 billion deficit last year was paid for by the Reserve Bank selling off our foreign exchange reserves. We were in fact meeting our deficit, particularly the overseas section of the deficit, by to a large extent selling off our overseas reserves. The entire amount of that $3.4 billion was not met from that source, but a very large proportion was. In other words the Reserve Bank paid for almost half of this deficit by the Government's issuing to the Bank of paper that could be described as worthless. If we have been running down our external reserves in order to pay for our deficit, what impact has that had on our economy? The simple reality is that it has artificially protected our domestic markets from interest rate pressures that would otherwise have existed and it has artificially affected our currency as well. In other words, our balance of payments has been artificially hit by this Government tactic. I suggest that the Government cannot keep financing its deficits and financing its external debt by selling off our reserves. Sooner or later it will have to stop. If it intends, as it does now, to continue the economic policies of the last two years, there is no doubt that the world community will call a halt. We cannot simply finance our activities by flogging our overseas reserves. When that has to stop we are clearly going to see a situation in which the Government will, in fact, have to borrow all its requirements domestically and, therefore, push interest rates up. It will increase the pressure which has already been enormous, as we have seen from the current record interest rates. In real terms, despite what the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) says, they are record real interest rates; they have never been exceeded this century. Real interest rates, of course, are interest rates after we account for inflation. When this running down of our foreign reserves ends, we will see a significant impact on interest rates, underlining the fact that the Government has got away in the last couple of years with some improper policies, policies that are totally counter-productive in terms of our economic recovery and which, I suggest very strongly, are not helping our recovery, but seriously hindering it. To what extent are we running the risk of going down the South American slide and to what extent have the Government's policies pushed us in that direction? Everyone in the Senate recognises that what happened in most of the South American nations is simple. Their debt mounted, their ability to service that foreign debt was diminished and, as a result, they had devaluations and the devaluations created massive inflation. Because of the massive inflation they were unable to compete in the world. As a result, they had to devalue, and so the round goes on and on. What is to get Australia off that round on which we have apparently put our first step? We have had record devaluation in Australia under this Government, a devaluation I suggest that need not have been so great had it not been for inappropriate government policies. We have started on the round. What will get us off? The key thing that will get us off it is restraining costs in Australia. Yet this Government has done deals with the ACTU, is apparently under the control of the ACTU to such an extent that when the ACTU declares war on profit the Government nods its head and follows suit. That, I understand from the newspapers this morning, is involved in the massive assault on profitability that will be involved in tonight's package. But apart from that the ACTU has required of the Government that it renege on its promise to discount wages for the extent of this record devaluation. That undertaking was absolutely central to any suggestion of restraint in the recent Budget. Yet that undertaking by the Treasurer has been reneged on under the pressure following the demands of the ACTU. If we are already spending too much to survive, living beyond our means, if the ACTU requires that people have even greater capacity to spend and if the Government is accepting that view-I remind honourable senators that Mr Simon Crean not only said he was seeking to maintain real wages; his program was, in fact, to increase them and the package was to increase real wages-how on earth can we restrain our internal costs in order to compete against the world if we have this kind of pressure and a government giving way to this kind of pressure in Australia? Already we have seen manufacturing input costs in recent days increasing by something like 19 per cent in the latest official statistics. That is the import component of them. The domestic component of them increased by something like 9 1/2 per cent, far above the internal inflation rate. Overall, that meant that manufacturing costs went up by something like 13 per cent in the latest period. How can we compete against the rest of the world if our costs are going up like that? How can we compete against the rest of the world if the Government continually bows to its superiors in the ACTU who want to maintain and increase real wages at a time when our recent devaluation has demonstrated that we are living beyond our means? It seems to me that nothing the Government has done will get us off this slide. What is going to rescue us? Will it be a massive increase in exports of coal or beef, or any of the commodities on which we have relied for so long? Look around and see where the rescue will come from. Will the European Economic Community suddenly stop dumping its products in our major markets? Is there suddenly to be a massive increase in the price of oil which will make our energy resources more attractive? On the contrary, indications are that the price of oil could fall even further. Nothing on the horizon stands out as the external magic solution to this nation's problems-problems that have been worsened by this Government. Even if there were a pick-up in world demand for commodities, would Australia get the benefit of it? I ask this question because it seems to me that, with so many of our competitors in the commodity markets coming from the impoverished, indebted Third World nations, particuarly South American nations, whose indebtedness to the banks of this world is such that they must be rescued, any pick-up in demand for commodities such as iron ore, copper, lead, zinc, you name it, must be directed to those nations if they are ever to get out of debt or even service their debt and if the world banking system is not to collapse. What do we have going for us that will encourage the rest of the world to give us a special deal? I cannot see what it is, and so it seems to me that with the Japanese naturally being keen to maintain the existence of the world banking system, we face a diminished future. We face a future in which we have to work harder. We face a future in which we can no longer sit down and expect everything to be served to us on a platter. We face a future in which we can no longer afford the luxury of expecting to get the benefits of a high standard of living without working for them. We cannot depend on luck any more, but this Government is depending on luck. This Budget has been described as a high risk Budget. It is waiting for some thing to turn up. That something will not turn up. We do not especially deserve anything in this world that we do not earn. At the moment it seems to me that as a nation we are not paying our way. The Government is not contributing to the sort of economic environment in which we will be able to pay our way and, in particular, with its consistent kow-towing to the demands of the ACTU it is massively diminishing any prospects we have of fighting our way out of what seems to me to be the disastrous situation facing us. Sure, we are not there yet. Of course following this line of argument could be discribed as scaremongering, but I put it to you, Mr President, that some healthy scaremongering would not do us much harm. If it wakes Australia up to the reality that the world does not owe us a living, if it wakes the Government up to the fact that it must have responsible and proper economic policies, the sort of scaremongering in which I may be accused of indulging, I believe is doing us all a great service. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Sanders, I remind honourable senators that this will be the first speech of Senator Sanders in this chamber and I ask that the normal courtesies be extended to him. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.55) —Thank you, Mr President. I take great pleasure in at last being on my feet legally in this chamber. I congratulate Senator Michael Baume on his thoughtful and not unduly provocative speech and I hope I can follow in the same manner. Frankly, my election is an extraordinary event personally, and I think it tells us something about this country in which I have chosen to spend the rest of my life. It is magnificent that a migrant, a person such as myself, can come to this country, be here ten years, and be elected to this Parliament-the highest Parliament in the land. It simply could not happen in the United States. There I would have to be a millionaire, or if I were not a millionaire I would have to sell my soul to the oil companies or the multinationals in some way to get elected to the Senate. Here in Australia, simply by campaigning and by collecting a few supporters, I can through the system attain this position. I happen to represent a previously unrepresented portion of the electorate. It is a coalition of the dispossessed. It is Aboriginal people, pensioners, veterans, even motorcycle riders. It is environmentalists, and it is people who are worried sick about the threat of nuclear war. It is a whole bunch of people who felt that they were not being represented by the two existing parties-the Laborials. I had a letter from a constituent under the letterhead `Fluorescent Sheep Dog Productions', the name of his business, which said: `Congratulations. You are the first person I have ever voted for who got elected'. I think that pretty much describes my constituents. It is a great pity that the Hawke conservative Government has chosen to tamper with the electoral system. It will be very difficult for any of us who have a viewpoint which is not consistent with the Laborials to get elected at the next Senate election. That will be a great loss not only to ourselves but also to this country. The proportional representation system, which has served this country so well, is now in grave danger in the Senate. It might be useful at this time if I introduced myself to the Senate. I guess that in a sense I have been re-born in Australia. I had a previous life in the United States; I chose to turn my back on it. I was born in the mid-west of the United States and I followed my family west. Americans move very frequently, every 18 months, and my family did likewise. I ended up in a place called El Pueblo de la Nuestra Senora, La Reina de los Angeles, which I throw in just to tax Hansard's skills, They can call it Los Angeles if they wish. I was raised in a Hispanic-Anglo neighbourhood-a fairly rough part of town-and served my apprenticeship stealing hubcaps, siphoning gas and otherwise training myself to be a politician. Upon my graduation from high school I went to Los Angeles City College and took a year of journalism. When the Korean war came along I joined the United States Air Force. I was an air traffic controller in the Air Force. I never left the United States, for which I am eternally thankful, but I did learn to fly as a private pilot in commercial operations near the air bases at which I was stationed. I then got out of the Air Force. I must say here that my father was a commercial artist and my mother was in public relations. They had a number of friends in the journalistic profession. I observed from an early date that journalists seemed to turn into cynical drunks or drunken cynics and I felt it was probably a good idea for me to get out of that line of work. So I took up geology and geophysics at the University of California, Los Angeles, under the GI Bill. I got interested in mountain climbing and, having climbed in Mexico and Canada, decided to try the big one, Mt McKinley, in Alaska. We did climb Mt McKinley, being the twelfth party ever to do so. I fell in love with Alaska, and went to the University of Alaska in the winters and ran a bush flying service in the summers. I was involved in geology and geophysics in the production of radio telescopes. In fact, scientists in Alaska were the first to track the Russian Sputnik satellite because the Americans, with their infinite lack of a realistic approach to the satellite system, thought that they would get up first. Of course, their satellite was to be in an equatorial orbit and Sputnik was in a polar orbit. We were the only people in the so-called free world ready to track this thing. So I have had some experience, even in those days, with the aerospace business. In 1958 I left to go to Los Angeles and I was in the United States aerospace business for six years. I started building equipment which was ultimately used at Woomera for the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration deep space tracking system. Later I went on to build terminal guidance equipment for nuclear missiles. This was the time when I had my first realisation of the problems of nuclear warfare and what it actually meant. Until that time I had approached the problem as a scientific one. Sure, I was making a lot of money-I did not mind that-and I was told that it helped to keep the world safe on a balance of terror basis if I continued to produce these weapons. I took that line for about a year. When I finally had to start targeting my missiles on Russian cities I said, `No, this is wrong', and I got out of the business. I became an academic. I obtained my master of arts in geography at UCLA, got a Fulbright fellowship and was casting around the world for a place to go on my Fulbright fellowship. It seemed as though nobody who had ever had one had gone to Tasmania so I selected that remote part of the earth. I have never regretted it; it is a lovely place. Tasmania is the place in which I have chosen to spend the rest of my life. While at the University of Tasmania I got a PhD. I got the first PhD in geography from the University of Tasmania-a fact which the geography department would like to forget. I left Tasmania in 1968 to return to California. I became an assistant professor in the department of geography at the University of California in Santa Barbara and I was pretty straight until the Union oil company dumped four inches of crude oil on a beach which I was trying to study scientifically and this annoyed me. I then looked around and found that this company had also killed off some 8,000 birds, which affected the tourist and fishing industries and I became an environmentalist. In so doing, I spent a lot of time fighting the oil industry. I learned that one cannot really trust an oil company. I have developed the saying that one should never trust a politician or an oil man because these oil people are simply in the business of making money. I also helped in the fight against the Diablo Canyon reactor. I was very active in the anti-war area and, for my efforts, was fired from the University of California in 1974. I took this matter to the Committee on Academic Freedom. That Committee took the matter to the Chancellor. The Chancellor then disbanded the Committee on Academic Freedom and the President of the Committee on Academic Freedom, who was a lawyer, took it to the courts. It became known as the `Sanders Case', and it boiled down to whether an employee of the State of California had the right to look at his employment records or not. Since there are as many employees in the state of California as there are in the Commonwealth system of Australia this became a major case, but I had had a gutful. Another thing that was happening was that Nixon was running around shooting his cuffs up in the air and saying: `I am not a crook'. We were all afraid as that time that he would punch the nuclear button just out of spite. The Whitlam Government had been elected in Australia. It looked like the time to leave the United States. So I bought a 29-foot sloop and my family and I set sail for these shores. Unfortunately, half way across, Nixon resigned and as soon as I got to Australia, of course, Whitlam also lost government, but that is another story. I must go back to this nuclear fear because I remember getting 200 miles off the shore of California in my yacht and thinking: I have got my family into safety at last. They are now safe. Something that Australians do not understand is the gut fear that Americans and Europeans in the northern hemisphere have about nuclear war. I hope we have an awareness of it without having that gnawing fear that so affects people's lives. Upon arrival in Tasmania I was interviewed on the television program This Day Tonight and, for reasons which are still unclear to me, I was offered the job of television reporter and I took up the position. I was a television reporter for two years on the program This Day Tonight. The conjecture was that either the producer was a Central Intelligence Agency man or he wanted to buy my boat; I never worked out which. I enjoyed my work on TDT. Those halcyon days of current affairs have not been equalled. Television current affairs have really sunk since then. I did 234 television stories. I looked around Tasmania and was appalled by what I found. I found a State which deserved to be, and could be, the model for a twenty-first century society which, in fact, was just being overexploited and hammered in every way. The unemployment rate was massive and the environmental degradation was unchecked. I read with some interest that E. F. Schumaker-the `Small Is Beautiful' man-had been there and he shared my views, and the views of any thinking person, that Tasmania was the perfect place in which to develop a balanced and ongoing society. Upon leaving This Day Tonight I joined the Wilderness Society, became an early director of the Wilderness Society before Bob Brown and then entered the battle to save the Franklin. At the time, it seemed a good idea to get into parliament. I have always said: `Buy a politician, sell a politician, but never be one'. I did not follow my own advice; I stood for parliament. I did not get elected the first time. So I forced a by-election and was elected. I served in the Tasmanian Parliament for some three years and finally resigned in protest over the draconian legislation of that Parliament which actually locked up honest, sincere people who set foot in a national park. I think it is still an everlasting shame, a blot on the Tasmanian Parliament, that both sides of that Parliament-the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia-agreed to lock up sincere people who were merely trying to save the Franklin River. I went into small business. I became the owner and operator of a firm called the Sanders Hot Prospect Stove Co. Because I had stepped on the udders of so many sacred cows I simply could not get a job from anybody else-Commonwealth or private-so I started a small business. I really believe that small business is the salvation of this country. Does that make me a capitalist? I do not think so. I am certainly not a socialist. I am not any of that kind of -ist, I am a humanist. I really think that this right-left dichotomy is out of date. I think it is a relic of the 1920s and it gets in the way of any meaningful change. As soon as one says, for example: `We ought to have nuclear disarmament', somebody says :`Ah, you are just a commie; you are just a Russian sympathiser'. I think we should face up to the late twentieth century and see that what we have in Australia is a mixture of socialism and capitalism and it seems to have worked pretty well. I think we had better stop fighting these old battles and get on with the new ones because we have plenty of them. I have a number of areas of interest in this parliamentary system. I handle environmental issues. Actually, I am not really an environmentalist, I am a humanist. I am not worried about the environment. It will exist in some form or other. Mother Nature always bats last. It is just that she may just bat us out, and we will not be able to survive on this earth any more. So I am really working for the survival of the human species and everything on this earth. People in America or in Australia simply do not appreciate what they have. I think people in Australia appreciate it even less. We have a kind of cargo cult mentality in Australia that, if we develop some sort of infrastructure, or put in a dam or a power plant or something, somebody will come here and exploit it. We do not have the self-confidence to use it wisely ourselves. The woodchip industry is a major example. We are actually paying the Japanese to haul away our forests. The woodchip industry is an incredible industry. It gives us absolutely no income, it is a net loss to the country, it destroys our forests, it destroys the animals in the forests and it makes no sense. Actually, it would seem that the Japanese won World War II. All they ever wanted was our resources, that is why they fought World War II. Now they have our resources and they do not even have to pay to occupy the place. We are simply giving away all our resources. The Hawke conservative Government is apparently set to cave in on woodchips. An article in the Hobart Mercury stated: `Gray pleased by Kerin line on renewals'. Robin Gray and the Minister for Primary Industry in the same bed! It boggles the mind. Robin Gray was quoted as saying that he was `pleased that Mr Kerin was reputed to have rejected conservationists' calls for a delay in the renewal process while another inquiry was held'. I believe that question time in Parliament is very important. I asked a question on this subject of Senator Walsh, the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. He resorted to a tactic of denying any knowledge of the question. I gave him advance warning of my question. I hope that the good senator will look upon Question Time in the way it is meant to be looked upon. He should offer information when he possesses it, and in that case he did possess it. I know that he has youth and inexperience to deal with but I trust that he will learn his role in this Parliament. Nuclear disarmament is also one of my major concerns. I feel that it is part of the environmental portfolio, because the worst kind of environmental pollution is nuclear war. It is the ultimate of man's technological weapons and can destroy all of us. I came here to get my family to safety and I find, having come here, that it is not safe at all. As for our harbours, including Hobart harbour, they parked the USS Enterprise on my front lawn. It is one of the most destructive vessels ever produced in the world's history, and they parked it on my front lawn. They are still doing that. They brought the USS Texas in the other day. Any time those boats are in town I am a prime nuclear target. We are prime nuclear targets because of our bases-not our bases, the Americans' bases. I made a pledge, a promise, to my constituents that on my first day in this Parliament I would introduce a Bill to ban the United States bases. I could not. There is a motion on the Notice Paper which states that I could not because this Parliament does not have control over the bases. The bases are controlled by agreements-we do not even know how many there are-which are controlled by the Executive, the Governor-General, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. One of the first things this Parliament should do is to exert its control over Australian soil in this manner. The Hawke conservative Government is cynically wooing our great and powerful friend, the United States, and putting us all at risk in the process. I am afraid that the Howard conservative Opposition is doing no better. If the public statements of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) can be believed, he is breathtakingly naive. He is blithely picking daisies in a minefield in supporting the strategic defence initiative, Star Wars. He claims that Star Wars will bring peace. It will not. Star Wars is the most destabilising of all the many destabilising programs the Reagan Administration has put forward. Basically it means that, if it is successful, the Unites States can sit behind an impregnable shield throwing missiles at will at any enemy and not suffering any damage itself. That means that the nations around the earth that have United States bases, such as Australia, will be in the front line while the United States gets off scot-free. That is the danger of Star Wars. I hope that the Opposition will recognise that fact. What about ANZUS? ANZUS was supposed to protect us from the Japanese-no one else, not the Russians-but it did not work. ANZUS is an outmoded, outworn framework for defence. It has no real meaning in this part of the twentieth century. What we need is a strong and independent Australia, an Australia which can defend itself against any potential enemy-which does not include the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in my view-and which can exert some sort of protective control over the Pacific. We are a Pacific nation. We are a Pacific island. People in Australia do not understand that. If one asks an Australian where he lives he will say `Melbourne' or `Sydney'. If one says `Yes, but what do you think about the Pacific?' he will say, `It is a nice place to go swimming'. But the people of the Pacific look to us. We are the biggest country in the Pacific. They look to us; we do not look to them. It is time that we as Australians started feeling like a Pacific island nation and exerted some authority. One of the things we must do is take a firmer stand on the French presence at Mururoa Atoll and New Caledonia. If we were really serious about the Rainbow Warrior incident, we would be sending ships to protect the Greenpeace fleet because the French are definitely going to cause bloodshed in the Pacific if they are not halted. Another of my interests is resources and energy. We should concentrate on renewable resources. We should make the exploiters pay the true costs of what they are doing to our resources. We should drive a harder bargain. We have to stop being conned by the oil exploration companies. We have to stop being taken in by the very subliminal commercials on television such as `The Quiet Achiever', `The Big Australian' and Mike Willesee in his silly Esso hat running around saying: `We just want to give you people more oil. We are working for you guys. We are not really interested in making money'. Of course they are. They are running around Australia with a front end loader picking up money and shipping it overseas. That is what we ought to be taxing. All this debate about taxes is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We are letting these guys go. The big guy is getting off scot-free while the Government is trying to figure out ways of getting more blood out of the taxpaying turnip. It just is not going to work. Another of my fields of interest is science. I feel very strongly that scientists should be accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, many have not been accountable. I also feel that science should be for the people. It should be directed towards the true well-being of the people, not the well-being of the existing multinationals or the defence industry. We have to recognise that the Industrial Revolution is over and that the machines have won. As a society we have not addressed ourselves to this problem. We are still trying to find jobs in areas where jobs have been eliminated. With my colleague Senator David Vigor, who is our spokesman on technology, we can work towards a realisation that we have to restructure our thinking about jobs to account for the technological revolution. Another of my interests is aviation. As a commercial pilot and flight instructor of some 35 years standing I have some experience in this field. I announce to you, Mr President, that yesterday the Australian Democrats agreed with me that we should go for complete deregulation of the Australian aviation industry. We need open skies for consumers and for the industry. I would like to see Qantas Airways Ltd carrying passengers across Australia on a standby basis, or a space available basis. I would like to see East West Airlines Ltd given a chance. East West has proven itself in Australia but is still operating with one hand tied behind its back. I would like to see other operators come in if they can operate safely and give consumers a good service. There is a vast pool of potential customers to tap. Some 92 per cent of people in Australia still do not fly. If unfettered, the industry could cater to these people. There would be plenty of profits for the existing operators and plenty of seats available for consumers if we had deregulation. People Express sprang up after deregulation in the United States. It has made flying cheaper than riding a bus. One can fly from Newark to Atlanta, Georgia, for $69. It costs $104 on the bus. Whole new markets are being created this way. It could happen here. Unfortunately, it is being blocked by the Department of Aviation which is a bloated, cumulo-nimbus which is blotting out the once azure and clear peaceful skies of Australian aviation. It is run by a chair corps-not an air corps. These people do not fly. Only one in 20 has ever flown an aeroplane. The chair corp's main function is to sit at a big desk with a rubber stamp that has `No' written on it. If a piece of paper comes along that says `Can we import an aeroplane', the answer is `No'. If it says `Can we set up a route from here to there' the answer is `No'. If it says `Can we actually operate in a sensible and safe manner' the answer is `No'. At this very moment the Department of Aviation is closing down weather services here in Canberra, in Launceston, Port Hedland, Tamworth, Mount Isa, Alice Springs, Cairns, Hobart and Rockhampton. As an aircraft user, I am not happy about paying air navigation charges. All people, as consumers, pay air navigation charges. I am not happy about paying those charges. I am only happy about paying the charges for the services that I use. The airport weather office services are services that I use. The Department of Aviation has been criticised because of its over-bureaucratic structure and the fact that it has six times as many bureaucrats per aeroplane as does the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States. The response is to cut staff. But does it cut its own staff? No, it cuts the Department of Science staff which are contracted to the Department of Aviation. This is a scandal and an unsafe scandal. It will increase the danger of collision, and of crashes, in Australia. The Department of Aviation's response to all this is: `Yes, we know it may be a problem but planes should carry more fuel'. Even those honourable senators who do not fly can see the fallacy of that argument. As a migrant I am here by choice, not by accident of birth. As such, I may have a different perspective of this country. I want the best for this country, my adopted country. I would like to see a strong, self-confident, independent Australia led by compassionate, far-sighted leaders. Perhaps I am being a bit naive. Instead, it seems that we are a kind of lapdog of the United States, led by Laborials. The Laborials during divisions sit on each other's laps in this place; I have seen it. The Democrats are on one side and the Laborials on the other. There does not seem to be much difference between them. What we need is a sense of entity in this country and I would start with the flag. I propose that we adopt the Eureka flag. The Eureka flag is not the flag of the Builders Labourers Federation of Australia or of the socialist Left, although I commend the socialist Left for making it more freely available in the form of stickers. I have a Eureka flag on my motor-cycle. It is the flag of small business. It was a bunch of small businessmen who said that they did not want bureaucratic interference and they did not want people overseas telling them what to do. I think that should be our attitude. I would like to make people aware of the problems and the solution-I have always wanted to do this. In order to do that, we need the media. Unfortunately, the media in this place suffer from a severe case of omphaloscopsis. The media here is more interested in the gossip in the place than in the real issues. I consider myself to be a recent emissary of the people; Senator Vallentine is another. The people tell me that they are tired of the faction fighting, the back biting, the heated debates over Paddington Bears and colour television sets and are tired of gossip column style reporting. They want some hard questions from the media in their olympian heights up there. I notice there are not many of them up there. Those gods must be resting from their labours. People expect a lot from the media and they are not getting it. I hope that the media can look more closely at these issues and get some answers down here on this floor. I do not particularly like being a politician. In the public mind, politicians are somewhere between rag and bone merchants and used motor-cycle salesmen. But I am willing to do my best here. I would like to eliminate the fear of nuclear annihilation, eliminate poverty and eliminate social inequality. I would like to establish a secure and rewarding future for our kids. I hope that we can all work together to achieve those goals. The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Vallentine, I remind all honourable senators that this will be the first occasion that Senator Vallentine has spoken in this chamber and I ask all honourable senators to afford her the normal courtesies. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(11.24) —Mr President, fellow senators and people of Australia, it is with both pride and humility that I rise to make my inaugural speech in this chamber as the first peace activist in the world to be elected to a national parliament on the single issue of nuclear disarmament. The Senate fulfils a useful role in our democratic process by enabling a wide spectrum of the electorate representation in the parliamentary system. I should like to congratulate the two previous speakers. Honourable senators will note some points in common with what Senator Sanders had to say, but these points are so important that they bear repetition. Indeed, I have an awesome task before me, but not one that I undertake alone. Apart from the excellent staff I have working with me and the always helpful Senate staff, I wish to commend and encourage the hundreds of thousands of Australians who voted for nuclear disarmament, the most urgent need of humanity, in the last Federal election. I feel their support with me right now and I value it greatly. I would like to thank all the hard workers around the country who made it possible for Australian voters to make that choice towards nuclear disarmament and especially to the campaign committee in Western Australia, competently organised by Annabelle Newbury. They co-operated really well in a fantastic team effort. I must also mention other Senate candidates, in particular Jean Melzer and Peter Garrett, who have done so much to further the cause of nuclear disarmament in this country, and also Michael Denborough whose idea it was to run political candidates on a peace platform. I give thanks also to Peter Fry, without whose loving support I would not be in a position to do this job. I take it on gladly, not only on behalf of our Katie and Samantha but for all children everywhere and, I hope, for all time. In consideration of the recent Budget the contradiction between government pronouncements and actual policies is highlighted. There is a real increase of 3.1 per cent in the defence allocation and, of that, 71 per cent of the capital equipment allowance is being spent on hardware from outside Australia and far too much of that on the FA18s. At the same time, foreign aid was reduced to 0.45 per cent of the gross national product, moving further away from the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent, despite our membership of the United Nations Security Council. What aid we do give should not prop up oppressive regimes, as it does in the Philippines. Another unfortunate indication of the Government's priorities is that specific areas of education have suffered from Budget cuts. There has been a 50 per cent reduction in the participation and equity program and funding for pre-schools has been terminated. Yet the defence budget increases while an infinitesimal amount is spent on positive peaceful initiatives such as the International Year of Peace and the newly established Peace Research Institute here in Canberra. As well as a genuinely defensive defence budget, we should have a peace budget, incorporating government funding of peace groups around the country, administered by people at the grass roots level. I believe that I am here right now because the major political parties have dismally failed to address the issue of nuclear disarmament to the satisfaction of an increasing number of concerned Australians. It is easy to say that everyone is in favour of nuclear disarmament and that nobody wants nuclear war. They are the ultimate in motherhood-or perhaps I should say parenthood-statements. I assume that no one here or in the other place would disagree with those statements. Yet the reason I am here is that that political rhetoric has not been matched by action. More and more Australians are calling on their politicians to put their ideals into practice-to really give peace a chance. A very important concept escapes many Australians, including some politicians. It is that our country, knowingly or unknowingly, is engaged in preparations for fighting a nuclear war. There can be no mistake, no delusions and no cover-up about this very disturbing fact. I wish to clarify my position to those who deliberately misrepresent it as being unilateralist. What I am advocating are independent initiatives to promote world-wide disarmament. I have never advocated unilateral Western disarmament. Successive Australian governments have been able to satisfy themselves that we were involved in deterrence, according to the policy of mutually assured destruction. I believe that that was a myth all along. Evidence now available shows that as early as 1948, before the Soviet Union had even acquired the bomb, planners in the United States of America had targeted 20 Soviet cities for total nuclear annihilation. Each super-power has been responsible for a massive fraud ever since as it has build up its nuclear arsenals. It is necessary to make clear to you, Mr President, and to the listeners that, although many of my remarks will be directed at the United States, it is only because of Australia's very close, and in my view very damaging, alliance with that country. I totally reject anti-American or pro-Soviet labels. What I am, unshakably and unequivocally, is anti-nuclear and pro-survival. I am critical of both the United States and the Soviet Union insofar as the military industrial complexes within both these nations are rolling on like huge juggernauts. They must be stopped. All nuclear weapons are evil, no matter from which state they emanate, and the threat to use them is evil. The nuclear powers are the ultimate terrorists, holding the world's people to ransom. They also include China, Britain and France. In the case of the latter, continued testing of nuclear weapons in our region is abhorrent, as is France's disregard for the rights of indigenous people in the Pacific. The bombing of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior by French Government agents was a blatant act of terrorism. However, the spirit of Greenpeace lives on. One cannot sink a rainbow! Until the mid-1970s mutually assured deterrence was the official line. Then there was the major shift in nuclear strategies to flexible options, formalised in presidential directive 59, articulated in 1979 during Jimmy Carter's term of office. It clearly states an option to use nuclear weapons in a limited nuclear war with an acceptable level of casualties. Of course, various Presidents have considered many times the use of nuclear weapons to solve problems in various parts of the world and no doubt their threats have been matched by the Kremlin, although we know less about Kremlin strategies. However, the election of President Reagan removed the smoke-screen of deterrence. We have moved from mad to nuts-nuts standing for nuclear use and tactics strategy, `use' being the operative word. Pentagon planners are now committed, in their words, to nuclear war fighting capability, a position that presupposes a nuclear war can be kept limited, survivable and winnable. It is indeed horrific stuff and we, the Australian people, are involved in this up to our eyeballs. We are implicated as an integral part of the Reagan Administration's command, control and communications systems via the bases at Pine Gap, Nurrungar and North West Cape. These bases are the eyes and ears of the United States strategic command. Through them we collect and transmit valuable information, allow the targeting and tracking of missiles and facilitate the sending of orders to ships and submarines of the United States fleet, which could include orders to launch nuclear weapons. One of the most disturbing things I discovered on a visit to North West Cape earlier this year was the cool detachment of the base operators, who likened the functions of the base to a post office-`Messages come in and go out, but we do not know what they are'. So who does know? Who takes the final responsibility? I asked a series of questions of the United States State Department and the Australian Defence Department in May about the operation of that base at North West Cape, questions which still remain unanswered. As a representative of the people, I have a right to know so that I can disseminate that information. Successive governments tell us that these bases are good for us because they help to deter nuclear war. I put to honourable senators that they are good for the United States in its preparations for nuclear war. Significantly, no Australian government has ever acknowledged the nuclear war fighting capability of these bases. The Australian people will be deceived no longer. We can agree with successive governments which, since 1969, reluctantly and only through the pressure of growing public concern, have admitted that several of the 20 or more United States bases on our soil are prime Soviet nuclear targets. As if it is not bad enough to have those bases as prime Soviet targets, we invite more trouble in the form of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons on board ships which frequently visit our ports. May I remind you, Mr President, of the frequency of these visits, particularly in Western Australia. These have increased threefold over the last eight years. On average a United States warship or submarine threatens Western Australia by its presence every one and a half weeks. As I speak, the USS Midway, an aircraft carrier bearing 75 aircraft, and the USS Jacksonville, a nuclear powered hunter killer submarine, are in Perth waters. They are accompanied by 10 support ships which altogether could be carrying around 100 nuclear weapons. About 8,000 sailors have been disgorged into Fremantle and other ports, bringing with them the generally acknowledged adverse social consequences. Once again for a whole week large areas of the densely populated south-west corner of Western Australia will be high on the Soviet target list-a thought which many of us who live there find unnerving, to put it mildly. We are alarmed that Australia allows the oceans surrounding our country to be militarised more rapidly than any other area on earth. The Pacific rim is not only the world's growth area in economic terms. The Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles are being deployed on 150 different surface ships and submarines in our region. They are new generation nuclear or conventionally armed weapons of great accuracy which escalate the arms race by drawing forth the inevitable Soviet response in the form of newer and deadlier weaponry aboard their warships. The recent declaration of the South Pacific as a nuclear free zone does nothing to prevent this militarisation, nor the use of Pacific waters for testing of nuclear weapons delivery systems such as the MX missiles-euphemistically and hideously misnamed the peacekeeper-to be followed in the next couple of years by the testing of the even more destabilising Trident IIs. On the western side of the continent, where the concept of the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace has been under consideration for 15 years, it is the United States which refuses to carry on dialogue. So much for Australia's often quoted influence with our ally. Also, discussions on a comprehensive test ban treaty, strongly promoted by the present Government, to its credit, have been consistently held up by United States negotiators at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Despite recent American agreement to reconsider the comprehensive test ban treaty, the super-powers are in a stalemate situation because technical arguments over verification, which are in fact political, are being used to block further progress. Failure to achieve agreement on a CTBT will surely mean the continued failure of the super-powers to abide by the key provisions of article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons at present under review in Geneva, calling on the United States and the Soviet Union to reverse the arms race. While this talking goes on and on, so does the frenetic production of more and more nuclear weapons. The third major area of Australia's complicity is of course uranium mining. The reversal of Australian Labor Party policy on this issue was a sell-out which created enormous disillusionment, providing a catalyst for the huge growth in the peace movement; a growth which continues to reverberate. No matter what safeguards are in place, the inextricable link between civil nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons proliferation is undeniable. Nothing that the Government or the Opposition say can change that. We must also look at the consequences of uranium mining on Aboriginal people whose lands are being decimated by uranium and other mining and whose lives also have been risked by the testing of nuclear bombs, in particular at Maralinga. Along with others exposed to those tests in the 1950s, the Aboriginal people are truly Australia's nuclear victims. Rather than exacerbating their problems, as a nation we should be redressing past injustices. We should also put into perspective the unquestionable damage to workers' health in uranium mines. We should not be prepared to place short term monetary rewards ahead of the quality of life here or anywhere else. It is ironic that a government which claims to be doing more for disarmament than any other government encourages the development of Roxby Downs, the largest uranium mine in the Western world. It is also disturbing that the South Australian Government has given the green light to the use of 33 million litres of water per day for that mining operation; this in one of the driest States in one of the driest continents on earth. It is to be hoped that in the case of Roxby Downs economic arguments will prevail against it, even if we fail on moral grounds, which gives an unfortunate clue to Australia's current priorities. As a last point on the subject of uranium, it is relevant to note that no uranium exporter will admit to its uranium being used to make nuclear weapons. All countries deny that responsibility. So, where does it come from. It was the youth of Australia with whom I was in close contact last year, as a peace education project officer, who spurred me into the political arena. For them the future looks bleak indeed. In the short term it is the job problem and in the long term the uncertainty of the future around which to build their dreams. In Australia, the United States and the Soviet Union 73 to 75 per cent of young people fear that there will be a nuclear war in their lifetime. They are not as foolish as T. K. Jones, Reagan's Deputy Under-Secretary of Defence, Research and Engineering, Strategic and Nuclear Forces Division, who believes that if there are enough shovels to go around most people will survive to reconstruct the world in two to four years after a nuclear war. I think our children and children everywhere deserve a more positive view of the future and their place in it. They display such disillusionment and despair because they do not see us, their elders, and the politicians in this place, doing enough to guarantee safe custody of our fragile planet to future generations. They see most adults as being too concerned with the immediate, with the dollar, and most of us with no vision for the future. Being in this place without a party gives me a unique opportunity to share with all politicians of all parties my vision for Australia's future. It is a subject too important to be bogged down by party politics and petty point scoring. Australia's future in the global context should be beyond all that, so I look forward to genuine and peaceful dialogue with political colleagues and with the Australian people about our possible future course. I know that we share many more points in common than there are differences between us. So, what will I be working towards? What is this vision for Australia's future? I am far from the first to enunciate it, but in a word it is independence. It is time that Australia as a nation came of age. We have been having trouble finding a national identity ever since Europeans first invaded this country, and no wonder. We have always been tied to another nation's apron strings. As we approach the commemoration of the 200th year of European settlement in 1988, bearing in mind that it is no celebration for Aboriginal people, consider the fact that there will be no joy and no celebration for any of us if Australia is still involved in preparation for the most immoral act ever wrought by human beings on each other-that is, preparation for our own mass suicide. Fortunately, we still have choices; in fact, we have enormous opportunities. What a great lead Australia could give to the rest of the world by standing tall and making a moral decision to say `no more' to continued complicity in the nuclear arms race. Consider New Zealand's enhanced international status since it gave its historic lead by banning visits of nuclear armed warships. Australia needs to do likewise, but to do much more. We need to deny renewal of the leases on the bases; we need to stop uranium mining; and we need to work with our Indian Ocean and Pacific neighbours for genuine nuclear free zones, unfettered by an alliance which totally compromises our position. That alliance was first formalised in 1951 with the signing of the ANZUS Treaty and ever since successive Australian governments have considered the Treaty a cornerstone of our foreign affairs and defence policies. Most analysts, including the present Government, would argue that the Treaty document is not the all-encompassing security blanket which people have generally believed it to be. It does not commit the United States to coming to our aid; but nor does it commit us to hosting United States bases on our soil, or United States warships in our ports, or United States bombers on our airfields. It is the alliance which has sprung up in secret behind the spirit of the Treaty which now implicates Australia in the Reagan Administration's nuclear war fighting strategies. What began as a treaty to shore up Australia's fears about Japanese invasion has become a nuclear alliance directed against the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, the principal beneficiary of the alliance is the United States. As a nation in our own right we are not threatened; we have no enemies. But, as a part of an alliance with the United States, the Soviet threat looms large because of the possibility of accidental, if not intentional, nuclear annihilation against which, the ambitious gadgetry of the strategic defence initiative not withstanding, there is and can be no credible military defence. This dream that I have of an independent Australia is neither impossible nor isolationist. It is quite possibile for Australia to move immediately towards an independent defence strategy incorporating appropriate and purely defensive capabilities to protect our northern shores. Our geographical separation and our long coastline, plus the arid conditions of much of the north and central regions of Australia, would make occupation by a foreign force a very difficult and expensive operation which would be unlikely to succeed. We must look seriously at the concepts of neutrality and non-alignment, the possible cost and benefits and also the imaginative strategy of social defence which is currently being studied by defence planners in several western European countries. Although neutrality is traditionally associated with the continent of Europe, Australia could well develop a model relevant to our own unique geostrategic position. This would enable Australia to take a stand between the two blocs and yet permit us to take a constructive international role, much as Sweden has done successfully over the past 170 years, with a population half that of ours and in a far less secure part of the world, wedged as she is between the NATO and Warsaw Pact juggernauts. In considering the concept of non-alignment, I am using that term to denote our view of an independent Australia playing a constructive role in the Asia-Pacific region, and not as it is used by some so-called `non aligned' Third World states which are, like Cuba, clearly aligned. This would be a move out of the superpower blocs. Social defence, or non-violent national defence, is another post-war concept designed to give national security while reducing threat levels in this age of potential nuclear overkill. It is based on the idea of total national non-co-operation in the event of invasion or occupation and has been used on a number of occasions throughout world history with varying degrees of success, and as much against totalitarian regimes as against any other political system. In Australia's case the concept would have to be adapted to cater for possible threats to our security which are, again, unique to our position. We could promote social defence from a position of relative international security. These models are presented as possible options for Australia, to be adapted to our own situation, bearing in mind that many other nations want to move `beyond the blocs' too, and that we would want to co-operate with other like-minded nations in our collective endeavours towards world peace. We also need to consider the consequences of withdrawal from the American alliance. It would be an enormously uplifting experience for Australians to feel that, finally, we were to be in charge of our own destiny and that we could follow a path that is right and just and allow the spirit of Australia to flower. Of course, there would be a great deal of pressure exerted on us not to change the status quo, and there would be some economic ramifications. A price must be paid, but surely the price of independence could not be as devastating as the price of the nuclear aftermath. We might lose the military technological edge that we hear is one of the advantages of our involvement with the United States; yet we must also question the moral and political implications of accepting such technology and its relevance to Australia. I contend that the technological push-that is, scientists' constant research into bigger and more devastatingly accurate weapons systems-is very much part of the problem of arms race escalation. It is good to know that many scientists are now encouraging their colleagues to consider the social and moral consequences of their work. Whilst the Government has publicly refused the Reagan Administration's invitation to participate in the research on the strategic defence initiative-the greatest and most expensive hoax in human history-it is a belated gesture, I fear, because, via the new DSP II satellite terminal currently being installed at Nurrungar, we are already involved. Another benefit of the alliance, we are told, is easy access to intelligence data provided under the five-powers agreement between Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Britain, most of which not only is of questionable benefit to the defence of Australia but also could be used against the interests of Australians, or our friends, such as Greece. United States intelligence personnel choose what they will tell us. We have no means, in most cases, of knowing what they choose to withhold or even whether things are being withheld. Despite being denied the juiciest titbits from the CIA's table, New Zealand shows no signs of sinking into the Pacific or of being taken over by enemies, foreign or domestic. An independent Australia is not an isolationist policy either in political terms or in terms of the consequences of nuclear war. As we all know, the nuclear winter syndrome has eliminated the idea of any living thing anywhere on the face of the Earth being spared the aftermath. To that extent, all the Earth's creatures are in this pickle together. However, we are not alone in arguing for an end to the insanity of the nuclear arms race. It must be known that the people of the world are stirring against the tyranny of the nuclear terrorists. Chinks are appearing in the NATO alliance, with Greece, Spain and the Netherlands currently, at the government level, displaying their displeasure at continued complicity in the nuclear arms race. And in the Warsaw Pact group, Romania refuses to allow Soviet weapons to be stationed on her territory. North Korea also refuses. There is also tremendous opposition in both Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic to the deployment of Soviet SS21s and SS22s. I salute the brave people who are prepared to stand up and be counted in these Soviet-dominated dictatorships. The `Swords into Ploughshares' movement and other Eastern Bloc independent peace groups are a wonderful symbol of courage, inspiration and hope. It is time for us all to turn our swords into ploughshares, to break our chains so that we are no longer nuclear hostages. As Petra Kelly has said, `Violence ends where love begins'. The time is approaching when the nuclear terrorists will run out of allies, spurred on by the people of the world who say `enough!'. With the political will from the people behind them, the negotiators at Geneva could make nuclear disarmament a reality in a short space of time. They, the negotiators, and we, the people, need to think beyond the blocs. The world has not always been divided into two hostile enemy camps, and it is at its peril that that situation is allowed to continue. The Soviet Union has not always been an enemy. Most of us might not like its policies or its style of government, and we certainly do not have to adopt either. But neither are its policies and style of government an excuse for the West to contemplate nuking its people. Having just commemorated the fortieth anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, and especially knowing that the survivors are still suffering, it seems an act of gross inhumanity, gross immorality, that either superpower could conceive of using such weapons again. We must at least accept the fact that the two systems can co-exist peacefully: The alternative is a nightmare. The biblical injunction to `love one's enemies' has become the global imperative. I ask you, Mr Deputy President, senators and listeners, to consider the fact that the Chinese endured `enemy status' from 1949 to 1973, when suddenly that status was transformed from being `the dreaded Red China' to being a sought after trading partner and tourist mecca. So, changes of heart are possible, and so is peace possible. My belief is that it will come about through the will of the people, determined to break down the barriers which presently exist not only between the superpowers but also between other nations and groups of people. The nuclear allergy, or the `Kiwi disease', so dreaded by the Pentagon, and probably by the Kremlin as well, is spreading rapidly. I hope that Australia, as a nation, has the guts to get infected and to spread the allergic `wellness' elsewhere. As a nation, we need to see the connection between militarism, social injustices and environmental degradation. We should be working towards a just, participatory and sustainable society in which all living things are valued. We know that this, too, is possible. We need to be rid of the addiction of militarism, which is wildly excessive, out of control, and which must be confronted or surely it will annihilate us spiritually if not physically, especially because this excess occurs at the expense of present pressing needs of human beings. This militaristic addiction is the masculine model of the world gone mad. We live in a patriarchal and structurally violent society which perpetuates this aggressive model. It is time for the non-aggressive, caring and creative aspects of both men and women to flourish in our quest for survival. Women have an obvious role to play in the encouragement of these nurturing qualities, which are by no means restricted to them. It is necessary to consider what we mean by peace as we work so hard to achieve it. Certainly it is much more than the absence of war, more than the absence of nuclear weapons. Their elimination definitely heads our removalists list, but we also seek to remove all forms of oppression and injustice, wherever they originate, to deal with the causes of our problems rather than merely to shore up the effects. There is an urgent need to consider the non-violent resolution of conflict at all levels in society, from the personal to the international. Because we are so conditioned to being surrounded by violence, non-violence is something we must teach our children. This is the choice we have: To opt for a new way of looking at ourselves, our prospects for the future, our global role, knowing that the turning point towards sanity is being approached from all directions around the world; or to follow the same dreary colonial client's path to doom, as surely as night follows day. Do we want more of the same, peace through so-called security, as the Liberal Party recommends? Ask the youth of Australia, and they will give a resounding `No way'. We should listen to them. As far as the major political parties are concerned, what we now have on the one hand is an Opposition committed to the cold war mentality of the 1950s, much more dangerous in the 1980s because of the notion of fighting and winning a nuclear war. Unfortunately, history proves that humanity has never developed a weapon that has not been used. Deterrence has to fail only once to be rendered 100 per cent useless. The promotion of Australian involvement in strategic defence initiative research, support for the testing of MX missiles, and the offer of home porting facilities to the United States Navy are the more frightening aspects of Liberal Party policy. On the other hand, despite important government initiatives at the diplomatic level, most of which are thwarted by our major ally, the gap between the Government's actions and statements is all too obvious, as I have already explained. The immediate harm from the nuclear arms race is that it is killing us spiritually. Something has to be dead within us if we allow the gross injustices on this planet to continue. People need encouragement and hope, to know that they can effect change, to know that their views count. My presence here is testimony to that. My job is to help turn Australia around towards a nuclear-free future. But to reach that turning point Australians need a great deal more information about all things nuclear. The shrouds of secrecy need to be lifted so that Australians can figure out the compromises that have been made on their behalf by successive governments, the deals that have been done in secret, and to discover who makes Australia's nuclear decisions. Information is power. It is an indictment of our government processes that we can find out more about United States Government activities in Australia and our own Government's actions through the United States freedom of information legislation than through our own legislation. I believe that a well-informed Australia will opt for a bold new independent path because most Australians will want a fair go for themselves and their children. The people have great power, once activated, to give the politicians a push in the direction in which they want them to go. In other words, if the people lead, the leaders will follow. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Debate resumed from 16 September, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(11.55) —I take this opportunity to congratulate the three honourable senators who have just made their maiden speeches. It shows how the Senate can accommodate people with three completely diverse views. Mr Acting Deputy President, before the adjournment debate last Monday night the Senate had before it the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill. I think it would be appropriate to go over the first part of my speech and pick out some of the more important aspects of it. The Bill passes the administration of $2 billion of Federal public servants superannuation funds to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That is quite frightening. The Bill also provides for the appointment by the Minister of one full time member of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, in consultation with the ACTU. The other full time members are to be appointed directly by the ACTU. Of the three part time members, two will be appointed directly by the ACTU and the third will be appointed by the ACTU and the Minister. Even without the ministerial appointees, $2 billion of Federal Government public servants funds will be in the hands of the ACTU, and that should concern everyone in Australia. I want to pick up some of the points made by Senator Michael Baume in his very good maiden speech. He said that this Government was forming a coalition between the ACTU and the Australian Labor Party. The Bill before us enunciates that in very loud and clear terms. A great number of public servants would not be represented by the ACTU. I believe there are many doctors, solicitors, barristers and other Commonwealth Government public servants who are in no way aligned with the ACTU. How are those people's interests going to be represented? I do not believe they will be. Mr Kelty has said that every employee's superannuation payments should be in the hands of the ACTU. Not only will that double the $2 billion from the federal superannuation fund, it will also, if Mr Kelty gets his way, allow around $7 billion to be controlled by the ACTU. As I explained in my speech on Monday night, that would leave the way open for all sorts of investments to be made on a political or philosophical basis. The funds may be invested in a way which will not give maximum return to the Superannuation Fund. This should concern everyone of the 300,000 public servants who have their retirement funds tied up in the Superannuation Fund. I do not blame them for writing to the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, and saying that they want the ACTU to keep right out of their retirement investments. I think it is appropriate to look at some of the benefits that are being offered by the building unions superannuation scheme, which was the forerunner of the ACTU push for generalised superannuation. A payment of $11 a week gives a death benefit of $17,500. Compare that with a normal superannuation life insurance fund, which offers a death benefit of $65,000 for $1 a week. That is the difference between the two funds. We should also consider the disability clause in the BUS scheme. Every life insurance company that offers a superannuation fund provides a disability clause, and yet there is no disability clause in the BUS. I think we should look at the record of the ACTU in its investments. It is an absolutely abysmal record. Among the things we could take up would be Bourke's store. The present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that the retailers were ripping off the public with their huge mark-ups. We saw what happened to Bourke's store. It ended in bankruptcy, thereby showing what the ACTU knew about business. ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd was another example of a disaster. Then, of course, we come to the ACTU Jetset Travel Service Pty Ltd which left people stranded all over the world when it went bankrupt. Here we see Senator Button lying back, saying he will put $2 billion worth of workers' funds into the hands of the ACTU when it has such a shocking record of investment. One would not back it with Confederate money. That is how bad it would go. There is no doubt in my mind or even in the public servants' minds that their scheme will go down the track of Bourke's store, ACTU-Solo and ACTU Jetset Travel. One of two things will happen: The scheme will not generate funds, it will not provide a maximum investment and a maximum retirement benefit for the public servants; or, alternatively-and this is more likely to happen-the Australian taxpayers will have to bail out the superannuation fund to allow the public servants to receive a return on the investment that they should have been allowed to get. Given that we have the BUS scheme running at the moment and Mr Kelty's claim about agreement between him and the Government that there will be no discounting-although there will be discounting the Government backed out on discounting this year-but that a productivity bonus in the form of superannuation will be imposed on every employer, if this Bill is passed we will see the ACTU in control of massive amounts of funds. It was Senator Button, I think, as recently as two weeks ago, who said that he was opposed to the amalgamation of Coles and Woolworths, and here he is condoning this massive amalgamation of funds and putting it under the control of his masters in the ACTU. What will he say about that? It will be very interesting to hear Senator Button's remarks. Every honourable senator in this Parliament should be extremely woried. I suggest to honourable senators that they should not think that $5 billion, $7 billion or $10 billion going into the ACTU's hands is in the best interest of what is good for this country. It would be a terrible thing. The influence of the ACTU investments could be misconstrued and placed anywhere in the boardrooms of Australia. It would put the ACTU in the same rating as the Bond Corporation and many other corporations. I believe it would leave itself open to a wide range of misinterpretations. I do not believe that any political party, any government, or the ACTU-which is really the industrial wing of the ALP, and everyone in Australia acknowledges that-should be allowed to control the massive investments that will be put in the hands of the ACTU. I ask the Senate, particularly the Australian Democrats, to oppose this Bill and to carry the amendments that will be moved by my colleague Senator Messner. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.05) —Before reading through the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill, I was told that it was purely routine and that it was a Bill to bring into effect reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the management of the superannuation funds of government employees. When I reached the way in which trust members were to be appointed, I was horrified to see that the majority of them were to be appointed on a recommendation from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In other words, quite clearly the funds were to come under the direct control of the ACTU, and they will do so if this Bill is passed. The funds involved are up to $7m per week-enormous amounts of money. The Australian Democrats make their position abundantly clear: There is no way we can support this legislation, in spite of its urgency and in spite of the reforms that it brings into being, unless the method of selecting the five-member trust to control these enormous flows of money is reformed. I will outline how the membership of the trust is to be made up. There is to be one permanent member appointed by the Minister. We agree about that. There is to be one permanent member appointed on the recommendation of the ACTU. We could accept that. But then there are to be three part time members, and two of those part time members are to be appointed, again, on the recommendation of the ACTU. So that clearly puts the ACTU in the position of having direct control over the affairs of these enormous superannuation moneys, $7m per year. The Opposition has already pointed out that the ACTU's record in business management is very poor indeed; in fact, it is abysmal. The Opposition drew attention to the problems with ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd and the retailing enterprise of Bourke's store. Quite clearly, the ACTU is not set up, nor does it have the necessary expertise and experience, to get involved in the highly specialised area of investing funds. The Democrats have given a lot of thought as to how the trustees should be appointed. We are very happy with the legislation apart from this one critical area. In fact, in looking at the problems that occurred previously, we consider this to be a very urgent piece of legislation. When the Senate Committee on Finance and Government Operations looked into the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, it took note of previous reports of problems in this area by the Attorney-General, by the Monaghan inquiry into the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and other inquiries. The Senate Committee listed no fewer than five very serious weaknesses. The Committee said, firstly, that there had been a failure clearly to formulate the objectives and duties of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. Secondly, it said that there had been a failure by the trust to adopt sound accounting and taxation practices. Thirdly, it said that investment policies had been adopted that were imprudent and not in keeping with the obligations, responsibilities and high commercial standards expected of a Commonwealth statutory authority. Indeed, the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust had become too closely involved with some enterprises and was not maintaining a clear arm's length relationship. Fourthly, the Committee found that there had been a failure to adopt suitable selection procedures for the appointment of a Chairman. Fifthly, it found that there was gross understaffing in the Trust's administrative offices, which was caused by a slavish adherence to Public Service staff ceilings and a total disregard for its ability to function effectively. There was a major morale problem and a feeling of isolation and abandonment among both staff and management. Yet such a body was controlling funds of $7m a week. So the Senate Committee's inquiry was very important. It is urgent that something be done to reform the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. As I have said, our criticism rests with the proposed method of appointing the five-member Board. How should the members be appointed? We have considered various options. One suggestion was that a joint parliamentary committee be set up to advise the Minister on the selection of trustees. We discounted that suggestion. Are parliamentarians the repositories of wisdom? Have we any guarantee that if a joint parliamentary committee selected the trustees the members of that committee should be more experienced or any better than anybody else would be in making wise appointments? We have considered the Opposition's suggestion that various specialised bodies be contacted to consider the appointment of the trustees. The Opposition has made the suggestion that there be a full time principal member appointed by the Minister having regard to his or her expertise in finance, industrial relations, superannuation and investment. It has suggested that one part time member be nominated by the unions representing contributors having regard to the same criteria and that three part time members be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Securities Institute of Australia, the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Australian Bankers Association, the Australian Merchant Bankers Association and the Actuaries Institute of Australia, again having regard to the same criteria. The Democrats consider that the Liberal Party's proposal is outrageous. It wants to give to organisations which are directly in competition with the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund direct influence over the activities of that Fund. Its proposal would ensure that the majority of the Board members would be selected by the enemies of the Fund. The groups to which the Liberals wish to give de facto control of the Superannuation Fund Trust have long been critics of its existence and wish to put their hands on the investment potential of that Fund. They wish to put the superannuation moneys of public servants into the hands of private banks and private investment institutions. We believe that both the Liberals and the Government have a monumental disregard for the rights of the contributors to the Trust. They are the people who are concerned; it is their money that is in the Trust. Surely, in the final analysis, they are the people who should have authority to decide who should be selected to control their funds. We believe that the rights of contributors must be paramount in the running of their own funds. There can be no other authority and no other way that justice can be done. Our proposal is very simple. Amendments have been circulated, which we will move in the Committee stage, to put our proposal into effect. For the reasons I have outlined, we will oppose the Liberals' proposal. We hope that the Government will give earnest consideration to the following proposal: That one permanent member be appointed by the Minister; that the second permanent member be appointed, having due regard to the recommendation of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; and that three part time members be appointed as a result of an election at large among contributors of the Trust. We have further specified that that election at large be under the supervision of the Australian Electoral Commission and that there should be certain stipulations regarding those who would be eligible to stand for election. Prior to 1974, elections were held for trustees. A problem arose in that too many people were standing. In on case, as many as 30 people stood. We believe that this problem can be overcome very simply by insisting on two things: Firstly, that there be at least 30 employee nominees for every candidate and, secondly, that a written statement be set out on every candidate, showing each candidate's knowledge and expertise in finance, industrial relations, superannuation and investment. That would then give the contributors the opportunity and place on them the responsibility to appoint the persons who, in their opinion, have the best expertise available. Senator Coates —What method of election are you proposing? Senator SIDDONS —It would be a secret postal ballot under the control of the Australian Electoral Commission. Senator Coates —But would it be first past the post, proportional representation, or what? Senator SIDDONS —We would suggest that it be on the basis of proportional representation. I turn to another problem in the legislation and that is the length of time for which trustees will be appointed. Their appointment will be for seven years. That is a very long time if, for whatever reason, a trustee proves to be incompetent or unsatisfactory. It is very difficult to get rid of an unsatisfactory trustee once that person has been appointed for a term of seven years. We suggest that the Bill be amended to call for the election of trustees every two years once the present term of the existing trustees expires. I understand that many honourable senators wish to speak to this Bill. It is a very important piece of legislation. I will elaborate further on our proposals at the Committee stage when our amendments will be moved. I finish my remarks by reiterating what I have said all along. We will not stand by and see the Trust handed over to the ACTU. We will not stand by and see it delivered to its enemies in the private sector who covet its wealth. We want the contributors to have control over and responsibility for their funds. In our opinion, that is the only course that can reasonably be adopted. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.19) —The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 proposes several important changes to the administration and operation of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. The Bill has come before the Parliament following extensive consideration and reporting on the Investment Trust by working parties and other groups. Late last year during the election campaign it was also the subject of extensive discussion between the then Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Those discussions resulted in the release on 19 October 1984 of a joint ministerial and ACTU Press statement which detailed the agreements reached between those two parties. The content of those agreements is heavily reflected in the Bill before the Senate. This Bill was introduced into the Senate on 23 April. On 8 May the Senate agreed to refer the Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for early consideration and report. That action was taken because the Bill seeks to implement some of the matters which were then being dealt with by the Committee in its inquiry into the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, an inquiry that had been going on for a couple of years. Indeed, the timing of the introduction of this Bill seems to me to be somewhat strange. The Government must surely have known that the Committee was undertaking this inquiry and that it was nearing completion. Yet it apparently chose to ignore this fact and to press ahead with the introduction of this Bill without waiting to see what the Committee had to say on some of the wider issues. So we now have the situation where honourable senators, in their consideration of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill, can have the benefit of two reports from the Committee-the report dated 15 May, prepared at the request of the Senate in response to several specific aspects of the Bill and the report of June 1985 which was tabled in the Senate at the commencement of this Budget session which deals with a range of important issues involving the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. I hope that honourable senators in their consideration of this important piece of legislation will take the opportunity to read those two reports. The changes proposed in this Bill are directed at placing the Trust on a more independent footing with the freedom and flexibility to manage and invest the Superannuation Fund in a commercial manner; enhancing the accountability of the Trust, both to the Parliament and to contributors to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme; defining the role, objective and duties of the Trust in a way that has not been done previously and aimed at increasing the Trust from three to five members. The basic objective of these changes is to maximise the return earned on Commonwealth employees contributions whilst exercising reasonable care and prudence to maintain the integrity of the Fund. The powers of the Trust will be considerably widened by the Bill. For example, clause 18 (a) proposes to insert in section 41 (2) of the principal Act additional paragraphs empowering the Trust to underwrite or sub-underwrite any form of investment and to borrow moneys. The additional powers will increase the Trust's flexibility in managing and investing the Fund and the Opposition, therefore, supports them. But what these changes do mean, however, is that the members of the Trust will have even greater responsibilities than in the past to invest contributors' money efficiently and wisely. The development of different forms of investment over the past few years has made fund management in Australia a highly technical and expert area. We all know stories of the good operatives in the private sector earning literally small fortunes as a result of their expertise in fund management. So the qualities of the members of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust are therefore of tremendous importance. They are of importance not only to the contributors on whose behalf and with whose money they operate-there are in excess of 300,000 Commonwealth employees contributors to the scheme-but also in a wider context because the total investment of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund exceeds $2,500m making it by far the largest superannuation fund in the nation. Something like $1m of new money comes in each day to the Fund for investment. The investment decisions of the Trust can, therefore, have a marked impact on financial markets generally in Australia. The Bill proposes that the number of members of the Trust be expanded from three up to a figure of five. The Opposition does not oppose this proposal. However, the Opposition does oppose the method of appointment of the five members and the qualifications required. Clause 7 of the Bill proposes that the Trust consist of five members-a full time principal member nominated by the Minister; a full time principal member nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; two part time members nominated by the ACTU and one part time member nominated by the Minister. Of the five members, three would be direct nominees of the ACTU. In addition, the Bill provides that the Minister would be required to consult with the ACTU concerning the nomination of a person for appointment as principal member of the Trust. In effect, the ACTU would have direct control over the appointment of four out of the five members of the Trust. This matter was considered by- Senator Walsh —That is false. You said `direct control over the appointment of four out of five members'. Senator SHORT —Yes, that is what I said. Senator Walsh —That is false. Senator SHORT —The Minister can take it up in his comments. This matter was considered by the Finance and Government Operations Committee, of which I am a member. Several members of that Committee, including myself, were concerned about the dominance of the ACTU in appointments to the Trust. We were also concerned about the lack of requirement in the Bill that appointees must have particular specialist qualifications or experience in investment management. The Finance and Government Operations Committee made certain recommendations about these matters in an attempt to remove the worst features of the Bill. I understand that the Government is prepared to accept some of these recommendations, but not one of the key recommendations. In any event, the recommendations of the Committee still do not go far enough to meet the Opposition's concern. For that reason, we are proposing more stringent criteria for appointment. Senator Coates —Can you explain why you changed your mind? Senator SHORT —I did not change my mind, Senator. Perhaps this is not the occasion to discuss meetings of the Committee. Senator Coates —It was unanimous. Senator SHORT —Yes. Honourable senators will recall the concern I expressed in the Committee meetings on the subject. Senator Walsh —The faceless men who run the Liberal Party have got on to them. That is what has happened. What they were quite happy to accept three months ago, they are not happy to accept now. Senator SHORT —That simply is not true, Senator Walsh. We are also proposing that the ACTU's dominance in the appointment of Trust members be removed. The Opposition's proposals would give much more responsibility to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) for appointments to the Trust. They would also require the Minister to consult with organisations closely involved in the investment industry before making his or her appointments to the part time positions in the Trust. The Opposition's specific proposals, as Senator Siddons and Senator Messner have mentioned, bear repeating. They are that there be one full-time principal member appointed by the Minister having regard to his or her financial expertise, industrial relations experience and knowledge of superannuation and investment, one part-time member nominated by unions' representative of contributors having regard to the same criteria outlined above and three part-time members appointed by the Minister after consultation with the following organisations: The Securities Institute of Australia, the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Australian Bankers Association, the Australian Merchant Bankers Association and the Actuaries Institute of Australia, again having regard to the same criteria for appointment as in the case of the principal and part-time members referred to earlier. Senator Siddons says that this proposition is outrageous, that it gives to the enemies of the Fund the right to advise the Minister on appointments, and that therefore enemies of the Fund would be appointed to the Trust. I can only reply to Senator Siddons's outrage at that comment by saying what an outrageous distortion of the truth he has put forward. If we look at the organisations proposed for the Minister to consult, organisations in which reside the main body of expertise in Australia not only of people involved in the industry itself, not one is an organisation which itself is directly involved in the investment of funds. Senator Siddons —What about the Life Insurance Federation of Australia? Senator SHORT —That is an industry association, it is not an investor in its own right. So none of those organisations is an investor. The point where Senator Siddons is most wrong, with respect, is that those organisations and their member companies are not competitors in the direct sense of wanting to destroy the Commonwealth Superannuation Investment Trust. They are organisations like the Trust that want to see the best run financial markets in this country. That is in the interests of all of them and of the nation as a whole, as well as in the interests of superannuation contributors, be they in the private sector or the public sector who want the best deal and thus the best return on their investment. We will not get the best return on investment if we have one bunch of superannuation funds seeing itself as the enemy of another group. That simply is not possible. So there is a complementary interest between the various funds, not a competitive interest. Senator Siddons —Wouldn't the Merchant Bankers Association like to get their hands on some of those funds? Senator SHORT —It would not be getting its hands on some of those funds, and it is an industry association which does not have control of funds anyway. The Australian Merchant Bankers Association is not an investing fund, nor is the Australian Bankers Association, nor is LIFA. Senator Siddons —What about their members? Senator SHORT —We are not talking about their members but about the industry associations. The Opposition believes that its proposals would ensure that the Trust was made up of properly qualified people who know what they are doing and who can act in the best interests of contributors, whose overriding objective is to have their moneys invested in the most efficient manner. The Opposition makes no apology for the fact that its proposals remove the ACTU from the pivotal role which the Government's Bill gives it in relation to appointments to the Trust. We are proposing these changes for several reasons. Firstly, the ACTU is not the organisation most representative of the interests of Commonwealth Superannuation Fund contributors. The superannuation rights of Commonwealth public servants would at best be a minor issue for the ACTU and one which might well conflict with other ACTU goals. There is no doubt that if the majority of the members of the Trust are nominees of the ACTU they could be or be seen to be subject to a conflict of interest. I acknowledge that in evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the ACTU representative, Mr Gradwell, gave an assurance that a conflict of interest would not arise but, without casting any aspersion at all on Mr Gradwell, I wonder how he can give such an assurance. There are, for example, 31 members on the ACTU Federal Executive and, of these, only one-Paul Munro-is a Commonwealth employees representative. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the majority of the ACTU Federal Executive directed the ACTU nominees on the Trust to invest Trust moneys in, say, speculative business ventures of the ACTU and/or its union affiliates-we have heard today evidence of the lack of business expertise clearly demonstrated by those organisations-those nominees would be put in a tremendous conflict of interest situation. They would be under great pressure to do as directed, regardless of the possible consequences for Fund contributors. There is the further point that the ACTU nominees could take investment decisions in accordance with ACTU policies rather than on purely investment grounds. In the Senate Finance and Government Operations Committee hearings the question of investment in, say, a highly profitable uranium mine was raised. What would be the attitude of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust to investment in such a project? It might well be in the best interests of the contributors but would it be allowed to invest in that, given the ACTU's attitude towards uranium mining? Again, it is a potential very serious conflict of interests. Another obvious example that comes to mind at the moment is that of a company which may have some involvement in South Africa. Senator Siddons's own company, if it were a listed company, would be a good example of that. Highly profitable major Australian companies operate extremely profitable investment trusts. For example, the Elders-IXL Ltd investment trust gives one of the best returns of any such trust in Australia, yet it has some involvement with South Africa. What would be the attitude of the Investment Trust to that, given the attitude of the ACTU towards South Africa-an attitude which, it is worth pointing out, is different from the Government's attitude, as well as being vastly different from the Opposition's view? The point is that the ACTU has its own policies in a range of areas such as this and the conflict of interest situation which could be imposed by the present proposals of the Government in relation to membership of the Trust is, I think, very great indeed. The Opposition is not alone in its concern about the ACTU domination of the Trust. Senator Siddons, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, has expressed their concern. Several Public Service associations have expressed similar concern. Their members, of course, are contributors to the Fund, so it is their money we are talking about. The Life Underwriters Association, a body that could not have any earthly competitive interest along the lines that Senator Siddons talked about, has also expressed a similar concern. The President of that Association, Mrs Rigby, in a speech last week said: By handing the ACTU the welfare of 307,869 Australians-- which is really what we are talking about- this government is leading all Australians further into bankruptcy instead of into the hands of proven fund management. They are pretty strong words. Whether they are fully justified or not, the fact is that there is considerable disquiet about the Government's proposals. I believe that the Government must think again about this matter. I urge the Government, and I urge Senator Siddons and his Party, to accept the Opposition's proposals. Only by accepting those proposals can we put beyond any doubt the integrity of the management of these vast sums of money. If the Government does not accept the Opposition's proposals for appointments to the Trust the Government will once again be seen to be merely a puppet in the hands of the ACTU. The ACTU has been calling the shots for this Hawke Government on all major issues of policy since its election 2 1/2 years ago-on wages, on prices, on taxes, on worker participation, on national superannuation proposals based on non-existent productivity increases-the works. I am, therefore, not at all hopeful that the Government will have the courage or the strength to break clear of the shackles of the ACTU on this occasion. It certainly would be contrary to its actions over the last two and a half years. On behalf of more than 300,000 Public Service contributors to far and away the largest superannuation fund in Australia, I and members of the Opposition can only hope that, for once, the Government will allow common sense and reason to prevail over naked union muscle. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(12.41) —The attitude of the Opposition and, unfortunately, the Australian Democrats to this issue disappoints and, in many ways, angers me. The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 was introduced into the Parliament last May. On my motion it was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for a quick but thorough examination. Senator Messner —You are responsible for this nonsense. Senator COATES —The Government's Bill was referred to the Finance and Government Operations Committee and, after a thorough examination, that Committee reported one week later as requested. Senator Short, who spoke before me and has just resumed his seat, was a signatory to the report which said, amongst other things: The Committee welcomes the Government's prompt action in introducing this Bill which incorporates the much needed changes to the administration of the SFIT. It approves of the provisions of the Bill, except in regard to the matters discussed below. The Committee agrees with the restructuring of the Trust, with its objectives and duties being more clearly defined, a greater degree of independence being given to the Trust and the increase in accountability to the contributors and the Parliament. Senator Walsh —Did the Liberals and the Democrats both have members on that Committee? Senator COATES —The Liberal Party of Australia had two members and the Democrats had one member on that Committee. I regret that the Democrat member of that Committee is no longer with us. Apparently, there has not been any communication between him and the person who is now the Democrat spokesman on this matter. The Committee suggested four ways in which the Bill could be improved. One recommendation which was made for improvement relates to the concerns that members of the Opposition and the Democrats have expressed-This was agreed to by the Liberal and Democrat members of the Committee. It made it clear that Australian Council of Trade Union nominations had to be made only from names submitted to the ACTU by the relevant industrial organisations. Those relevant industrial organisations are the Australian Government employee organisations which represent the contributors to the fund. It may suit the Opposition's current union-bashing rhetoric to paint the ACTU as an ogre but, let us face it, the ACTU is the peak industrial organisation representing the employees of the Commonwealth. There used to be an organisation known as the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations which was succeeded by an organisation called the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations. But CAGEO-formerly CCPSO-disbanded itself and merged with the ACTU. So whether we like it or not we cannot avoid the situation that the ACTU is the peak organisation representing the contributors to the fund. We have had this amazing suggestion from members of the Opposition that all these other organisations, which have nothing to do with the contributors to the fund, are the ones to be consulted in appointing the representatives. Senator Walsh —That is since the Sydney Stock Exchange took over the Liberal Party. Senator COATES —Exactly. There certainly seems to have been a change in the view of the Opposition since May when this matter was dealt with by the Committee and I regret that very much. I acknowledge that the Democrats have sufficiently disagreed with that recommendation. I want to show the Senate the difficulty involved in the Democrats' suggestion to have an election by all the contributors instead of using the existing and available representative mechanism for consultation between the Minister for Finance and the representatives of the contributors in appointing the trustees. I emphasise that the people who are appointed are in no way puppets of the ACTU-they are there as trustees. The Opposition and the Democrats ought to know what that responsibility involves. The Bill clearly specifies the sorts of responsibilities which are given to those five trustees. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —The Leader of the Government in the Senate will recall referring yesterday to a `ratbag constituency of a wide range of disparate groups' when he was asked about overwhelming opposition to capital gains and fringe benefit taxation revealed by a survey of 5,000 businesses. I ask the Minister: Has his attention been drawn to a poll published in today's Bulletin magazine which shows that 73 per cent of Australians oppose capital gains taxation? I ask: Is this figure high enough to satisfy his concern for the wider community or is it just another manifestation of a ratbag constituency to be ignored? Will the Government now apply the Prime Minister's principle 9 and abandon its capital gains tax proposal? Senator BUTTON —Somebody said that to err is human, to forgive, divine. I forgive Senator Chaney for the interpretation which he has placed on the answer I gave yesterday. Of course, I meant to say `grab bag', but it does not matter in the case of the Liberal Party of Australia. It is a sort of ratbag constituency, given the way it is constructed and put together. That does not mean for a moment that I think the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce, either its corporate form or any of its members, are ratbags for having a particular view about a capital gains tax. I am quite aware of the poll which appeared in the Bulletin today in respect of a number of questions asked about a capital gains tax. As I said yesterday, it is very important that members of the Opposition and others see the precise form of a capital gains tax and the effects which it might or might not have on various sectors of the community before leaping to conclusions. This society has come to a very sad state if the very expression `capital gains tax', without any identification of what it means, becomes one of those sort of Orwellian bogy expressions which this society cannot consider or talk about. I would find it immensely unfortunate if we had reached that position. Liberal senators who want to adopt a rational and constructive approach to these issues, rather than asking questions of the kind that have been asked on this topic, should look at the editorial in today's Australian Financial Review and, more particularly, at the analysis in the White Paper on taxation of current deficiencies in the Australian taxation system. Undoubtedly, it is very clearly established there that investment patterns in this country have been distorted and, more particularly, tax avoidance and evasion have been rampant because of the tax structure we have. Having said those things, I invite honourable senators, before getting too excited about polls in today's Bulletin, to wait and see the composition of the tax package, particularly the provisions of the capital gains tax, if there is one in the package. Senator Lewis —Who is in front? You or the other side? Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis is interjecting very freely. In the last few days he has been in a state of chronic agitation on the basis of particular fears he has about the tax package as it is likely to affect him. I can understand his apprehension. It is an apprehension which I think any parliamentarian is entitled to feel. However, I do not want him to get too agitated and go overboard about it. Again, I extend to him the same advice as I have extended to those who have responded to the quite peculiar questions about capital gains taxes in general in the various polls to which Senator Chaney has referred. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Archer referred to a survey of 5,000 businesses and I referred to a survey of the general community. The Minister seems to be trying to avoid the expression he used yesterday, namely, `ratbag constituency'. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Will he withdraw the expression and apologise for using it? If not, will he tell us to whom he was applying it? Senator BUTTON —Sometimes in this chamber we make errors in expression and so on. Sometimes we make what seem to be errors but what are, in fact, deadly accurate comments. Let me say that I probably intended to use the expression `grab bag'. However, it does not matter, because I was really referring to the Liberal Party of Australia. Senator Chaney —Rubbish! You talked about a constituency. Senator BUTTON —Of course I talked about a constituency. I do not regard the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce as being part of the Opposition's constituency. It is very well aware of what happened to this economy under seven years of Liberal government. It is not part of the Opposition's constituency. The people the Opposition is trying to put together in its constituency is anybody it can find. That is a ratbag compilation of a constituency. Senator MORRIS —Is the Minister for Education aware that Parramatta is now the centre of Sydney's population and that the area to its west is rapidly growing? Is the Minister also aware that no university is established in the area and that many students from western Sydney must face the alternatives of high transport costs or moving away from home? Is she further aware that the north-west sector study team has found that a suitable site exists on Old Windsor Road, Kellyville. Will the Minister give consideration to establishing a new university at that site? Senator RYAN —I am very well aware of the dramatic growth there has been in population in the outer western suburbs of Sydney and of the fact, rightly alluded to in Senator Morris's question, that the area is poorly served in terms of higher education opportunities compared with other parts of New South Wales and, indeed, other parts of Sydney. This is a matter of great concern to the Commonwealth because since we have been in government our policy has been to improve access to higher education, that is, college of advanced education or university courses, in areas that previously have been neglected. I am pleased to say that we have been able to make substantial progress towards the fulfilment of that policy by reorienting the allocation of new tertiary places into the outer western suburbs of Sydney. I am aware, too, that just a couple of weeks ago a meeting was held involving the Commonwealth, through the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Mr Hugh Hudson; New South Wales, through the State Education Minister, Mr Cavalier; and several State and Federal members serving those areas. At that meeting the view was put forward by the State Minister, Mr Cavalier, that there ought not to be a university in the outer western suburbs. However, the Commonwealth takes, perhaps, a different view from Mr Cavalier. While not being in a position at this stage to make a specific commitment to the building of a new university, we are certainly very keen to see more opportunities for students in the outer western suburbs to undertake higher education courses, either at CAE or university level. We believe that there are a number of arrangements we can foster that will enable students to do just that. As evidence of our commitment to meeting the very great needs there are for further higher education places in the outer western suburbs, I refer to current capital projects which includes the expansion and renovation of the Westmead campus of the Nepean CAE at Parramatta, a $3m project; the construction of a new building at the Kingswood campus of the Nepean CAE, a $5.5m project; and a major construction project at the Macarthur Institute, a $7.5m project. I expect that there will be further discussions between State and Commonwealth governments and interested members on ways in which there can be further development of higher education opportunities. At this point it is not appropriate to support a specific project for a university but it certainly is possible to take the very constructive view which Hugh Hudson took on behalf of the Commonwealth and set up negotiations for increasing the number of higher education places in that area and also, through twinning arrangements between outer western suburbs institutions and universities in Sydney, make the undertaking of university studies possible even while students are still living in the outer western suburbs. I think we will see, as we have seen during the period of the Hawke Government, a dramatic and continuing increase in the opportunities for students in the outer western suburbs to undertake higher education. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer him to his comment yesterday at Question Time that Press reports of the leaked reports of the Government's tax package had been marginally accurate. Has the Minister noted that two groups of financial consultants have concluded that an average com- pany's after tax profit will be cut by 18 per cent if the reported changes are implemented? Can the Minister say whether, in making its tax decisions, the Government gave consideration to the impact of all the proposed changes on business profits? Is he satisfied that the changes will not have the serious effects forecast by the consultants? Senator BUTTON —I saw the calculations on the front page of this morning's Australian Financial Review. Of course, I am not in a position to comment about those at this time and certainly not until the Government's tax package is announced. Senator Vanstone —Finalised. Senator BUTTON —Announced, I said. Senator Lewis —That is why you are so cross. It must have been finalised over lunch time. Senator BUTTON —On the contrary, I am so cross because it did not do enough about the fringe benefits of front bench Opposition senators. That is why I am cross. Of course, the Government took into consideration as far as possible the effects on business of the tax package. Of course, in any changes to the taxation system, there will be winners and losers. There will be those who benefit from the change and those who accrue less benefits. For example, if there were a limitation on deductions for entertainment expenses, people who have been enjoying entertainment expenses and long lunches for a long time would be upset. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Messner is entitled to an answer to his question. Senator BUTTON —I was listening to the various interjections-or trying to-and, of course, they make a very valid point. There are so many concerns coming from different parts of the Opposition because, I suppose, all of them have enjoyed a variety of cosy benefits, which just makes the point that I am trying to illustrate. Of course some people will see themselves as disadvantaged in any tax change. But those who think about the taxation system in Australia, those who have been complaining about it for the last 10 or 15 years, particularly complaining as a result of the total failure of the previous Liberal Government to do anything significant in terms of tax changes-- Senator Messner —Now you are sounding like Senator Walsh. Senator BUTTON —Senator Messner is getting very agitated now. The people who consider that during the last period of the Liberal Government the tax system was rorted and virtually destroyed will recognise that important changes have to be brought about. I cannot analyse the particular tax packages on page 1 of the Australian Financial Review in the context of the Government's taxation changes which have not yet been announced. The Opposition will have opportunities to ask questions in the future. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has not addressed in any way the point I am seeking to make. What effect will the new fringe benefits tax have on employers' profits? Is the representation in the newspapers an accurate one irrespective of whether the Government's policy is being predicated on it? Senator BUTTON —I will seek to make the point again, which Senator Messner clearly does not understand, that, of course, there will be widely differential effects on various companies and on various businesses as a result of the Government's tax package. One cannot have a taxation package which is neutral between businesses, some of which have been paying salaries and others of which have not. Nor can one have a taxation package which is neutral between people who have been paying their taxes and those who have not. Those who have not been paying their taxes will suffer-this is my judgment-under the Government's tax package. Those who have been paying their taxes will not. Those sorts of differentials will certainly be there. To come back to a question that I answered from Senator Chaney earlier, if the Opposition wants to pick up the disaffected in terms of those who have not been paying their taxes, it will have a virile little constituency there. Senator Chaney —What about ordinary businesses with employees driving their cars? Senator BUTTON —I will answer the question in my own way, if Senator Chaney does not mind. The Opposition will have a virile little constituency there, as it has had for many years. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in today's Australian newspaper headlined `Rush to hire disillusioned professionals' which mentions the influx of South African professionals into Australia? Can the Minister inform the Senate about the number of South African immigrants into Australia in recent months? Under which programs are these professionals receiving approval to come to Australia? Has the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, relevant professional organisations or union bodies contacted the Minister or his Department to inform him of the availability of unemployed Australians who would have the qualifications and expertise to take up the advertised vacancies which the South African arrivals are supposed to fill? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did see the article in the Australian and other newspapers this morning. For some time we have been aware of an increase in the number of people from South Africa applying for permanent residency and immigration to Australia. We are also aware that the present difficulties in South Africa, which will obviously worsen if the attitude of the South African Government continues as it is, will result in more people applying to come to Australia. The Australian immigration offices, particularly in Pretoria and Capetown, have experienced a considerable increase in the number of inquiries in the last couple of months. In 1984-85 about 2,100 people were visaed in South Africa for permanent migration to Australia. This represented about 4 per cent of Australia's family reunion, skilled and business migrant intake for that year. The figures for that year, 1984-85, were only marginally higher than those for the previous year, 1983-84. No statistics on racial groupings of South African migrants are kept, but it is known that a significant number of migrants from South Africa are considered to be non-white under South Africa's stringent racial laws. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations consult regularly professional organisations and the unions about the sorts of people who are able to come here. Under our skilled and business migration scheme, careful vetting is made of those people who wish to come to Australia in order to ensure that there are jobs for them and that they have something to contribute to this country. At this stage we have no plans to change procedures on migrant processing from South Africa but we keep our immigration policies with regard to South Africa, and the situation in South Africa, under close review. I will seek further information on the detailed sections of Senator McIntosh's question but I assure him that no changes are in the process of being made under the existing circumstances. Senator CHIPP —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs about the Rainbow Warrior. I appreciate that he may not have the answer now. It is a complex question, but if he could answer it some time today I would be grateful. Is the Australian Government inquiring as to how French agents involved in the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior managed to use bureaucratic immigration checks at Norfolk Island to escape New Zealand police? Has it discovered through what intelligence French agents knew that Norfolk Island was the most effective route through which to escape? Since 15 July this year have police questioned the Frenchman who met Maninguet, a possible French agent, at a Sydney cinema, as reported twice in the National Times? In the light of these Australian connections and the new story in Le Monde, a respected and reliable French newspaper, that there was a third group of agents who also used Australia and it was that group which carried out the bombing, does the Australian Government still believe that it is not Australia's business? Is it willing to conduct now a thorough inquiry into all of these possible Australian connections? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chipp, with his usual foresight, has indeed perceived accurately that I do not have an answer to hand as yet in relation to his question. I hope to have one by the end of Question Time. Senator McKIERNAN —I refer the Minister for Finance to the invitation he issued to Senator Messner last Tuesday when he invited Senator Messner to suggest ways in which Government outlays could be cut by $8 billion. Has the Minister received any response to this invitation? Senator WALSH —No, I have not received any response to the invitation I issued orally. Senator Messner —I have not had a letter. Senator WALSH —A letter is in the mail, Senator Messner. The invitation to Senator Messner, as the new Liberal Party shadow Minister for Finance, to demonstrate how he would fulfil the commitment of his Party to reduce outlays by 4 per cent of gross domestic product is to be confirmed in writing. The new Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, who was installed by the Sydney Stock Exchange less than two weeks ago, said on the Sunday program last week or the week before: . . . our policies are thrashed out in the councils of the Party and when a view is reached it's the responsibility of everybody to support that view. The Council of Senator Messner's Party decided that outlays were to be reduced by 4 per cent of GDP, which is $8 billion. I again cordially invite Senator Messner to tell me and everybody how his Party will fulfil that commitment to reduce outlays by $8 billion, because the only time his Party has spoken specifically about outlays, it has promised to increase them. For example, it has promised to spend $500m on a railway to Darwin and to abolish the assets test, which is another $150m. More distressing than the Liberal Party's failure to spell out how it would honour the commitments it has given are the contraditions within the Liberal Party between the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, or, more broadly but equally accurately, the Sydney and Melbourne factions of the Liberal Party. On the Sunday program to which I referred earlier, Mr Howard said: . . . the last thing a new leader ought to do is usher in an era of instability and confusion about existing policies. Mr Howard has endorsed all the policies that he inherited. However, his deputy, Mr Brown, told the Canberra Times on Saturday: We want to look afresh at our policies and not assume that what has gone before will be the same for the future. Given that fundamental contradiction between the Liberal Party leader and deputy leader as to what its policies ought to be, it is not surprising, though regrettable, that nobody in the Liberal Party is able to tell us how it will cut $8 billion from Commonwealth expenditure. Senator BROWNHILL —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware that in the 18 years to 1984 employment in the service sector, including restaurants, increased by 46 per cent? What estimate has been made of the effect of abolishing claims for entertainment expenses on employment in the restaurant industry? Does the Minister agree that any new capital gains and/or fringe benefits taxation is likely to cause major job losses in the service industries? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware that employment in the services sector has increased by 46 per cent in the last 18 years to 1984. It seems to me to be a statistic of marginal relevance, taken in isolation, but if Senator Brownhill is concerned to display his erudition in relation to those useless statistics, I am quite happy for him to do so. The point of the question is whether employment in restaurants has increased over recent years. I do not know; I am sure it has. I am asked whether the Government has made an estimate of the possible detrimental effects of any elements in the tax package on restaurants and the services industry generally. The answer to that question, in general, is no. Senator Boswell —Absolute rubbish! Senator BUTTON —If you are concerned, Mr President, to shorten Question Time, you could get Senator Brownhill to get the answer from Senator Boswell next to him. Of course there will be impacts in a differential way on various industries and businesses if changes are made in the taxation system; that is inevitable. If one wants to have a taxation system in this country which props up particular areas of privilege and particular areas of special benefit at the expense of the broader community, the pay as you earn taxpayers, at the expense of people who pay their taxes, that is a moral, social and political judgment for the Opposition to make. I am sure that we will hear the answer when the Opposition finally gets together some tax policy. I remind Senator Brownhill that the President of his Party described fringe benefits as a disease which had mushroomed in the past 10 years. Senator Boswell —He is the President of his Party. Senator BUTTON —I did not know that Senator Brownhill was president of some parochial branch of the Liberal Party. I congratulate him. Senator Chaney —The National Party, you clot! Senator BUTTON —Is he the National Party President? I am sorry; Senator Brownhill gets his advice from Senator Boswell next to him. The President of Senator Chaney's party has described fringe benefits as a disease. It will be interesting to hear those who would justify many of the fringe benefits we have had in this country. I think Senator Brownhill might direct that sort of question to some of his colleagues in his Party as well and give consideration to it. I do not think that the impacts of the proposed tax regime will be very great in a broad context. Of course, as I have said, the changes will have different impacts on different sections of the community. Senator ROBERT RAY —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy seen newspaper articles today reporting comments by Mr Orchison, the Executive Director of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, about the current level of exploration activity in Australia, particularly off-shore, and criticising the Government's policies in this area? Does the Minister agree with Mr Orchison's assessment of the current state of off-shore exploration? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not agree with Mr Orchison and I will tell him so when I meet him today, together with representatives of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, at their request to discuss issues of concern to the industry. I agree with APEA that if we are to avoid a massive decline in oil self-sufficiency in the medium term, there is a need for a sustained level of off-shore exploration activity to ensure that a continuing level of petroleum discoveries is made and that these discoveries are developed in a timely manner. However, I do not believe that the current exploration statistics or the historic picture of off-shore exploration activity in Australia suggest that a massive decline in off-shore activity is about to occur. In fact, APEA has been running this line since 1982 and we have continued to see strong ongoing activity. I see the key issue at the moment as being to get more exploration acreage out-we are pursuing a policy of regular releases of such acreage, with a number of further releases occurring in the latter part of this year. Despite the factors which are affecting petroleum exploration activity world wide-the `soft' oil market, the discouraging outlook for oil prices, a significant level of surplus production capacity and continuing high interest rates world wide for risk capital-I believe the environment in Australia is conducive to additional investment. Activity is still continuing at strong levels and recent bidding responses for permits in the Timor Sea suggest that corporate funds are available for vigorous exploration programs. The resource rental tax regime has been sorted out and modifications to the present work program bidding system are being resolved. The questions of retention lease premiums and signature bonuses of the kind that are presently being considered by the Government are unlikely to be a major factor influencing activity as they would affect at the most only a small number of blocks. Industry analysts appear to be suggesting that the climate for investment in the industry is improving. Senator Chaney —Do you know anything about this portfolio? Why do you have to read it all? It is your own portfolio. Senator GARETH EVANS —If I need any help from a sanctimonious little wimp like you, I will seek it. The key to this matter is the confidence that has been expressed by a number of industry analysts in the future investment in the oil industry. This is based upon the fact that a number of areas which have been generating industry uncertainty in recent years have been finalised. Finally, I advert to public comments that have been made by a number of members of the industry to that effect-Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in relation to Jabiru, the Bond Corporation in relation to new off-shore developments and, in particular, the recent comments by a senior executive of Conoco Incorporated which were published in APEA's own journal this year. These comments conclude with the following: This paper shows that Australia affords an ideal mix of technical/geological merit with a workable acquisition environment and attractive economic reward. Senator Chaney —I ask whether the Minister will table the paper from which he has quoted. The PRESIDENT —Is the Minister prepared to table the paper from which he has quoted? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes. The PRESIDENT —I draw attention to the presence in the Presidential Gallery of a delegation led by the Hon. Heihachiro Yamasaki from the National Diet of Japan. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to members of the delegation a warm welcome to this chamber and I trust that the remainder of their visit to Australia will be pleasant and enjoyable. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Has any estimate been made of the value to the Prime Minister of his use of official residences, such as the Lodge and Kirribilli House? Does the Minister anticipate that the Prime Minister will have any salary left when he has paid tax on the value to him of these facilities? Senator WALSH —I suggest that Senator Lewis contain his curiosity until the Treasurer makes his statement. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Has the Minister seen the article about affirmative action in today's Australian Financial Review reporting on the recent meetings between the Government and the Federal Government working party monitoring the affirmative action pilot program? Is the Minister aware of the statements by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for the status of women supporting a voluntary council for equal opportunity as proposed by the Business Council of Australia as an alternative to the Government's policy to legislate for affirmative action? In view of these comments, can the Minister report on the outcome of the recent meetings and what is the Government's position? Senator RYAN —I have seen the article to which Senator Crowley referred in her question and which appeared in the Australian Financial Review this morning. I am able to report to the Senate that the article is inaccurate because it created the impression that there was a wide gulf between the Government and the business community on the question of the next step in terms of our commitment to affirmative action in the private sector. Senator Peter Baume has been attending this working party and has been a most constructive member of it and he will attest that there is a very high degree of agreement among the represenatatives on the working party. There is agreement that there needs to be a systematic approach to the improvement of women's employment opportunities throughout the private sector; there is agreement that such an approach needs to be flexible and to take account of the great diversity of employment circumstances in the private sector; and there is agreement that the affirmative action pilot program has been a successful exercise in that it has informed the working party about the difficulties of implementing such a systematic approach and of the benefits that such an approach can bring to female employees. There is a very high level of agreement among members of the working party. We have just had our penultimate meeting of the working party; there is one more meeting to come. At this stage the working party is drafting a final report and it is my hope that that report will be a consensus document. The Business Council of Australia has announced an intention to set up a voluntary affirmative action program to cover the business sector. That step has been welcomed by the Opposition and has been commented on by me, on behalf of the Government, and by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The business sector has expressed an in-principle opposition to legislation, but its opposition has been all along to what it has called `prescriptive legislation'. At this stage the legislative option under consideration by the Government is very different from the kind of legislation to which the Business Council has been expressing opposition. The voluntary program is very similar to the legislative option that is being developed by the Government. Before we have our final meeting, I express my hope that the voluntary program outlined by the business sector can be incorporated into the kind of legislative approach that the Government intends to take. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is he aware that the President-elect of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has announced a campaign of industrial intimidation aimed at discouraging others from following the example of productive employer-employee co-operation achieved at Mudginberri abattoir? Does the Minister recall telling the Senate on Thursday and Friday last week that unions should obey the law and that the law should be enforced? Now that Mr Crean is proposing direct confrontation in defiance of the rulings of the Federal Court, will the Government use its much-vaunted special relationship with the ACTU to prevent this illegal industrial blackmail? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the precise words of the statement by Mr Crean, but I am fully aware of the matter to which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle refers. On the day in question when I was asked about this matter I said that the Government would uphold the law in these matters and I pointed out on that occasion that although we did not regard the provisions of the trade practices legislation-section 45D-as an appropriate means of resolving disputes of this kind, nonetheless that was in the legislation and the law would be upheld. I do not change that position; that is the Government's view. As I indicated on the previous occasion, and in the light of the question, I will ask Mr Willis to convey that view to the ACTU. I know that he has had discussions with the ACTU about this matter and that view has been conveyed insofar as it concerns the legal question of upholding the law. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I ask: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the article by Ross Gittins in today's Sydney Morning Herald on wage fixing practices? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the implications of recent empirical reasearch on the United States wage fixing system, as reported by Mr Gittins, for the Government's prices and income accord? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article by Ross Gittins on the study done by Freeman and Bell of labour market flexibility in the United States and the consequences of it. I have not yet been able to obtain the study, but I intend to do so. I am proceeding on the assumption, which I am sure is well justified, that the findings have been adequately and accurately reported by Mr Gittins. The study did show that between 1970 and the present there was an increasing gap between wages paid in the higher wage industries in the United States and wages paid in the lower paid industries. This flexibility was attributed to collective bargaining and decentralised wage fixing. That is in Accordance with Liberal Party dogma that that would happen in the free market. However, the consequences of that confirmed flexibility in wage rates were quite different from those which the Liberal Party dogma asserts. The Liberal Party dogma is based on the theory that dying industries will pay lower wages, that labour will be shed from those industries, and that they will survive but at a lower level of total employment. At the other end of the spectrum, the industries which are vital and growing will pay higher wages, thereby attracting more labour and increasing the aggregate level of employment in those industries. That is not, however, what has happened in the United States. The Freeman and Bell study has shown that the industries which paid the highest wages in 1970-specifically Gittins cites coal and petroleum-are paying relatively higher wages than other US industries today but that employment has grown by less in those industries than it has in the economy in general. Gittins quotes Mr Howard in relation to Mr Howard's repeated demands to free up the labour market: There is abundant evidence that those countries who led the world in recent years have had flexible labour markets. The United States is the prime example. Gittins comments: Well, it would be a good idea if Mr Howard and his Dry mates had a closer look at that abundant evidence, because it doesn't support their argument. What has happened in the United States is that employment in those industries which paid relatively higher wages and which are paying relatively higher wages now has grown at a lesser rate than it has in the economy as a whole. When one looks at the particular industries-coal and petroleum-a more likely explanation, although this was not given by Gittins, is that the relatively higher wages and increasingly higher wages paid in those industries are a function of their capital intensity and the use of industrial muscle rather than of the deregulated labour market. Such a conclusion is, of course, compatible with the disastrous experiment in deregulated labour markets over which Mr Howard presided as Treasurer when, in mid-1981, the Fraser Government formally decided to abandon centralised wage fixing and to leave it to market forces to sort out what happened to wages. What happened to wages was that they increased by 13 per cent in the first year and 14 per cent in the second year. That produced the greatest wages explosion Australia had seen since the oil shock of 1973. It produced double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, the highest interest rates we have ever seen, and the worst recession Australia had known for 50 years. Senator Messner —Tell us about the real interest rates today. Senator WALSH —Well, real interest rates were not all that high when the honourable senator was in government because inflation was so high. It would be scarcely possible to have high interest rates- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to answer Senator Richardson's question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. Mr Gittins makes the point that Mr Howard had a good Methodist upbringing and needs a mission. That might be helpful to Mr Howard's moral welfare but, unfortunately, in economics and in economic management, religion and ideology ought to be eclipsed by rational analysis and empirical evidence. It would be a great pity, a tragedy if this dogmatist who is now leading the Liberal Party, who is so committed to a dogma based on an economic theory which he either does not understand or the empirical testing of which he is unaware of, who is guided in his economic policies not by rational analysis but by dogma, should ever become Prime Minister of the country and be given the opportunity to have a rerun of the disastrous economic and wages policies over which he presided in the dying years of the Fraser Government. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and follows his further recapitulation of the events of 1981. I ask: Is it a fact that in 1981 the metal trades agreement and the metal trades award flowed through the centralised wage fixing system, and when that very large agreement was entered into the centralised system guaranteed that it flowed through to the whole of the Australian work force and caused a general wages break-up? Senator WALSH —Labour is highly organised in Australia. There is a long established principle of wage relativities and comparability. Senator Chaney —Was it the centralised system or not? Senator WALSH —No, it was not the centralised wage system. At that time the centralised wage system rubber-stamped what was happening in the market-place because the unions had been given the nod by the Opposition's present Leader, who was then the Treasurer, to go out there and screw as much out of employers as they possibly could, an exercise which was of course aided and abetted by the expectations of the so-called resources boom built up in 1980, again for cynical political reasons. Having drummed up the expectations of the cargo that was about to be delivered by the resources boom, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister in 1981 gave the nod to the unions to go out and exploit the economic conditions, which by the standards of the Fraser Government at that time were quite favourable. That is what they did and that is what produced the wages explosion of 1981 and 1982. Senator Chaney —Through the centralised system? Do you agree or not? Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney insists on saying that that was because of the centralised wages system. The centralised wages system had little to do with the spread and the flow-on that happened from that. Mainly it rubber-stamped what was already taking place. Leaving that aside, I hope that one day even Senator Chaney might understand that what touched off the wages explosion was the abandonment of a wages policy by the Fraser Government in mid-1981. When some unions, led in that case, I think Senator Chaney is correct in saying by the metal trades, received an enormous wage increase, the demands were then stimulated across the whole spectrum of the labour market. As I said, that ultimately produced a wages explosion which saw a 13 per cent wage growth in one year and a 14 per cent growth in another. Senator COLSTON —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, relates to capital indexed bonds which are now issued by the Commonwealth Government. Is the capital appreciation on these bonds taxable? If so, is this practice at variance with the aim of providing security for investors against the value of their investment being eroded by inflation. Senator WALSH —There are two questions there. First: Is the capital appreciation on capital indexed bonds taxable? The answer is yes; it is taxed in the same way as the income received on that or any other bond would be. Secondly: Is that tax treatment at variance with providing security for investors? The answer to that is no; it was never the intention to free some of the return on capital indexed bonds from tax while taxing all of the return on traditional investment. The purpose of the approach is to ensure that the return to investors on capital indexed bonds is taxed on a similar basis to the return from traditional interest bearing securities. Failure to apply those rules to capital indexed and similar securities would have adverse effects on the revenue, and, perhaps equally inportantly, would introduce undersirable distortions in the financial market. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the comments of Mr Crean of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, who, in rejecting the freely entered into agreement between management and workers at the Mudginberri abattoir as an alternative to the existing rigidities of the labour market, said: While the theory might be right that the rights of the individual are supreme, the reality is that we have to deal with collective representative groups. We cannot operate any other way in this society. On behalf of a government which claims a special relationship with the ACTU, does the Minister endorse Mr Crean's rejection of individual rights? Senator BUTTON —We all favour simplicity, but if we reduce intellectual and philosophical concepts to their most simple sometimes they become ridiculous, and that is the category into which this question falls. Senator Kilgariff may think that I am going to say that I approve of the suppression of individual rights, or whatever the question implied, but of course I shall not. But two philosophical concepts were dealt with in the context of that debate. I do not propose to enter into the debate here. Mr Crean has one view; his protagonist had another. I do not think I can contribute to that debate. It is not the Government's role. Senator FOREMAN —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy seen the final submissions of the parties appearing before the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963? Can he comment on how those submissions may provide examples to the French on the dangers of radioactivity from their tests in Mururoa Atoll? What advantages would be gained from a French inspection of the Maralinga site? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have sighted certain of the submissions, although I have not yet had an opportunity to examine them in any detail. The Royal Commission will be reporting on 20 November 1985 and, as would be appreciated, I do not wish to comment on the potential findings of that Commission until its report is tabled in the Senate. As to the possible utility for application to the French experience of the Australian experience in Maralinga and Monte Bello, I think the point to make is that the relevance of British tests some 25 years ago to the issue of present day French testing in the Pacific is by no means clear. Australia is not holding up Maralinga as a model, and its Government's concerns are indeed reflected by the fact that this inquiry has been commissioned. Attitudes against nuclear testing have strengthened over the last 25 years. This Government's concerns, as I have indicated previously, encompass environmental issues but extend to much broader issues. We seek an end to all nuclear tests by all countries for all time. I referred to a request from President Mitterrand to visit the sites of British nuclear tests in Australia in answer to an earlier question from Senator Foreman on Monday this week. It is hard to see what purpose France feels would be served by its proposal. The Maralinga and Emu sites have recently been surveyed by the Australian Radiation Laboratory and the Royal Commission will, amongst other issues, be reporting on the future management of the test sites in the context of residual radioactive contamination. If the French Government is interested in Australia's legacy from nuclear testing, it can, of course, study the report of the Royal Commission when it becomes available. Senator MacGIBBON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In view of the critical shortage of essential equipment for the Australian defence forces, why is the Government wasting $4.1m of the defence budget on a new 36-bed hospital for the Defence Force Academy in Canberra, complete with operating theatre, central sterilisation and all accoutrements? Given that the reason for the hospital is to serve the needs of only 1,400 superbly fit young men and women who are officer cadets, and given that Canberra has an oversupply of hospitals, hospital beds and associated facilities to the extent that there is over capacity equal to one unused hospital in this city at present, how does the Government justify this action? Senator GARETH EVANS —I recall this question being directed to me in the context of the Estimate Committee hearings, and I have had a subsequent opportunity to raise the matter with the Minister for Defence. Although I do not have a detailed written briefing in front of me at the moment, the short answer is that the project has been very carefully evaluated as to its cost as compared with other available options utilising beds within the Canberra area. It has been the subject, I understand, of consideration by the Public Works Committee of this Parliament and has been approved by this Parliament. I further understand that the rationale for the project not only has to do with the availability of immediate medical resources to the personnel at the proposed Defence Academy, but also is perceived as having some utility as a training facility for medical personnel in a variety of different situations. They are the reasons which underlie the decision, but I will seek a supplementary response from the Minister for Defence if he wants to add anything further in reply to Senator MacGibbon's question. Senator VALLENTINE —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the Australian Labor Party policy platform which in part states: . . . that the frequency and pattern of naval visits to Australian ports is not such as to constitute in practice the home porting of such vessels in Australia. In view of the fact that at the moment there are a dozen United States warships in Western Australian waters for a week long visit, some of which are nuclear armed, and that the United States Rapid Deployment Force is today visiting Western Australia and will be back again next week with another five ships and over 3,000 men, in addition to the 8,000 sailors disgorged there at the moment, is it a fact that the visits of United States warships to Western Australia have increased threefold over the last eight years, which means that there is on average a visit of a United States warship every one and a half weeks to Western Australian ports? Is it a fact that so far this year Western Australia has been visited by 27 United States warships and two submarines for a total of 203 days, while the rest of Australia's ports combined have been visited by six United States warships and one submarine for a total of 37 days? I ask the Minister whether, due to the frequency and duration of these warship visits to Western Australian ports, these ports are already being used as de facto home ports? Finally, I ask: Is there a recommendation before the Minister that the United States be told to share the visits of its warships more evenly around the country to diffuse the growing concern regarding Western Australia's use as a home port facility? Senator GARETH EVANS —Perth obviously offers a great many attractions to the United States Navy. I am sorry that Senator Vallentine has felt obliged to be so churlish about her city dispensing its favours on the scale that it has been this year. I have no basis in front of me to contest the statistics offered by Senator Vallentine. The reality of the matter is that the ships presently there represent a carrier battle group and that is, I think, the third such battle group to visit the Perth area this year, apart from other isolated visits that have been made. I also make clear at the outset, in answer to the question, that the number of such visits as there have been does not in any way reflect a change to our policy of opposition to home porting as such. It is stretching a very long bow indeed to argue that the sheer number of such visitors in any way reflects inroads on that policy. Our basic policy for overseas warships visits derives from our own particular national defence and strategic concerns. Allied naval operations through Australian waters underline in a very clear manner to any potential opponents that Australia is not an area of low cost, low risk opportunities. Any opponent considering operations against Australia would have to take full account of not only our indigenous defence capabilities but also those of our friends and allies, not least those that routinely operate in our area. In addition, such deployments to our area enable the Australian Defence Force to conduct a very valuable range of exercise and training activities with the advanced technology units of our allies. The Government believes that by supporting the ability of friendly neighbours to operate in our region, Australia is also contributing to efforts by the Western alliances to maintain the global balance in international stability and thus minimise the scope for global conflict. As to the question of whether it might be possible to re-route, so to speak, some of the ship visits to other ports in Australia, I will take up that question with the Minister for Defence and see whether he has any further answer. The PRESIDENT —Order! Today there has been a large number of lengthy questions and answers. I ask all honourable senators, those asking and those answering, to look at standing orders 99 and 100 and keep their questions and answers to a minimum so that every honourable senator seeking to ask a question at Question Time will get a fair go. The PRESIDENT —Order! Yesterday afternoon Senator Michael Baume made a personal explanation on the basis that he had been affected adversely by the Hansard staff attributing to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) two words that in fact were not said by the Minister in an answer to a question without notice recorded at page 543 of the Daily Hansard of 16 September. I told the Senate that I would discuss the matter with the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and report to the Senate. I did discuss the matter with the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, who confirmed that, as Senator Baume said and as a senior officer of the Hansard staff had acknowledged to Senator Baume, the two words were not said by the Minister for Finance. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter also confirmed that neither the Minister nor any member of his staff had asked for any changes to be made to the Hansard typescript of the Minister's answer. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter informed me that, in fact, the two words were inserted by the Hansard reporter in the course of transcription of her shorthand notes in order to make the words actually used into a sentence and that the words so inserted were consistent with words used in two other sentences in which the Minister said that a stockbroking firm became insolvent. I do not doubt that the Hansard reporter acted in accordance with traditional and long accepted Hansard reporting custom and practice in making the change that she made. However, having listened to a tape recording of the relevant part of the proceedings, I am of the view that the words that were actually used by the Minister were open to the interpretation which Senator Baume placed on them and which justified him in asking at the time that the statement be withdrawn, namely, that he had become insolvent-an interpretation which he claimed was offensive to him and on which the Chair ordered withdrawal. Accordingly, the Principal Parliamentary Reporter has agreed that the record should not be allowed to stand as it is in the Daily Hansard and he will ensure that the two words are not included in the official weekly Hansard. Also yesterday afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) asked me to report to the Senate on the rules that govern Hansard alterations. The editorial instructions issued by the Principal Parliamentary Reporter for the guidance of members of the Hansard staff state: The aim should be to produce a rational verbatim report-a report which, in terms of the definition given in May's Parliamentary Practice, `. . . though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument.' They also set out some of the basic principles to be followed in the reporting and editing of speeches, namely: As far as possible, use the words used by the speaker; be able to justify every change you make; many difficulties can be overcome by changing the order of the words; and the report should reflect the style of the speaker rather than that of the reporter and the supervisor. The rules in relation to alterations by senators to the Hansard typescripts or `pinks' are set out quite succinctly on the slip that accompanies the typescript, as follows: Necessary corrections may be made, but alterations of sense or the introduction of new matter are not admissible. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Mr President, on behalf of the Opposition, I thank you for the quick attention which you gave to Senatort Michael Baume's request and to my own. I think that the result is thoroughly satisfactory from Senator Michael Baume's point of view, and certainly from the point of view of the Opposition. This is the first time that I have had grounds to challenge May's Parliamentary Practice. It seems to me that since the two incidents that have occurred since the present Government came to office involved not the leaving out of words but the addition of words, we should use caution with respect to the extract from May which you quoted. That refers to leaving out nothing that adds to the meaning of a speech. I respectfully suggest that the proper rule should be that we should have changes which leave out nothing and add nothing that changes or adds to the meaning of a speech, because in either eventuality there can be embarrassment and difficulty. I thank you, Mr President, for clarifying the matter and seeing it rectified. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —by leave-On checking the Hansard record of the words in question, what was actually printed in Hansard was `solvent', not `insolvent'. The PRESIDENT —Order! I checked the tape, and the word used was `insolvent'. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 18 September, from Senator Giles: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for all Party leaders and other parliamentarians in the Australian Parliament to condemn apartheid, and to endorse and support the action taken by the Australian Government against the oppressive South African regime.' Yours sincerely, PATRICIA GILES Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? Senator Durack-Mr President, I take a point of order. I refer to standing order 130, which states: The President may order a complicated Question to be divided. The matter of urgency that has been proposed by Senator Giles today deals with two quite different questions; namely, the condemning of apartheid and-a quite different question-the endorsement of the action that has been taken by the Australian Government against the South African regime. These two issues have been rolled up in a fatuous attempt to confuse and mislead the Senate. As will emerge in the debate, the Opposition will strongly support the first limb of the urgency motion but it is opposed to endorsing everything that the Government has done in this matter. I should hope that the Australian Democrats would not be likely to be endorsing everything that the Government has done in this matter. It is quite clear that two questions are involved. Mr President, I seek the exercising by you of your power to order that the two questions be divided. The PRESIDENT —Order! The proposal before the Senate states: . . . the following is a matter of urgency. . . I would suggest under that standing order 64 it is not open to amend a motion in respect of a matter of urgency. Therefore, bearing in mind the import of standing order 64, it would not be consistent for me to agree with the proposal that, in discussing the matter or urgency, the two matters embodied within the one motion be split. I therefore cannot accept the point of order. Senator Chaney-Mr President, I raise a point of order. May I simply address that ruling and ask you to give the matter some further consideration. If we face a situation, which you have suggested under standing order 64 we face, namely, that we are not entitled to move an amendment, it seems to me that that gives ground for concern that we should examine very carefully what is the proposition we are being asked to vote on and whether, in fact, in the interests of getting a proper opinion from the Senate we are being asked to vote on one proposition or more than one proposition. Mr President, I think if you examine the matter of urgency which is before us and which we will shortly be debating, it is quite clear that there are two quite separate propositions contained in it. The first proposition, as Senator Durack has indicated, is a proposition on which I think there will be utter unanimity. The second is a quite separate proposition which relates not to the attitude to apartheid but to the attitude which would be taken to specific actions undertaken by this Government with respect to the South African regime. If I may take a parallel, it is a bit like having a motion which says the Senate thoroughly disapproves of tax evasion and then says that we should have a situation where it should be totally dealt with by retrospective legislation. Those two propositions could be rolled up in one ball simply as an attempt to embarrass or to make a situation difficult for honourable senators. Senator Ryan-Trying to get off the hook. Senator Gareth Evans-Wriggle on the hook. Senator Ryan-Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. Senator Chaney-As for the sort of contemptible interjections that I get from the likes of Senator Ryan and Senator Gareth Evans such as `Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle', let me say that that is a very good demonstration of precisely what these people are about. They are not about getting a genuine expression of opinion from this Senate. They are about trying to play some very petty-- Senator Gareth Evans-We have had a bipartisan policy. You are running away from it. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Evans, I am trying to hear the point of order. I call Senator Chaney. Senator Chaney-The point is that the interjections illustrate the attempt which is being made here to roll the separate propositions up. Mr President, I suggest to you that in the interests of the Senate getting an accurate indication of the views of those who will be called upon to vote for or against this matter of urgency that that interest would best be served if the two quite independent propositions which are contained in this motion were in fact put independently. Mr President, unless there is something in the Standing Orders which would prevent you from taking that course, and I do not believe that there is, I believe that in the interests of fairness those two propositions should be put before us separately. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have heard Senator Chaney, but I suggest that it is possible for Senator Chaney or, indeed, any other honourable senator to seek leave to move an amendment to leave out certain words embodied in the motion of urgency. It is open for any honourable senator to express a point of view and then seek leave to amend the motion. The points that have been taken up by Senator Chaney are good points. However, standing order 130 states: The President may order a complicated Question to be divided. Standing order 130 specifically refers to a complicated question, not, in my opinion, merely a question that has two parts to it, as this urgency motion does. The fact that any question has more than one part in my opinion does not necessarily make the matter a complicated question so far as standing order 130 goes. I do not uphold the point of order, but I do throw out a suggestion to Senator Chaney or to any other honourable senator that it is possible for them to seek leave to move an amendment to leave out any words within the matter that is the subject of urgency. Senator Durack-Mr President, in accordance with your ruling I seek leave to enable an amendment to be moved to the matter of urgency to leave out all words after the word `apartheid'. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that that should be done at the time that the honourable senator gets the call during the debate. Senator Durack-That is not satisfactory. I seek leave at this point. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Ryan-Yes. The PRESIDENT —Leave is granted. I call Senator Durack. Senator Ryan-To move the motion-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Is leave granted for Senator Durack to move to leave out certain words in the motion of urgency? Leave not granted. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.15) —I move: That so much of Standing Order 64 be suspended as would prevent Senator Durack moving an amendment to the proposed matter of urgency. Senator Georges —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Your ruling that Senator Durack should move the amendment during the debate is the correct ruling. We should not go through all this procedure now. The PRESIDENT —As I understood it, Senator Georges, I suggested that that course of action be taken. Senator Durack then sought leave to do it immediately. Leave was granted, and Senator Durack sought leave to move accordingly. Leave was refused and now he is moving that Standing Orders be suspended. Senator Durack is in order. Senator Georges —Mr President, if I may comment further, my understanding is that the refusal of leave was for the purpose of allowing Senator Durack to do that during the debate. It was not to prevent him from moving his amendment. It was only intended that the amendment be moved in the correct place, not for him to seek leave outside the debate to move an amendment to a proposition. Let the proposition be placed before the Senate and then, during his speech, he can seek to amend it. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that Senator Durack can move for the suspension of Standing Orders now and seek leave to amend the motion so that at the time he does speak on the urgency motion he can then move the amendment if the suspension is agreed to. I call Senator Durack. Senator DURACK —Thank you, Mr President. I believe that that is the most sensible way of handling this matter. During the debate I will certainly be wanting to move an amendment to this motion to leave out the second limb for the reasons that have already been expressed by me and Senator Chaney and which I will repeat. It is an entirely different question from the first question and the first limb of this motion. There are two motions in this matter of urgency. The first is for all party leaders to condemn apartheid. The Opposition wholeheartedly supports that. Later in my speech I will show that that has already been done over and over again by the leaders on the Opposition side. Then for what can only be regarded as too clever by half moves by the Government-this has no doubt been put in the interests of some members of the front bench; I doubt if Senator Giles would have wanted to engage in such tactics-the second limb is to engage the support of the Senate for action taken by the Australian Government against the South African regime. That is an entirely different question. As you, Mr President, have clearly pointed out, unfortunately the Standing Orders do not permit a matter of urgency to be amended. In a case like this I think the Standing Orders should provide-I can see reasons why it might be unwise to have power to amend-that these separate questions should be divided. But we accept the ruling which you have made, Mr President, that that is not available under the standing order to which I referred. Therefore, the second best solution to this problem is that we suspend Standing Orders in this case. Because of the mala fides on the part of the proposer and those who support this whole matter the object is simply to confuse and mislead and not to get a proper expression from the Senate. Because of the way this matter of urgency has been put forward the only way of overcoming it is to have a power to amend. The Senate's opinion on that can then be obtained. Certainly that is what I propose. The Standing Orders prevent that from being done, and in the interests of the Senate making a proper decision on this matter I believe that in this case the Standing Orders should be suspended to enable me to move my amendment at a later stage of this debate. As I have said, we are faced with what really amounts to a fatuous attempt to roll up two quite different questions and thereby possibly reach a confused and misleading result. Clearly the Opposition strongly supports the first limb of the urgency motion, to condemn apartheid, but it is ridiculous to expect us to roll up with that an endorsement of everything the Australian Government has been doing in relation to this matter. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.21) —I indicate that the Government will not oppose the motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable Senator Durack's amending motion to be put. We earlier refused leave because to give leave to move an amendment would have been utterly at odds with the terms of the Standing Orders, which make it clear that urgency motions are not to be subect to amendment. As Senator Durack has decided that he wants to pursue the matter, we will cheerfully accede to his request and allow the suspension of Standing Orders to enable him to proceed straight to putting his amendment in effect to split the motion. I make it clear that when that motion is put we will oppose it with a great deal of vigour simply because, in seeking to split the motion, as Senator Durack has foreshadowed, he is attempting to get the Opposition off the hook on which it has impaled itself. The reality is that opposition to apartheid only means something not in statements of principle but in the context of worked out programs of opposition. Hitherto the Government and the Opposition have adopted a completely bipartisan approach in the attitudes that we as a nation have taken to apartheid. It is supremely obvious that that bipartisan approach no longer exists, and Senator Durack's strategy is designed to enable that fact to become clear. We will enable it to become clear by letting him put his motion and we will vote against it. It thoroughly deserves to be defeated. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.22) —I am grateful that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, has made his usual graceless contribution to the debate because it again exposes the pathetic approach being adopted by the Government. We have here an issue on which there is unanimity in this Parliament, a unanimity recently expressed by the Opposition in a statement made on 19 August, in which we said: The Coalition's condemnation of apartheid in South Africa is unequivocal and long-standing. That is a matter on which there could be wholesome unanimity in this place. Instead, however, we have this sleazy motion which attempts to suggest that opposition to apartheid involves total support for all of the measures adopted by this Government. I find that an utterly offensive way of going about this matter, and a government which manages to display such enormous virtue by cutting off our Trade Commissioner whilst allowing companies to have access to export grants shows the subtlety of judgment which even this Government chooses to enter into. On the one hand it adopts this high moral tone by withdrawing a public servant and on the other it goes on subsidising exports to South Africa. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the honourable senator is getting away from the motion before the Chair, which is for the suspension of Standing Orders. I suggest that he is getting down to debating the gravamen of the issue. Senator CHANEY —All I wish to say is that it has been made very clear by Senator Evans on behalf of the Government that it is trying, under the guise of a common opposition to apartheid, to obtain the imprimatur of this Senate to every action taken by the Government, when in fact many members of the Government benches think that the Government's actions are totally inadequate and would themselves have considerable doubts about what has been done. This has been shown to be rather a sham, and that is a tragic thing for this Parliament and this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(3.25) —I move: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for all Party leaders and other parliamentarians in the Australian Parliament to condemn apartheid, and to endorse and support the action taken by the Australian Government against the oppressive South African regime. Despite the doubts of the Opposition, my principal purpose in proposing an urgency motion is not to use this very important issue simply as a point-scoring exercise, although obviously there is massive ambivalence in the ranks of the Liberal and National parties, the most notable inconsistency being between past and present State and Federal leaders of the Liberal Party. I sincerely hope that this debate will provide a means of further sensitising parliamentarians in particular and the Australian public in general to the decades of degradation brought upon the black people of South Africa by a government determined to sustain white minority rule, apparently oblivious to the dreadful violation of the human rights of the majority in South Africa. In response to the recent escalation of repression in South Africa, especially the state of emergency introduced in mid-July under which activists or indeed anyone can be arrested and incarcerated without trial, the following action has been taken by the Australian Government consistent with growing international community awareness of the fact that sweet reason, gentle pressure or constructive engagement would not work. Having recalled our Ambassador for discussions early in August this year, the Australian Government subsequently undertook a number of measures. It ordered the suspension of all investments by the Australian Government and by Australian public authorities in South Africa, prohibited direct investment in Australia by the South African Government or its agencies; requested all Australian financial institutions to suspend new loans to South African borrowers; gave notice of the withdrawal of the Trade Commissioner to Johannesburg by the end of August; withdrew various forms of official government assistance for Australian trading with South Africa; and banned exports to South Africa of petroleum, petroleum products, computer hardware, or any products for use by South Africa's security forces. It has also prohibited the import from South Africa of krugerrands and all other coins minted there, and all arms, ammunition and military vehicles. We have introduced a code of conduct for Australian companies which seeks to ensure that their black South African workers are not exploited in the way that has happened in the past. Constructive discussions on this code of conduct are in progress, encouraging us to believe that Australian companies, like European and American companies with South African operations, will observe standards that help, not hinder, black African workers and their families. These measures have been carefully designed and are part of an international commitment to pressure the South African Government into peaceful change to a multiracial society with universal adult suffrage and the standard of human rights proposed by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This urgency motion provides the Opposition with an opportunity to take a serious, long, hard look at its official position, to endorse the Government's action, or to explain its continued neglect of this challenge. There is no longer any validity in the assertion that black Africans themselves reject the use of sanctions. Senator Sheil —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. The honourable senator is reading her speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —I have been watching the honourable senator closely. She is referring to copious notes. Senator GILES —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is no longer valid to assert that black Africans reject the use of sanctions or that leaders of the African National Congress and the United Democratic Front represent no one but the most rabid activists careless of the well-being of the masses. We know that the United Democratic Front speaks for over 700 organisations, including church, union and women's organisations, not all of them black. We are also told that a recent extensive independent poll of black Africans found that three out of four believed that sanctions were necessary in order to achieve change. A common response of the Africans polled was that their suffering was so intense, their lives were so wretched and the attitude of the South African Government was so antipathetic to reform that international pressure by sanctions was not only acceptable but also desirable, the short term disadvantages to ordinary people being far outweighted by the possibility of real social reform and constitutional change. In addition, we read in the Australian of Monday this week: Leaders of six black-ruled southern African countries were due to meet in . . . Monzambique, yesterday to discuss how to combat the effects that international sanctions against South Africa might have on their own economies. These countries are in total support of the action that has been taken outside Africa in order to move the South African Government away from its repressive regime. People such as President Nyerere of Tanzania and the leaders of Botswana, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe are suggesting airlifts of food and other goods to those likely to suffer most if South Africa blocks other trade routes in retaliation. However, black African countries speak with one voice when they ask for the strongest possible action to be taken against South Africa in order to rid that country of its odious apartheid policies. It has become apparent that Australians have had little opportunity to understand just what apartheid means. Some of our colleagues who have had the opportunity of going to South Africa apparently have not informed themselves of how, in practice, it affects the lives of the black African majority. Apartheid now and when it was labelled `separate development' in the 1950s has systematically imposed constitutionally authorised racial oppression designed to maintain and protect economic order and privilege. This system of repression is reinforced by the best-equipped police and defence forces on the African continent, given full authority to use violence-often extreme and fatal-against anyone who opposes the system. Let me remind honourable senators of Soweto and the fact that just this week little school children have been gaoled for similar civil disobedience. Soweto not only is the most important of the black townships but also has passed into world consciousness as symbolising freedom movements both from South Africa and from the wider world. I quote from a publication entitled `Apartheid. The closing phases?' by C. G. Weeramantry which states: Afrikaans, the language of the master race, was decreed by the Department of Bantu Education in 1974, to become the language of instruction in secondary schools. English, the lingua franca in which Africans of different tribes communicated with each other, was also the language of protest against apartheid. If English was to be displaced in favour of Afrikaans, this extension of authority of the master race was not to occur without resistance from the young people of Soweto. `We are fed on the crumbs of ignorance with Afrikaans as a poisonous spoon' they proclaimed in banner headlines. Soweto erupted in protest. Several thousands of students demonstrated peacefully. Police replied with teargas and bullets. The dead children of Soweto now belong to world history and there is no purpose in recording here what has been recorded in thousands of writings across the world. All that need be added here, from a visitor's impressions, is that the memory of the hundreds (local recollection places it at thousands) of deaths is still fresh and that the community is alive with tales of mounds of dead bodies, mass graves, mass funerals and of wards full of dead and dying children. In addition to Soweto, there are a number of other instances in South Africa of communities maintaining their independence against absolutely frightful odds. Another symbol of African determination is a place called Crossroads which is both important in its own right and symbolic. The people of Crossroads, a small township not far from Cape Town, were instructed by the authorities to leave their home territory where many of them had lived for hundreds of years, to dismantle their shacks and return to homelands many hundreds of miles away. Migrant labourers were expected to live in mammoth unisex dormitories, eight or more often 16 to a room and to see their families for two weeks a year. The 20,000 inhabitants of Crossroads were told officially to leave the area. A delegation met senior administration board officials and told the board: `Every day they come to Crossroads and arrest our people. We cannot go to doctors or clinics and we cannot even use the taps'. Men lawfully working in the area, but living illegally with their permitless wives, were to report to the unisex dormitories and send their wives back to the Transkei, Ciskei or wherever they had come from. In the course of a year one of the methods resorted to by the police was to charge those men whose permits were in order with harbouring their wives. Much distress was caused to all concerned. On the morning of 14 September 1978, under a pall of teargas, 400 fresh arrests were made. People were charged and dealt with. Penalties were very heavy and remorseless, as before, and are thought to have earned the South African Government R40,000 from this impoverished community. By July 1978 the matter had reached such an impasse that a day of prayer was called for the people of Crossroads. At one stage the authorities dug a deep ditch right around this encampment in order to prevent any food supplies being taken in to the people who had camped there who were refusing to go to the so-called homelands thousands of miles away which were of no relevance to these people at all. On one occasion, the women of Crossroads, with characteristic tenacity, were living with beds their only homes. Any shelters had been taken away by the police and the black plastic that was being provided by the churches to keep off the rain was being confiscated and burnt daily by the police. Women delayed the introduction of the iniquitous pass laws in South Africa by the use of passive protests. For many years they were able to hold back saturation use of the pass laws. The police, who were quite prepared to fire on children, for some time were deterred by peaceful and disarming crowds of chanting, good-humoured and determined women. What does relocation mean? People who choose to move are seeking an improved lifestyle but forced removals-the fate of millions of black Africans-induce despair and hopelessness and damage self-esteem. Removed people feel threatened, powerless and unable to cope. Inadequate or polluted water supplies, a shortage of productive land, an inhospitable climate and poor housing are common features. Children, even if not actually starving, are especially likely to succumb to diseases such as malnutrition, bereberi and kwashiorkor. Gastroenteritis is endemic if there is a poor water supply. Children contract serious infectious diseases and tuberculosis is one of the main causes of death amongst young people. Resettlement camps are designed for mere survival with only tin huts or tents and often only one toilet to many dwellings. Perhaps, if people are lucky, commuter transport is provided because the provision of labour to the places where it is required is a priority of the South African authorities. As reported in a church report on forced removals in South Africa, any family or community that was previously living even marginally close to the minimum level of survival was likely to experience relocation as a debilitating loss. A young construction worker described his family's new home in these terms: It is not a house even. It is not even a pig sty. Two rooms for 11 people. Do they think we are animals? We need privacy too, man, even if we are black. An old lady described her removal in this way: We had no choice. The guns were behind us. Here is not enough food. I am hungry now as I am sitting here. Everybody has died. My man has gone died, as have my daughters. They took my land away. Morbidity and mortality figures for the homelands are no longer kept by the South African Government, all management having been handed over to the Bantustan authorities with their own police and armies, backed by a mass of repressive legislation. Social security is the responsibility of the Bantustans. Pensions and unemployment insurance are frequently delayed and always meagre. Grants from the central government are totally inadequate for health, education and housing. Domestic work-one of the few options for black women in or near white areas-attracts no industrial or social protection, with often complete dependence upon the employer for the worker who, technically, is illegally earning money to support her family away from her so-called homeland. Most authoritative information on social conditions in South Africa comes to us from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in a report dated January 1985. It was estimated in the report that in one of the homelands 400,000 people would need feeding. In another homeland 11,000 peasant farmers faced the winter season without any crops. By May 1983 stock deaths in the Ciskei and Transkei had reached 60,000. We hear very little about drought in southern Africa. Statistics provided by a working group in its report entitled `The Violation of Human Rights in South Africa' indicated that, although the number of people living below the poverty datum line had dropped from 99 per cent to 81 per cent, the number of people living below the poverty line had increased from four million to nearly nine million. In relation to health, it was stated by a cleric, the Reverend Palos, that the extent of infant mortality in the homelands could not be determined, as statistics of deaths due to malnutrition and related diseases were not available. However, a doctor of one missionary hospital had estimated that 386 children per thousand-that is, nearly four children out of every 10-were dying of malnutrition and related diseases. Of the survivors, 100 to 200 per thousand would have suffered brain damage. In addition, the fact that parents are obliged to leave their children behind in looking for work and survival causes widespread emotional, physical and psychological problems. The Black Sash organisation in South Africa is a very highly regarded group of women founded 30 years ago. It has long been regarded as amongst the most knowledgeable about the so-called homelands and the plight of relocated people. Mrs Sheena Duncan, head of the Black Sash organisation and widely respected for her long fight against apartheid, has commented on the most recently announced changes in South Africa. It is widely agreed that these changes have occurred as a result of the actions that have been taken by Australia, amongst other members of the international community, over the last few weeks and months. Mrs Duncan commented that her long fight against apartheid seemed at last to be having some effect. On the most recently announced changes in South Africa, she said that the twin moves of restoring South African citizenship to residents of independent Homelands and abolishing the system of influx control were highly significant and not a mere modification or reform. The impression that is coming to all of us is that, when the international community works in concert from outside South Africa to have some effect on the fiscal position in South Africa, things begin to move. It seems to me to be absolutely essential that all of us in Australia, regardless of our party affiliation, give our full support to our Government which, along with many other nations, is taking the sort of action that is persuading the South African Government that it must modify its represssive policies. As our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has said: . . . unmoved when school children bleed in Soweto and Uitenhage, it-- that is, the South African Government- will jump when the rand bleeds in London and New York. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.44) —Let me say at the outset that the speech we have just heard from Senator Giles in support of her motion does not even address its terms. I say at the very beginning that the Opposition will not dispute the facts the honourable senator has brought forward regarding the nature of the regime in South Africa and the details of the misery, suffering and brutality of so many of its citizens. That is not a subject for debate here. The Opposition is quite aware, and has been for many years, of the grave issues that arise under the apartheid regime of South Africa. We are aware of the police methods and the human degradation which have been apparent in South Africa for so long. Having said that, let me address the motion and the real issues before the Senate this afternoon. Senator Giles has proposed as a matter of urgency that the Senate agree to two propositions. The first is: The need for all Party leaders and other parliamentarians in the Australian Parliament to condemn apartheid . . . The second, and quite separate and distinct proposition, which is tied to the first, is the need `to endorse and support the action taken by the Australian Government against the oppressive South African regime'. I will show in the course of my remarks this afternoon that, as I have already said, the Opposition wholeheartedly supports the first proposition, that is, the need to condemn apartheid and thereby the South African policies which sustain and maintain it, and the methods that are used. The other proposition, which is that, because we do that we should support the actions that have been taken by the Australian Government against the South African regime, is a quite different issue and quite fatuous. Indeed, it is pathetic that any honourable senator could come into the chamber, roll up these two totally distinct propositions and ask us to support them. For those reasons I have already obtained the support of the Senate to suspend Standing Orders to enable me to move a motion for the deletion of all words after `apartheid' from Senator Giles's motion. Accordingly, I move: That the statement of the matter of urgency be amended by leaving out all words after `apartheid'. Let me first address what is certainly the fundamental question at issue here-the first limb of Senator Giles's motion, namely, the need for all party leaders and other parliamentarians in the Australian Parliament to condemn apartheid. I suppose one could make the nit-picking point that, although we all condemn apartheid, there is no further need to do so because it has been condemned so often and that, therefore, from a literal point of view, it may be unnecessary to ask the Senate to support the need for that to be done. However, I believe that as party leaders, leaders of the community and members of parliament we cannot too often condemn the regime of apartheid. Indeed, the coalition parties have been on record over and over again for many years as having condemned it. The strong views on apartheid of Malcolm Fraser could not have been made clearer when he was Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia and Prime Minister and since then. Those views were also held by a former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Andrew Peacock-and not only in recent times, when the issue has become high priority. Mr Andrew Peacock held those views when he was a Foreign Minister in the Fraser Government and probably for many years before that. Certainly on 19 August this year as Leader of the Opposition he expressed in a very fine statement his views and the views of the Opposition. It was a statement made by him after a meeting of the shadow Cabinet. It was made on the day that the Government announced its puny policies on this matter. I will quote from that statement by Mr Peacock on 19 August. He said: The Coalition's condemnation of apartheid in South Africa is unequivocal and long-standing. Apartheid is, rightly, a subject that excites high emotion and widespread censure. It does so for one fundamental reason: it discriminates against non-whites on the grounds of race. That is the central point, and is why we have always taken this view. We can put aside for one moment the brutality, human degradation and so on that are part of the regime because those things happen in many other countries; South Africa is not unique in the world in that respect. But what is unique and so offensive to mankind, and why we in the coalition parties certainly join in the condemnation, is that apartheid dicriminates against non-whites on the grounds of race and race alone. In the same statement of 19 August it is stated: The Coalition calls on the South African Government to make a specific commitment to the reform of its internal policies in the following manner-- Here we spelt out in great detail what we believe are the absolute minimum requirements to be undertaken by that regime- an end to the state of emergency; an end to detention without trial; the unconditional release of political leaders; the progressive abolition of the Pass Laws, the Group Areas Act, and other forms of discriminatory legislation; a commitment to a common form of citizenship for all South Africans; an end to forced removals; equality of educational opportunity. The Coalition believes it is of critical importance that there should be a genuine and continuing dialogue initiated by the South African Government between it and black leaders genuinely representative of the black community, together with representatives of other groups in the South African community, so that confidence and understanding can be promoted and the means of achieving the objectives the Coalition believes to be essential can be examined. That is where the Opposition stands and has stood for many years. It put down that very considered statement on 19 August. Lest anybody should try to say that there has been a change in our leadership and that Mr Howard may have a different view, I will quote what Mr Howard has said. As recently as last Sunday on the Sunday program when he was asked about this matter, Mr Howard said: I do not approve of apartheid and I totally support all of the views that have been expressed on that on behalf of the Liberal Party over the past couple of years. I'm dead against apartheid. Nothing could be clearer than that. As far as the views of the leadership of the coalition parties are concerned, we have had the well known views of the former Leader, Malcolm Fraser and of our immediate past Leader Mr Andrew Peacock, which have now been reaffirmed by our Leader, Mr Howard. Let us have no attempts to qualify it. There could be nothing more definite from Mr Howard when he says: I'm dead against apartheid. Senator Ryan —What is he going to do about it? Senator DURACK —In a Press conference that he held at the end of last week, under questioning he said exactly the same things but I do not need to reiterate them. There is no question whatever about where the Opposition stands on the first limb of this proposition. It is absurd for Senator Ryan, in the light of those quotations and in the light of what I will say now, to keep saying that there is doubt about that. That is rubbish and she knows it is. The fact is that the coalition parties when in government not only condemned apartheid by words; we took very firm actions against it. Under the leadership of Malcolm Fraser we were party to the historic Gleneagles Agreement, an agreement to which the Fraser Government gave very strong adherence throughout its time in office. The adherence to and implementation of that Agreement was a very practical demonstration of where we stand. It is not simply a matter of words. Moreover, the Fraser Government stopped the flights of Qantas Airways Ltd into South Africa as a further demonstration of that view. Restrictions were imposed on the Australian export of arms and military equipment to South Africa. They are some very clear, firm earnests of our attitude to this regime. In the statement I have read, we detailed a whole series of things that must be achieved. Of course, the Opposition supports the efforts being made around the world and in the United Nations, by the pressure of moral persuasion, to try to bring about the modification of apartheid. Senator Ryan —It needs more than persuasion. Even the United States is in on the boycotts now. You are weaker than Ronald Reagan on this issue. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator DURACK —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Ryan is certainly not helping matters or herself by her constant barrage. I reiterate that the Opposition has not only spoken on the subject; we have also acted, when we have been in a position to do so, in support of that condemnation. The coalition does not believe that sanctions are an effective way of achieving these purposes. It is not just a matter of unilateral sanctions. It is a sad case, perhaps, but it is a fact that sanctions, even through the United Nations, have not been effective in achieving their purpose. Senator Ryan —These will be. Senator DURACK —This is a childish belief that, because the Labor Government has imposed sanctions, something different will happen. The fact is that sanctions through the United Nations were imposed on Rhodesia without effect in the long run. They were imposed without effect on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a result of its invasion of Afghanistan. I remind members of the Government that when they were in opposition they condemned efforts made by the Fraser Government to impose sanctions against the Soviet Union because of its invasion of Afghanistan, particularly as they related to sporting activities at that time. Let Government members ponder on that. I notice that at last Senator Ryan is silent on that subject. The fact is that we have learned by hard experience, and perhaps unfortunate experience, that sanctions are counterproductive and will not bring about a change in apartheid. Change will be brought about by moral persuasion on the South African Government, by world leaders doing what they are doing at present. The Opposition has taken the view that sanctions against the South African Government would be counterproductive. The application of sanctions is likely to have only the opposite effect. It will strengthen and reinforce the conservative forces in South Africa against any reform. Sanctions will also hurt black Africans, not only black South Africans. They will be very hurtful to many other black southern African countries. Those are the reasons we have adopted the attitude we have in relation to the present Government's sanctions policy. I have described that policy as a puny effort by the Government. The Government believes that sanctions are the way to go and we do disagree with that, and I have moved an amendment to this motion to remove any endorsement or support of what the Government has done. When one looks at the Government's efforts, one sees that it is really a pathetic list of efforts that have been made by it. The Government has said that it will seek further sanctions through the process of the United Nations, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and so on, but that may be down the track and nothing further may come of it. There are two issues which are fundamental issues as far as the Opposition is concerned. We do not believe that these sanctions will be effective. We point to the ineffective nature of sanctions in other circumstances and even those that have been not just unilateral but through the United Nations. We point to the experience of Rhodesia and Afghanistan. In simple terms, that is the Opposition's attitude. Senator Giles said that the blacks in South Africa want sanctions, but the blacks are very much divided on whether or not they want sanctions. One of the leading black South African leaders, Chief Buthelezi, the chief of the Zulus, which is the largest single group of black South Africans, is very much opposed to sanctions and is waging a major campaign against sanctions around the world. We believe that already very effective things are in place, such as the Gleneagles Agreement, to which we have adhered and will continue to adhere. That is one of the most effective ways in which the feelings of those who condemn apartheid have been expressed in the past and will continue to be expressed in the future. That is the only point of contention we have with the Government on this matter. Senator Gareth Evans said that this motion has been brought on because the Government wants to condemn the fact that the opposition will not have a bipartisan policy in relation to this matter. There is a clear bipartisan policy in relation to our attitude to apartheid. As I have said, the policies we put in place when in government have been constantly reiterated by Liberal and coalition leaders over the years. No finger can be pointed at us, because we have stated our abhorrence and condemnation of apartheid and the actions of the South African Government and the methods it has used to maintain it. That is a bipartisan policy. Of course it is ridiculous to believe that this Government should seek to have the support of the Opposition, uncritically and presumably unthinkingly, for anything it has done. I am sure that the Government will not have Senator Chipp's support; I am sure that Senator Chipp will be expressing a good deal of criticism for what the Government has done. Senator Chipp —What it has not done. Senator DURACK —Sure. I hope that Senator Chipp will consider my amendment and support it, because the Government is seeking to get a blank cheque from the Opposition under the guise of the need for bipartisan attitudes, but we will not give it. I reiterate firmly the Opposition's support for the first limb. We are opposed to and seek to delete the second limb, because we will not support the actions that have been taken by the Australian Government. We have not supported them and we will not support them. It is a separate issue and it should never have been included in this motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.06) —The Australian Democrats will vote for the matter of urgency moved by Labor Senator Giles, which reads: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for all Party leaders and other parliamentarians in the Australian Parliament to condemn apartheid, and to endorse and support the action taken by the Australian Government against the oppressive South African regime. Although I want to begin by complimenting Senator Durack on a fine speech, we cannot support his amendment to split this matter in two. I make it perfectly clear that I understand why the Liberals are doing this: There should be two questions. As far as we are concerned, while we will support the motion moved by Senator Giles, under no circumstances should it be construed that the Democrats believe that everything the Government has done has been correct or that it could not have done a lot more. I compliment Senator Durack on his speech. The only jarring note, as far as the Democrats are concerned, came at the end when he mentioned that the old political remedy to this sort of thing is to attack the sportsmen but leave the businessmen alone. In other words, we support the Gleneagles Agreement, which I will come back to in a moment; but that was the only jarring note as I heard the speech. Today we are debating and voting on one of the most fundamental cases of man's inhumanity to man. Not since Nazi Germany has there been a case of degradation and oppression, physically and psychologically, of a group of people for only one reason: Because of an accident of birth-in this case, the colour of their skin. That is the only reason these people are being oppressed and degraded. Not only is there a need for all party leaders in the Australian Parliament to condemn apartheid unequivocally, but also leaders of all governments everywhere and all political parties in the Western world must do so on purely moral grounds. This has always been the case, but South Africa now faces a blood-bath, the like of which is unprecedented in the world's history if there is not a peaceful resolution of the existing system. Those who are not persuaded by argument must surely be able to see that such a devastating blood-bath will be an unmitigated disaster for the whole human race. One does not say that this blood-bath will occur as a result of the events now occurring in South Africa. It may be that the military will be able to hold it down and screw it down tight for a while, but in six months, twelve months or two years the one inevitability is a massive blood-bath and more violence. The reality is that the racist Nationalists have prepared for the contingency of violence for over 30 years. They hope either to win a civil war or, like Hitler, bring down everything in a final holocaust. It is their last card and I believe that the blacks should not allow them to play it-that is, to fight on a scenario chosen and designed by the psychopaths of Pretoria. Violence will not win the struggle for freedom and for human rights. It could well destroy it. The Democrats are advocating that all world leaders should prevail upon the blacks not to resort to violence but to use the tools already at their disposal. On this point, I disagree marginally with the thrust of what Senator Durack has just said, because by economic and financial sanctions and international criticism the regime in South Africa is now being rendered impotent. It is being brought to its knees and it is starting to split and quarrel through non-military, non-violent means. This is the way to isolate, undermine and split asunder this South African regime of obscene beliefs and outrageous behaviour. Pretoria knows that these non-violent means are bringing it to its knees and I believe that that regime is praying for violence. Violence would or could rally support for white South Africans. Is blood thicker than water? What about the scenes on the television screens in the white western world of blacks slaughtering whites? Would that cause an emotional blood-is-thicker-than-water syndrome and rally, wrongly, white non-South Africans in the free world to the white South Africans' cause? Although we cannot make a judgment on it, this is a possibility that we must contemplate. It is another reason why we should argue against the use of violence. Blood may well prove to be thicker than water in the long run. From the blacks point of view, they will want to take over a still prosperous society, not a ruin that has been devastated by civil war. I point out another difficulty of a civil war in South Africa. If violence gets underway and is allowed to go uncontrolled, as it would in a civil war, the wrong people might win. I use that term advisedly. In a civil war between various black tribes an Idi Amin or a Bukassar, or some other outrageous creature could be thrown up. Senator Missen —The violent tend to come to the top in those situations. Senator CHIPP —Indeed. I thank Senator Missen for his interjection. I accept it in a flash. A dictatorship could well replace the already obnoxious and obscene form of government in South Africa, a dictatorship of black on black. The second part of Senator Giles's motion is that the Senate endorse and support the action taken by the Australian Government against the oppressive regime in South Africa. The Australian Democrats will support the motion to the extent that we support some of the things that this Government has done. That should not, under any circumstance, be construed that the Australian Democrats totally endorse the Government's action or lack of action in this regard. We believe that it should and could have done a lot more. In that way we differ from the Liberals in that we can support this motion while saying that the Government should be doing more and doing things in a different way. The Government has certainly become more consistent in its attitude and policies towards South Africa and for this it is to be congratulated. Certainly, the Government cannot expect total endorsement for its policies by the Australian people unless its position is consistent. Listen to this as an example of the Government's sheer inconsistency and abject hypocrisy. In June this year the Government removed one of the major hypocrisies in its policies towards South Africa by withdrawing, under pressure from the Australian Democrats it was only the Democrats who were putting pressure on the Government the Brisbane Airport paving contract. The Government had taken the outrageous decision of granting a paving contract worth $11m at Brisbane Airport to a South African company. This was a strange sort of logic. The Government was condemning South Africa on the one hand and on the other it was giving an $11m contract in Australia to a South African company. At the same time the Government is to be commended for offering to give legal and financial support to any Australian cricketers who wish to back out of the South African tour. I support that. I have a great deal of sympathy for those cricketers. I disagree with what they are doing but I understand the temptation to young men who have magnificent skills, who have been spurned by their own sporting bodies and not been chosen to go to England in a Test team. These young men know that time is running out and they are offered something like $200,000. I certainly wish they would not go to South Africa. I believe that a visit by our cricketers will be misrepresented and distorted by the South African regime. Mr Fraser commented on that only a while ago. I shall give an illustration of inconsistency in Government policy. I am sorry to be personal about this but I am speaking of a man for whom I have tremendous admiration as a sportsman, a cricketer, a leader and an Australian. I refer to Kim Hughes, who has magnificent cricketing skills, but the politicians want to stop him from selling those skills in South Africa. Let us assume for a moment that Kim Hughes has a brother-I do not know whether he has-who has no cricketing skills but has enormous skills in civil engineering. Until recently the Government would have stopped Kim Hughes from selling his cricketing skills to South Africa but would have assisted in every way the brother with civil engineering skills to go and trade with that country. This has since been stopped and I compliment the Government on that. That is why I say to the Liberal Party with great respect that when these international problems come up we should not take it out on the sportsmen. If we have to take it out on anyone, we should be consistent and take it out on sportsmen and businessmen alike. The sportsmen are the one group in the community who are against violence, yet they always seem to cop the political blame. The Democrats are looking forward to the new effective guidelines legislation for government tenders which the Labor Government foreshadowed in June to be introduced in this Parliament so that the Brisbane Airport fiasco cannot occur again. Since the imposition of the state of emergency in South Africa in July the Government has taken a high profile in the United Nations on the issue, in spite of pressure from the United States and Britain. Ultimately however, it is not supporting motions in the United Nations which count or which will bring the Government in Pretoria to the conference table-trade sanctions and acting on them. Those who have said that trade sanctions cannot work are already being proven wrong. The South African rand is under pressure and there is strong speculation that the Pretoria Government will have to face a further massive fall in the rand. European and American companies are withdrawing funds from South Africa and the Government there is feeling the pinch. The Australian Government, having voted in the United Nations to ban future investment, is now waiting to see which countries line up on what side before it takes the plunge and supports an economic blockade. The Australian vote in the United Nations is not simply meaningless but hypocritical unless the Government acts on it in every way possible. I certainly hope that the Hawke Government is not waiting for the United States to tell us how to vote before it grasps the nettle, as it did with New Zealand, with the instance of the Rainbow Warrior and with refusal of that Government to allow nuclear ships in its ports. Last month the Government decided to initiate strategic effective sanctions against South Africa. These sanctions are steps in the right direction but they do not constitute an economic blockade. Mr Hayden has said that the Government is considering blocking South African Airlines but we are still waiting for the Government to make up its mind and act. There are a number of other things that the Government could do. It could impose a complete ban on South African fish and diamonds, mainly being taken illegally from Namibia. It could immediately expel the South African Mission in Melbourne and the South African information office in Sydney. There should be at least a general downgrading of diplomatic representation. As in the past, I once again call upon all political parties in this Parliament to make the policy on South Africa tripartisan. I say this without trying to score points. I hope that certain sections of the Liberal Party will stop calling for closer sporting, cultural and trade links with South Africa as they did in July this year. If ever there was a time to have a tripartisan policy on an international issue, surely this is it. The Democrats support the actions taken by the Australian Government against the oppressive South African regime and urge it to do everything it can to help bring about a resolution of the South African situation. I end on a gracious note. I do not have to tell honourable senators or the listening audience that I am no favourite of Malcolm Fraser. I do not see myself as his champion. I never have been and I never will be. But it would be ungracious if I did not conclude by saying: `Well done, Malcolm Fraser, for what you are doing in South Africa. I hope that you will continue to be the champion of the blacks in South Africa in the forthcoming difficult days'. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.20) —Perhaps I could equally graciously accept the praise of the former Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Malcolm Fraser, on behalf of the Opposition. The Senate is debating a motion put forward by Senator Giles in the following terms: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for all Party leaders and other parliamentarians in the Australian Parliament to condemn apartheid, and to endorse and support the action taken by the Australian Government against the oppressive South African regime. It is a matter of regret to us that today the Government is seeking to turn the South African tragedy into a cynical political exercise. It has done that by adding a tail to the motion, trying to force the Opposition to endorse the total package of the Government's policies. The Opposition, through Senator Durack, has moved an amendment that that tail be removed. When it is removed-I hope it will be-then the whole Senate can unanimously condemn apartheid in South Africa. The action taken by the Opposition in seeking to amend the motion should not be recognised as total opposition to the detail of all the Government's policies, but we are simply not prepared to endorse that total package at this stage. The credentials of the Liberal Party in its attitude to apartheid have been well established for many years, and I am pleased that they have been recognised again by Senator Chipp. We have consistently made clear our total opposition to apartheid and we will continue to condemn those policies which deny political, social and economic freedoms to the vast majority of South Africans. In both government and opposition we have sought as our goal the dismantling of apartheid so that South Africa can become a truly democratic nation and a full participant in the community of nations. We have no illusions that the achievement of this objective will be other than a lengthy, complex and difficult task which will require, from the Australian viewpoint, a realistic assessment of political, social and economic developments, not only within South Africa but within the whole southern African region. The history of the former coalition Government in facilitating the peaceful transition to independence for Zimbabwe, along with our consistent adherence to and support of Namibian independence, is evidence of stances which display a sensitivity and understanding of the wider regional implications and issues in southern Africa. I have spoken on the subject of South Africa on a number of occasions over the last four years. I have had the opportunity to visit South Africa twice, albeit briefly, and, like many in this Parliament, I have a real interest in the region. From the first speech I gave on the subject some time ago I have always tried, as has my Party, to be constructive. Rhetoric on this subject is cheap. It is so easy simply to get up and condemn apartheid without offering constructive and positive recommendations. I, and I think most of us now, have some idea of the complexity of the problems facing South Africa. There are no simple solutions. We have recognised the responsibility for those of us whose basic human rights are so well preserved in this country to press for the benefit of those who simply do not have such rights which we take for granted. We recognise also the fears of the minority groups in South Africa, the need to protect the security and interests of the whites, the coloureds and the Asians. I particularly mention the last two groups, who tend quite often to be forgotten in the South African debate. We have always tried to maintain hope. It is so easy to say that the situation is impossible, that it is inevitable that South Africa will end in a bloodbath, and simply wash our hands of it. That, we would argue, is an abdication of our responsibility. Out of this we have always seen a need for a dual track approach. We have advocated that on the one hand we must press forchange, that we must apply appropriate pressures for change, for the granting of the basic human rights which so many are deprived of in South Africa. On the other hand, we must maintain an open door approach. We must look for ways in which we can constructively help South Africa through the crises it is facing. The choice of the best method or methods for bringing pressure is always subject to argument. The search for and application of the best method of constructive interaction is also open to argument, as is the balance of both pressure and interaction. That has been the level of debate within my Party and within the Opposition. As I have said, the Opposition is unanimous in its abhorrence of apartheid. No one supports the institutionalised separation of the races, to give it its best interpretation, or the subservience of blacks to whites on racial grounds, to give it its worst. How we can best contribute towards changes for the better is very properly the subject of continuing debate. There are no right or wrong answers. There are no absolutes. It is simply a question of reviewing all the facts and coming to a judgment in all the circumstances. Some argue for more emphasis on contact, on influence for change, by business, recreation, cultural and other forms of interaction, and they point to some areas of progress as supporting that advocacy. Others believe that we should remain with and continue the current methods of pressure in the form of the arms embargo and the sporting boycott. Others argue that in current circumstances real change can be brought about only by new methods of pressure, and so we get into the debate on trade sanctions, disinvestment and the like. Again there is the question of balance, and the most appropriate balance in all the circumstances. What is not argued is that the context in which we discuss this matter is extremely worrying. This year alone we have seen literally hundreds of deaths as a result of unrest and violence. Over the past 12 months we have witnessed, for the first time in recent history, the use of regular soldiers of the South African defence forces for riot control. Strike leaders, as we know, have been detained without trial. There has been a rise in pass law arrests and the continued forced clearance of `black spot' residents to homelands. The state of emergency has facilitated the continued abuse of human rights. The Opposition parties have viewed these developments with concern and dismay, and obviously the changing situation leads us continually to consider and review our policies. On the other hand, there have been changes over the last 12 months, which we welcome. The abolition of the Mixed Marriages Act and parts of the Morality Act, the development of multiracial unions under the Labour Relations Act, and the constitutional changes, at least to the extent that such changes acknowledge the principle of participation by Asians and Indians in national government, have been noted by those on this side of the chamber. However, I have to say that the Opposition parties cannot see that the South African Government has in any substantial way retreated from its policy of not allowing the black population to exercise its political rights, except in the context of black homelands. The recent statement on dual citizenship made by President Botha unfortunately is in terms too vague to be helpful. We cannot see any real moves towards the granting of citizenship or other political rights, such as the elementary right to vote, to the millions of urban blacks. The President's statement, after the high expectations which had been aroused from the recent visit of his Foreign Minister to Vienna for talks, can be described only as disappointing. We cannot see any real plan or desire to remove the principal structures of apartheid which enforce the separate development policy, namely, the Group Areas Act, the influx control measures, the pass laws, the homelands system, and those internal security measures contained in the Internal Security Act which, inter alia, restrict the political rights of blacks. Whilst there is to be no power sharing with blacks in the national parliament and the rightful aspirations the black population are denied, we can foresee only further political and social unrest within the Republic of South Africa. So where, then, do we presently lie in the balance of pressure and interaction in our advocacy of a solution, or steps towards a solution, to the South African problems? In applying pressure we have always looked for targets where we can exert significant influence for change. Pressures that simply make us feel good are unhelpful. So we have sought to develop policies which are not only capable of implementation, but also reasonably certain of being successful. Therefore, we have supported, and continue to support, sporting sanctions as agreed to by the Commonwealth. In doing so, we recognise the unique dual role Australia has in this endeavour. As a major cricketing and rugby nation, our imposition of sporting sanctions on South Africa has had a direct impact on the Republic. I draw a distinction with what Senator Chipp just said in giving the example of an engineer. One engineer from Australia simply does not have the same political clout within the South African regime. We continue to uphold the position adopted by the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser-that in the area of sporting sanctions Australia has a direct and unique role to play not only in bringing pressure to bear on the practice of apartheid in sport, but also in expressing the abhorrence about which I have spoken of the entire social and political structure of the apartheid system. Furthermore, we should not forget that the use of sporting sanctions has provided Australia with the opportunity to join with other Commonwealth nations in a multilateral, multinational effort to bring about change and reform. Therefore, the Opposition parties uphold and reaffirm their commitment to the Gleneagles agreement. It follows that our parties believe that the forthcoming rebel cricket tour of South Africa will not help the cause of black South Africans, rather, it will be used to evidence an argument that the Australian community accepts that apartheid within sport has been removed and that there is no further need for the sanction. In other words, it would send the wrong message. Like it or not, those Australian cricketers who will play in South Africa will be unwitting contributors to a political exercise which the Opposition parties believe will not advance the political, social and economic lot of black South Africans. At the same time, I say in passing that we believe that personal abuse directed towards such individual cricketers, and threats of special Australian Taxation Office investigations, and the like, as have been made by the Labor Government, are equally unhelpful. Our parties do not support threats or intimidation at home or elsewhere. In the debate on appropriate measures of pressure we, of course, considered, and will continue to consider, the question of economic sanctions. We understand the argument that is being put. Foreign investment, the operation of foreign companies in South Africa and trade with South Africa have helped to support the apartheid system. Therefore, there is, it is argued, an overwhelming moral and practical case for disinvestment and other such measures. In other words, it is said by some that the time has come for the international community, collectively or individually, to isolate and quarantine South Africa economically. But to date we have not been prepared to go down that path, and the reasons were put earlier by Senator Durack. The involvement of Australia in South African trade is minimal, so what effect will such sanction have? If, in fact, it is argued that it will have a dramatic effect, we are concerned that it will particularly hurt those we are trying to help. We are concerned about the economic effect it would have within the whole region, with the interlocking economies. Furthermore, as Senator Durack said, we do not see, in the history of economic sanctions elsewhere, a particularly effective record. Therefore, we have been reluctant to go down that path; rather, we prefer to look at other, more constructive ways in which we can achieve the goals we are seeking in this place. In conclusion, the question of the right tactics to achieve a particular goal always calls for political judgment and opinions will differ; but on the question of principle, the Opposition is as hard line in its abhorrence of apartheid as it ever has been. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.35) —I think we can say that there are two South Africas, and there are two clocks running in South Africa-one at past midnight, and the other long before midnight. Certainly, that is the view of Reverend Peter Storey, head of the Methodist Church in South Africa. After meeting with President Botha, together with other church leaders, he said: We were trying to represent those for whom midnight has struck- He added that he meant the South Africa where hopelessness and despair has now welled over into rage. Today we are discussing a matter of urgency which states: The need for all Party leaders and other parliamentarians in the Australian Parliament to condemn apartheid, and to endorse and support the action taken by the Australian Government against the oppressive South African regime. It is easy for us to realise the extent of the crisis if we consider the area of South Africa which is involved in the so-called state of emergency. The South African Government denies the enormity of the problem by saying that the state of emergency applies only to 36 districts. But these 36 districts are home to fully one quarter of the South African population. A misconception in the minds of Australian people, has arisen about the situation in South Africa. People have said to me that blacks are killing blacks there. But as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bill Hayden, pointed out in his speech to the Canberra branch of the Australian Institute of International Affairs on 9 September: The blacks, more than the police, were reported to have helped protect Indians in the Natal violence early last month: It was Indians and blacks, not the police who were reported to have patrolled the township of Inanda near Durban where blacks and Indians live together. As Mr Hayden has also pointed out, the South African Government has shown itself, so far, unmoved by internal violence. It has shown itself, so far, unmoved by attempts by various nations to use their good offices for bridge building and persuasion towards change. What it is afraid of is the pressure applied or threatened to the one area that is immediately vulnerable, the economy. In this context, I consider the meeting held last weekend between white South African business leaders and black leaders of the African National Congress to be of paramount importance. When Gavin Relly, Chairman of the Anglo-American Corporation, the giant South African monopoly that owns or controls 70 per cent of the companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, met Oliver Tambo, President of the African National Congress, it was a clear acceptance of the ANC as the voice of millions of disenfranchised African people. That happened at a time when Nelson Mandela, their leader, had spent almost a quarter of a century in gaol under the South African regime. When big business is forced to take these unprecedented actions, bypassing the Botha regime, this is the effect of world opinion, world pressure and world disgust. This is why in Australia today we call on all party leaders and other parliamentarians to condemn apartheid and support the Labor Government's initiatives. My colleague Senator Giles has outlined the Government initiatives, such as the suspension of new investment in South Africa, the withdrawal of the Australian Trade Commissioner from Johannesburg and the banning of exports to South Africa of petroleum, computer hardware and any other products known to be of use to South Africa's security forces. We have also prohibited the import from South Africa of Krugerrands and all other coins minted there. We have banned the import from South Africa of all arms, ammunition, and military vehicles. They are just a few of the things that this Government has done referred to by Senator Giles. It must be remembered that this Government is following a step by step increase in pressure on the South African Government. These effective, selective sanctions will be increased if the South African Government does not move in the proper direction. Our Government will exercise power and influence at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and the United Nations to achieve these desirable objectives. Traditionally we had a bipartisan policy in this country but the emphasis must be on `had' in view of the charade today when the Liberal-National Party Opposition tried to wriggle away when faced with having to decide whether to support the positive Government initiatives or to show that it wanted to do things in name only. When Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Party we earned international respect for his stand against apartheid. He constantly deplored it. That is well known and has been honoured in the debate today. Unfortunately, that example is not being followed by the Opposition in this Parliament. Mr Fraser, speaking last Monday after he had returned from a visit to South Africa, said: If I was living without any political rights of any kind and if over 40 years I and my parents had not been able to achieve any political rights and if I was living in the state in which people are in South Africa . . . then ultimately you can't blame them if they pick up arms. Mr Fraser, after a careful study of the situation, as a member of a United Nations fact-finding mission, was moved to make that statement. We have to compare what has been said by Mr Fraser, a person who has spoken out fearlessly in the past for the Liberal Party, with what we have heard today. We have had the heads of the Opposition speaking. Firstly, Senator Durack tried to avoid putting up the Opposition's weights, and then we heard from Senator Hill, who is obviously a liberal within the Liberal Party. But there was a guttural noise there and that guttural noise was reflected by you, Mr Acting Deputy President, when Mr Fraser was referred to and you said: `Fraser would not know what it was all about'. That is one of the noises from the gut that we heard. When Senator Giles referred to the position of African workers under the Crossroads program and to migrant labourers being expected to live in unisex dormitories, with eight or more people to a room, and those people not being able to see their wives and families for more than two weeks a year, Senator Sheil asked: `How many wives?'. That is an example of the gut reaction of the members of the National Party in this chamber. It belies the statements made by the Opposition leadership. That is what Australian people have to take into consideration. A reference was made to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, who, Senator Durack told us, is dead against apartheid. I am concerned that he is running dead against it. Mr Acting Deputy President, if you were to look at what has happened in recent times you would agree with me. How has the Liberal Party leadership reacted? Two weeks ago, Mr Macphee was the spokesperson for foreign affairs. He is a sensitive and compassionate person. Clearly, that was reflected in his views. As soon as he went overseas to look at the situation in southern Africa, he was contradicted and undermined by Mr Spender who, as the acting spokesman on foreign affairs, criticised the progressive line taken by Mr Macphee. This happened just a few weeks ago and it shows a disarray of views within the Liberal Party. Both Mr Spender and Mr Howard opposed Mr Macphee's stand. The Australian of 6 August 1985 commented: The clear difference that emerged between Mr Macphee and Mr Spender yesterday is symptomatic of the hardening factionalism in the Liberal party between Victoria and N.S.W. That is not necessarily something that is not well known. The Australian referred also to Howard and Spender being opposed to trade sanctions against South Africa or to a scaling down of diplomatic relations. We have to ask ourselves how many people in the Liberal Party are genuinely against apartheid, how many are soft on the regime in South Africa and how many are real apologists for the South African regime. Senator Jessop is on the record, and he is probably proud of it, as saying that he believed that South Africa has been singled out for special unfair treatment with regard to its human rights situation. He asserted that South Africa had the third best human rights record on the continent. He said he had seen a study which proved it. Senator Jessop issued a Press release with a copy of a letter he sent to the South African Ambassador in which he referred to the `present reformist South African Government'. I think that gives us a fair idea of the beliefs of one Liberal senator. In another context, Senator Jessop referred to large corporations and said that they probably helped to establish black unions in South Africa. That statement must be taken in the context that blacks working in most sectors earn about 30 per cent of the white wage. In the mining industry, they earn less than 20 per cent of the wages of white people. Those are the sorts of statements made by Senator Jessop, but he is not on his own. I could not for a moment neglect Senator Townley. He has admitted that neither he nor many of his coalition colleagues agreed with Fraser's policy on South Africa. Senator Townley had the audacity to talk about a carrot and stick approach. Referring to that statement that he made on 9 May of last year, how appropriate it is for an apologist for the South African regime to talk about a carrot and stick approach. All the stick is on the head of black South Africa. The truth is that the regime there has not reacted because people such as Senator Townley have given succour to that white regime in South Africa that denies people fundamental rights. I turn to the National Party. I have already mentioned Senator Sheil. The real leader of the National Party, Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, said he was sick of Mr Fraser's attitude. He spoke of Mr Fraser exhibiting pious posturing and double standards in his opposition to sporting ties with South Africa. There is significance in the position he has taken, the well-known position of Mr Sinclair, and the fact that not one National Party senator is on the speaker's list for the debate. Obviously, the National Party has been muzzled because if National Party senators were to speak they would indicate their support for the regime. The Opposition on one hand speaks with one voice and, on the other utters obscenities about apartheid below its breath. Can we believe that Mr Howard and Andrew Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow spokesman on foreign affairs, can concoct a policy that is credible? It is the reason why some Opposition senators cannot deal with the many detailed programs that the Labor Party has instituted in government and cannot respond to a world-wide call from religious people or to the two million trade unionists represented at the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress last week, which indicated that it would increase the pressure against apartheid. For too long in Australia we have not done enough to destroy the inhuman apartheid system. In South Africa 25 million people are denied the right to vote. The leader of the black African people, Nelson Mandela, has been in goal for 25 years. The South African economy is based on the exploitation of cheap black labour in the interests of white business. The Australian Government is exerting proper pressure. We have now put the onus on the leaders and the members of the Liberal and National parties to put their weights up and show people where they really stand. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(4.50) —The Senate is debating a motion moved by Senator Giles which reads: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for all Party leaders and other parliamentarians in the Australian Parliament to condemn apartheid, and to endorse and support the action taken by the Australian Government against the oppressive South African regime. I am sure there is no difficulty about the first part of this motion. Blacks in South Africa have no democratic rights in a country which calls itself a democracy. In contrast, five million whites and, to a much lesser extent, a million or so coloured and Indians enjoy a semblance of democratic government. They also enjoy a very high standard of living, largely derived from the exploitation of black labour and a grossly excessive share of control over the country's resources. Blacks are treated as if they were foreigners within the boundaries of their own country. They are even required to carry passports. Virtually all Australian political leaders have, time after time, condemned apartheid, which is an outrage against human dignity. This is not to say that it is the only outrage perpetrated in countries around the world, but it is one of the few which is explicitly stated in constitutional terms and, worse still, it is done by a country which claims to be a member of the Western group of free nations. I therefore have no difficulty in supporting unequivocally the first part of the motion. When we come to the second part-that we should endorse and support the action taken by the Australian Government-there are some problems. Neither of the Government speakers in this debate-Senator Giles or Senator Childs-analysed the actions taken by the Australian Government, what they are and what they are likely to achieve. We must remember that Africa is home to more than 500 million people. Its history has been a nightmare of revolution, bloodshed, political manipulation and death on a massive scale, although in the northern areas where there is some Arab influence, the history has been less catastrophic. More people have starved to death or have been killed in Africa than in all the major wars. It is, and almost always has been, a continent seething with confusion, neglect, corruption and civil war. We would not have achieved much if we helped to engineer the overthrow of the existing deplorable South African regime and substituted for it an Idi Amin type of dictatorship. The besetting problems of black Africa are tribalism and lack of education. In my view, the worst fault of the present South African Government has been its failure to tackle, or rather the way in which it has exacerbated, these problems. To spend, as it does, more than five times as much per head on the education of a white child as it does on a black child is a social and intellectual outrage. By its policy of tribal homelands, it has exacerbated tribalism. It may make the South African blacks easier to rule-President Botha has referred to the non-white population as a collection of minorities-but this divisive policy of keeping the blacks tribalised will make any satisfactory solution to South Africa much more difficult to achieve. What do we want to happen in South Africa? The worst possible solution would be a violent revolution followed by the sort of tribal black rule which is endemic in most other parts of Africa. This would be a social and economic catastrophe for South Africa and everyone, including the black people of South Africa, would suffer. But there must be a clear and fair objective for South Africa, moving towards equal political rights for all its inhabitants. Much is made of the dangers of Marxism, and the danger is real, but a great deal of the danger has been created by the deplorable behaviour of the South African Government. It has created a monster and now says it is the defence against it. If I were a black South African, I would like to think I would be a revolutionary, and I am sure I would accept arms from anyone who would give them to me, whether Marxist or capitalist. Mr Murphy Morobe of the anti-apartheid United Democratic Front reflects the scepticism which many blacks now feel. He said: Why talk about far-reaching changes in South Africa and at the same time imprison those who demand and fight for change? Nothing short of full power for the disenfranchised black majority will satisfy us. The majority of oppressed South Africans have long ceased yearning for inclusion into the system. Our task is to change the system. But South Africa is a long way from revolution. The situation is very different from that, say, in Iran where the opposition to the Shah was united behind a religious leader. Unless some clear move is made towards creating a fair society in South Africa, ultimately a bloody revolution is inevitable. The implicit claim of the present white rulers of South Africa is for time to make changes. The problem is that they have never admitted what their eventual vision of a South African society is-or anyway their vision of a South African society which would be even remotely acceptable to the free nations of the world-and their progress towards even their limited objective has been so glacially slow that they have destroyed the confidence of the free world in the honesty of their intentions. But if we rule out a bloody revolution as a means of getting a just society in South Africa-I emphasise that for many years the power of the white security forces will be so great as to make that not an achievable objective-what do we want the South African Government to do and what part can Australia play in achieving it? If the South African Government is genuine about ultimate power sharing between all the citizens of South Africa it must do a great deal more than it has shown so far it is prepared to do. The restoration of South African citizenship for black people either living in or nominally attached to the homelands is, I suppose, a step forward, though being a black citizen of South Africa does not mean very much. It certainly does not give them any political rights. The possible abolition of the hated pass laws by which movements of black people are rigorously controlled would be a much more significant step forward. But much more significant steps are required. As I said a few moments ago, the besetting problems of black Africa are tribalism and lack of education. If the South African Government is sincere in wanting to see a peaceful move towards the sharing of power, it must break down black tribalism which it has enshrined in its homelands policy. It must abandon its separate tribal homelands and encourage all the black tribes of South Africa to think of themselves as South Africans first. Until I see some signs of this being its eventual objective, I cannot believe that it is sincere in working towards a just society in South Africa. Breaking the blacks up into tribes may make them easier to divide and rule, but it will make any peaceful transition to proper rights for black Africans almost impossible to achieve. If the Government is sincere in wanting to have a fair society in South Africa it must immediately raise the per capita expenditure on black education to at least the same level it spends on white education. One can think of no economic, political or social reason for the gross discrepancy on the expenditure between black education and white education. The blacks probably need more per head that the white people, not the one-fifth which is what they get now. We should also seek from President Botha a declaration of intent that he will, within a reasonable time frame, grant full citizenship under one constitution to South Africans of all colours. He should draw up an agenda for a national convention to be attended by all South African groups, including the banned African National Congress. He should release Mr Nelson Mandela who has become a symbol of the racial trouble in South Africa and whose imprisonment is doing much more damage to the possibility of a peaceful transition in South Africa than his release would do. But for all this to be possible, the blacks must make concessions too. If there is to be any chance of evolutionary change in South Africa, rather than a bloody revolution, it will have to be established that the 23 million blacks will not treat the five million whites as badly as the white minority has up to now treated the black majority. Many in the black community would accept this, and it is important that the white minority should start a dialogue with the moderates among the blacks while there is still time to do so and before the battle lines are irrevocably drawn towards ultimate civil war. The question arises as to what Australia can do about this. Economic sanctions are a gesture, but Australian trade is not crucial to the South African economy. In any case, trade sanctions are of doubtful effectiveness. The United States of America has been a great believer in the effectiveness of such sanctions, and recent victims include Russia, Poland, Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua and now South Africa. It is true that most of the victims do not like the sanctions and would rather see them removed, but how effective have they been? The first trial of trade sanctions in modern times was on Italy over the Abyssinian crisis in 1935-36. It did not liberate the Abyssinians. Sanctions on Rhodesia deprived that country of hard currency and made the economy work much less effectively; it was not the sanctions but rather the revolutionary struggle and the world recession which finally toppled the white minority regime. American sanctions against Cuba drove it into the arms of the Soviet Union and made Fidel Castro the most secure Latin American ruler of them all. The sports embargo against South Africa prevented most international competition, but even when some sports became multiracial the embargo on those sports was not lifted. We must conclude that trade sanctions are very unlikely to have any useful effect on the South African Government, except perhaps to scare some members of the white community and cause them to bring some influence on the Government. The only effective pressure point that could be applied internationally on South Africa is through the international banking community, on whom Australia has virtually no influence. That is the point on which the Western world must apply pressure if it is serious in the search for a just society in South Africa. We in Australia have some similarities to white South African society, particularly the 40 per cent which is non-Afrikaaner. Our products, our exports, are in many ways similar; our climate and countryside are almost identical; and we both have a tradition of British colonialism and legal and political institutions. It is possible that we might be a useful bridge in persuading South Africa of the urgent necessity of a serious change in its policies. For that reason we must beware of making gestures that have no effect on the South African Government but lock us into a position where we destroy any possibility of a constructive role by ourselves as an intermediary. Someone must be attempting to persuade the obdurate South African Government-persuade rather than threaten, because to threaten would be to drive them into the laager-of the vital necessity, if they wish to remain a credible member of the free nations of the world, of making serious moves towards making South Africa a genuinely equal country for people of all races. That is a role in which Australia might make a useful contribution. I would like to think the Government is handling its relations with South Africa in a way that makes that role possible for us, but I do not think it is. Senator JONES(Queensland)(5.06) —I would like first of all to mention the motion moved by Senator Giles and the attempt by Senator Durack to put to a vote the splitting of that motion. The motion states: The need for all Party leaders and other parliamentarians in the Australian Parliament to condemn apartheid, and to endorse and support the action taken by the Australian Government against the oppressive South African regime. It appears to me that Senator Durack is very aware of the fact that he needs to split the motion because a number of people on his side might not be too happy to support either section of it. Unless he splits the motion in two he might have some trouble getting some members of the National Party to vote with the Opposition in relation even to the first part of it. We waited for some time for a statement from the President of South Africa, Mr Botha-the international community certainly waited on that statement-but when it came down it appeared not to contain any changes or any attempts at resolution of the problems in South Africa. The long awaited, much vaunted and internationally touted statement of reform from an alleged liberalised South African President, Mr Botha, was nothing more nor less than a shameless sham. Apartheid will continue unabated. More and more black South Africans will be murdered by a government not too ashamed to use bullets and tear gas against blacks and coloureds. As more and more church leaders, both black and white, politicians, libertarians and civil rights persons of all hues rise to condemn the evil that is apartheid, South Africa lunges towards the hell of an inevitable civil war. Unless South Africa acts to change what is happening I believe that that will be the end result of the current non-action by the President of South Africa. The Australian Federal Government in Canberra is prepared to stand up and be counted in the face of this affront to humanity. In Bob Hawke we have leadership that will not allow President Botha and his team to say: `No equal elections, no easing of restrictions and savagery towards blacks-in short, no end to apartheid'. The ultimate result of such a policy would be that the funeral pyres and degradations now occuring in South Africa would continue. For many years there have been calls for economic sanctions against South Africa's rotten, decaying racial villainy-for equally as long as the Australian Labor Party has advocated a total rejection of all sporting contracts between our country and theirs. Successive governments in Australia, of both political colours, have been outspoken against South Africa. I welcome the Cabinet's decision to close the Australian trade mission in Johannesburg and to prohibit all exports, such as petrol and computer hardware, that could lead to whites wiping out blacks. I welcome the pressure that has been placed upon our financial institutions to stop lending money to those who form the South African Government and the so-called brotherhood that pulls the strings behind it. No doubt even tougher action will be taken if there is no improvement in South Africa. This could involve a stop to all commercial, diplomatic and political links and a complete ban on all sporting and artistic contacts until free democratic elections are held in South Africa, until the black majority has a complete say in its destiny. I am pleased that Australia's efforts, limited though they might be at this stage, have received such a warm welcome in black South Africa. It is proof that world opinion, manifested by the Australian effort, is giving comfort to the oppressed and cold comfort to the oppressors. In Australia we need at this time a bipartisan approach, although after hearing Senator Chipp I believe it should be a tripartisan approach. That approach should be taken not only by the Australian Government in power at the moment but also by the Opposition, which should support action against the apartheid policy in South Africa, and support should also be given by the Australian Democrats. I think that that support will be given in view of the statement made today by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp. Let me say something about some of the criticism of Malcolm Fraser and his stance against apartheid. The telex I have reads: Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was exhibiting pious posturing and double standards over sporting ties with South Africa. Of course one does not have to guess who said that. It was the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The telex goes on but it is not my intention to read further from it or to criticise the Premier of Queensland. I think it is worth while saying at this stage that the Premier of Queensland, who is one of the strongest men in the National Party and in the Queensland Government, certainly has some say over the endorsement of National Party candidates for places in the Senate. I do not think I need even name the honourable senator but it is quite obvious that the National Party re-endorsed a former senator whose views on apartheid are very well known to most honourable senators. Senator Walsh —Who is that? Senator JONES —I was not going to name him but it is Senator Sheil. I would like to say something further about Mr Fraser's statements over a period and his attack on the apartheid system in South Africa. In a transcript of an interview conducted on 16 September-admittedly, he was talking about the cricket tour that was to take place by the rebel Australian cricket team-he was asked by Andrew Olle what impressed him the most when he visited South Africa. Andrew Olle asked: Mr Fraser have you come away from South Africa with any one single image which sums up why the tour shouldn't go ahead, do you think? Malcolm Fraser replied: Well the greatest impression on me was the total brutality and cruelty with which the police and the military administer the rules of apartheid. I saw young girls, fourteen or fifteen, slightly built, who'd been taken away from their homes, taken down to the police station for twenty four hours, who'd been sjambokked and from the direction of the cuts in their backs they would have had to have been held down by one or more police men while somebody else weighed into them with the whip. That was the point that was put forward by Malcolm Fraser in that interview. If we continue looking at some of the newspaper headlines we see one headline which states `Curbs must have more teeth, Fraser warns'. That article states: The former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser yesterday rejected President Reagan's limited sanctions against South Africa as too weak, and called for an international ban on all bank loans to South Africa. . . . . At the same time, the new Opposition Leader, Mr Howard-- these points were raised by Senator Durack but he did not continue with the statements that were being made- and his foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Peacock, reaffirmed the Opposition's policy of rejecting sanctions-- I emphasise the words `rejecting sanctions'- but said President Reagan's announcement would force the Opposition to review its policy. As yet we have not heard when the Liberal-National Party will take some action on reviewing its policy on sanctions against South Africa. In other words, the Opposition is neglecting to take heed of what its former Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Party said. The Opposition has changed its leadership and it has changed its direction. If Senator Giles's motion is carried we will see whether Opposition members will support the Government's proposed sanctions against South Africa or whether they will sit back and hide behind the Liberal Party's change of policy in relation to sanctions brought down by their new Leader, Mr Howard. A further newspaper headline states: `Fraser attacks ``Nazi'' South Africa'. If one looks at what is happening in South Africa one can only come to the same conclusion. Let me touch further on what Mr Howard has said in relation to sanctions which I think clearly points out the opposition of the Liberal-National Party to sanctions. At this stage the Opposition has not called for a review of its policies. It has certainly changed its mind in relation to the proposition put forward by Malcolm Fraser. It has changed its attitude since Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister of Australia and Leader of the Liberal Party in the other place. A report of the Canberra Times which is headed `Sanctions stand reaffirmed' states: The new `shadow cabinet' reaffirmed the Opposition's anti-sanction policy on South Africa yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, said later that the position was not about to be changed but the issue would be `kept under review in the normal course of events'. With the South African police closing schools, bashing children and firing bullets and teargas, surely now is the time for some review by the Liberal-National Party. Some members of the Opposition are hiding behind the coat tails of the Leader of the Opposition, and accepting his view and his policy. They are going back on what they said under Mr Fraser. This is a complete turnaround. I only hope that, when the motion is put to a vote in the Senate, we will see those members of the Opposition who support it and those members who do not. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, DouglasBaume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Missen, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Morris, J. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Siddons, J. R. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Vigor, D. B. Harradine, B. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Coleman, R. N. Rae, Peter Cook, P. F. S. Knowles, S. C. Chipp, D. L. Chaney, F. M. Bolkus, N. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. It is indeed a pleasure to speak to a report such as the one put down by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. The report provides extensive financial details in an easy-to-read layout. It provides ample information about service volumes in the past year and sets out a vision for the future, an awareness of the changes that are necessary. That is the type of thing that inspires confidence in the planning that has gone into both the report and the operations of OTC. Total OTC revenue for the year ended 31 March 1985 went up by nearly 22 per cent to some $412m. During the year there was a reduction in rates per minute and an off-peak rate (to six major destinations) was introduced. Telephone traffic continued to grow, with a 22 per cent increase in earnings to $290m being recorded. That has resulted from a 19 per cent increase in the time spent on calls coming into or going out of Australia. About half of our telephone subscribers now have direct overseas access through international subscriber dialling. A heartening feature of the report is OTC's preparedness to customise arrangements and equipment for major users. For instance, the Toshiba International Corporation Pty Ltd has its centre in Tokyo, with regional international facsimile hubs in New Jersey, London and Sydney. That means that OTC maintains all the lines coming into or going out of the Sydney hub and picks up multiple sources of revenue, rather than just business flowing from a single end-point in the Australian network. I applaud this spirit of entrepreneurship on Australia's behalf. It is no wonder that international telephone traffic between Australia and Japan increased by 35 per cent in the year ended 31 March 1985. Further noticeable increases of over 20 per cent were recorded in our traffic with the United States, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Italy, Yugoslavia and the Philippines. The figures for Indonesia and East Timor in particular are not given. In the light of the refusal by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to grant a licence for a receiver to a group in Darwin, I believe that the matter of public facilities linking Australia to these places must be re-examined. While telex services to the United Kingdom, Europe and other Asian countries increased substantially, there was little additional traffic to North America and Japan. The number of telex calls to the Philippines, Indonesia and New Guinea has decreased, which is some indictment and requires explanation, as these countries are among our nearest neighbours. OTC has recognised that in some respects technological developments require improvements in telex services and the introduction of new services. I am pleased to see an indication of forward planning in the equipment area generally through to the 1990's. A Development Division has been set up within OTC to manage advanced technology. Since its formation $5m has been committed to research and development projects within Australia. We have world leaders in research on fibre optics at the Research School of Physical Sciences at the Australian National University. I look forward to OTC tapping the talent of our researchers and, through them, developing cables that can meet our needs and become an excellent export market. I have two suggestions for improvement. I understand that Telecom Australia is charged for overseas line time used to find ISD numbers for subscribers. I believe that that cost for service provided should more fairly be charged against OTC. The other point relates to consultation with Telecom staff who are affected by OTC decisions, though not employed by OTC. I believe that a system of industrial democracy and consultation with those staff also would be much more in keeping with the general standards of management which are shown in this report. I recommend that OTC management take up such industrial relations matters. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.28) —I also address some remarks to the annual report of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. This is the annual report for the twelve months to the end of March this year of this very important statutory authority and very successful Australian public enterprise. It was formed in 1946 under the Chifley Labor Government and has had a distinguished period of activity since then. As a public-owned, government business enterprise, OTC provides all of Australia's overseas communications, including telephones, telex, satellite television, facsimile data services and so on. The information is transmitted and received through stations such as that at Ceduna in my State of South Australia. From there the information and data are fed into the domestic network of Telecom for Australian distribution. During the year under review, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission earned over $400m in revenue and paid almost $45m to the Australian Government as income tax. It returned an after-tax profit of some $48m, which was a very significant increase over the $30m earned last financial year. In fact, it was the largest profit ever earned by this very successful Australian public enterprise. From that profit a dividend of some $19.9m was paid to the Commonwealth Budget by OTC. It should be noted that over the last five years this very successful Australian public enterprise has contributed tens of millions of dollars in social dividends to the Australian Government. It should be noted that it operates on a completely commercial basis. Those on the Opposition benches who carp about public enterprises should note that such an enterprise as this can operate on a fully commercial basis and pay very significant dividends to the Australian Govenment through the Budget. It is also very important to note that OTC is a very large scale investor in Australia. It is a very large spender on captial items and, in doing so, it keeps up with the latest technology and also aims to provide services which are both efficient and cost effective. It is noteworthy that in the year under review, 1984-85, OTC undertook a capital spending program of $80m and further committeed itself to total expenditure of $275m in capital projects over a period of years. One of the highlights of the year was the commissioning of the under-sea submarine cable between Australia and Canada. That overall project cost $400m and it was brought into operation during 1984-85. It is very important to note the section in the report which indicates that OTC committed almost $5m for local research and development in Australia in telecommunications technology in that year. There is a very big need to do such things because we are lagging badly behind other countries in research and development technology. It is very important to note that hardly any of the research and development in Australia is occurring in the private sector of the economy. Those who champion private enterprise and the private sector conveniently overlook the fact that it is a very poor performer in the area of research and development. Virtually all of Australia's research and development expenditure occurs in the public sector, either as a result directly of government or through government statutory authorities such as the OTC. One wonders what would happen if some of these vital public enterprises in our country were to be privatised. What would happen to our national research and development efforts if these organisations were sold off to private organisations? I would like to raise the question of the privatisation of OTC because I happened to read a Press release issued by the former Leader of the Opposition, the deposed Leader, Mr Peacock, on the first of this month-as recently as that-saying that the Government would review its role in the ownership of such organisations as the OTC. I wonder whether, under the new leadership, the Opposition would propose to sell off OTC. I suppose it is more likely under the current leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia, but it is very hard to tell exactly which enterprises are on its list. That fire sale list of government bodies that would be sold off at bargain basement prices seems to change almost on a daily basis. I suppose it is certainly the intention of the Opposition to sell off those which are most profitable because it would suit its arguments and the remaining public enterprises would be unprofitable, inefficient and wasteful. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is the first report from the Trade Practices Commission to come down for a long time other than over the signature of Mr Bannerman. It is worth putting on record the very distinguished career which Mr Bannerman had as the Chairman of the Trades Practices Commission, and the work which he did over many years in developing trade practices law in this country. One certainly hopes that his successor, Mr McComas, will have an equally long and distinguished career in that regard. The release of the Trade Practices Commission's annual report for 1984-85 prompts, once again, people to ask what has happened to decisions arising from the Green Paper, which is now more than 12 months old and which ought to have been addressed by now by government. There were a number of recommendations in that Green Paper, some of which excited a great deal of interest in the wider community. Some of those, particularly those relating to monopoly powers and powers to influence the market, the acquisitions section-section 50-of the Trade Practices Act and those sections of the Act dealing with consumer protection should by now have been addressed by government and the community, the business community in particular, should be in a better position to know the intentions of the Government in response to that Green Paper. Frankly, it is no good having Green Papers produced to stimulate public discussion if the sole result of them is that no decisions are made and nothing further is heard. The one case of major importance decided in the course of the year was the so-called Tradestock case. It is reported upon at length in the Commission's report. This case took 205 days of hearings spread over 17 months. At the end of that Mr Justice Franki found against the Commission on the very important question of primary boycotts. The Trade Practices Commission's report, at paragraph 2.3.10, states: . . . an immediate detriment from the decision is that it appears to have left a legal `loophole' in Part IV of the Act relating to primary boycotts. While I understand the financial implications, it is very regrettable that the Commission did not seek to challenge Mr Justice Franki's decision because, at paragraph 2.3.8, the report states that the Commission's legal advice: . . . indicated consistently that, whilst the Judge may have been wrong on various points of law central to the issues in the case, any consideration of an appeal in a case such as this must take into account the very complexity of those issues . . . Paragraph 2.3.11 states: Legal advice generally to the Commission indicated that Franki J. was probably wrong on the point whether `particular person' includes a `class of persons' . . . Those very significant parts of the law relating to primary boycotts should have been addressed on appeal. There is only one other point I shall mention arising immediately from the report and that is that I am delighted to see that the actions of the Commission against Mobil Oil Australia Ltd, heard before Mr Justice Toohey in 1981-82, about its contravention of resale price maintenance provisions in its dealings with petrol retailers, was carried through to a successful conclusion. It will be interesting to see the result of the pending case against BP Australia Ltd in New South Wales on that same matter. As somebody who was very much concerned with the passage through this place of the petroleum retail marketing franchise legislation and the associated sites legislation, I am very concerned that the intent of that legislation has been substantially evaded by major oil companies in the way in which they have operated resale price maintenance agreements to the detriment of individual small service station owners. I believe that the Trade Practices Commission has to address some of the issues raised by the Small Business Association of Australia in its request for a more accurate definition of the term `market'. I believe that in the next year it will need to address some of the issues arising from the mergers, particularly in the retail grocery industry, which are taking place at the moment and which have very considerable implications for small business and, indeed, for regional centres throughout Australia. Clearly, it gives us the opportunity, as my colleague Senator Boswell will say, to note that the strength of sections 45D and 45E in the Trade Practices Act now remains one of the few protections still available to small business. One is delighted to see that the Federal Court of Australia has not been intimidated in giving proper application to the penalty provisions arising under those sections of the Trade Practices Act. We hope that the protection offered to small business by those sections is in no way weakened. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.40) —The annual report of the Trade Practices Commission covers the very worthwhile activities of the Commission as it attempts to create the best environment for free enterprise to prosper while protecting the consumer. The chief tool of the Commission is the Trade Practices Act. In this respect, I was interested to see in the report under the heading `Substantive Amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974' that no mention was made of the Government having tried to throw out sections 45D and 45E in the dying stages of the last Parliament. These sections prevent unions from using industrial action against companies with which they are not in dispute, because doing so puts pressure on the companies or the governments with which the union is in dispute. They are reasonable laws which protect enterprise, and almost everyone in the community recognises this. Those laws have the overwhelming support of all sections of business. However, because the union movement does not like them, because they impose some responsibility and restraint on unreasonable union actions, this Government has been very reluctant to enforce sections 45D and 45E. There are a number of classic examples. One example is the deliberate union blockade of Queensland earlier this year. That was a blatant attempt to assert influence to the disadvantage of a third innocent party. The union movement cut off transport, mail services, food supplies and other essential services to the Queensland people. A clearer case of the breach of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act and the law of our land could not be found. The Federal Government then, as now in the Mudginberri dispute, refused to invoke the provisions of section 45D. Senator Button today in Question Time said that the unions should obey the law and the law should be enforced. That is good rhetoric, but we have not seen any action from the Government. In the Mudginberri dispute we have seen the same total disregard for the Trade Practices Act by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government. This morning the President-elect of the ACTU stated that because a court had enforced section 45D of the Trade Practices Act in relation to the action of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, the unions will be going on the attack with a campaign of industrial action. There could be no clearer example of the sort of union activity and attitude that the ordinary Australian no longer considers acceptable. Because the ACTU does not like a court upholding a section of the Trade Practices Act, it will launch a campaign of industrial intimidation. We have seen already the beginnings of this campaign with the pointless damaging actions of the Transport Workers Union which refuses to load any Australian beef or lamb for newly developed markets. Only five minutes ago a message came through on the Australian Associated Press wire which I believe states that the ACTU will blackmail the rural industry. The telex states: Australia's rural industry would face a national campaign of industrial action co-ordinated by the ACTU within the next two weeks. The campaign has been designed to support the Australiasian Meat Industry Employees Union in the Mudginberri dispute and to warn off employers and the National Farmers Federation from taking legal action against unions. If that is the ACTU's response, it completely underestimates the rural people of Australia and the National Farmers Federation. They will not be blackmailed and intimidated. Mudginberri is the first shot fired. I can tell the Senate now that every time a union stops trade, blockades or does anything that is irresponsible, the National Farmers Federation and the rural people will answer it in the courts of Australia under sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.44) —I deal with some aspects of the Trade Practices Commission annual report which were first raised by Senator Puplick. I am disappointed that the Commission has failed to recommend tougher legislation to deal with unnecessary mergers-for example, the Coles-Myer merger, the Bond-Castlemaine Toohey merger and other large mergers which have happened in the poultry industry and in other areas. The report states: Merger activity has been given a measure of added impetus by two particular factors: (i) the recognised and unarguable need for Australian industry to become more efficient and internationally competitive by rationalisation. . . . (ii) the cry for more deregulation and self-regulation. Those who cry loudest would have no merger control at all, but that is to go too far. Merger control under the Trade Practices Act, legally and administratively, is at the minimum, and is capable of accommodating all reasonable needs. The Commission suggests one must beware the danger of becoming too libertarian about mergers lest, in time, monopolies emerge. I think it is already probably too late to save competition in the retail industry. I would also like to refer to trade stock. The problem in that area is that the litigation is becoming so expensive that even the Government is not prepared to take on the very large corporations which have enormous legal resources and can play cat and mouse with the Government simply by entering into protracted litigation. The same type of thing is happening in the area of regulation and deregulation. Pages 23 to 25 of the report inject some sense into the debate. I quote from a section of the report which deals with the self-regulation in advertising as proposed by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations. The report states: FACTS decided to reject the Commission's terms of authorization for self-regulation and not to comply with the authorization conditions. Furthermore, FACTS no longer proposes to rely on an authorization as its new system is to be voluntary. This refers to such important areas as the advertising of alcohol and cigarettes, children's television and the Australian content of television. It is extremely important that in all these areas we should have some type of Government control. One of the matters dealt with quite effectively by the Trade Practices Commission is that of labelling. A major campaign has been set up to ensure that the `made in Australia' designation is in fact what it means and that the goods are not just packed in Australia. A number of cases have been brought against trading corporations to ensure that their labelling requirements are correct. Chapter 5 of the Trade Practices Commission report relates to consumer protection. The Commission generally has concentrated on a number of trivial issues rather than on conducting a large-scale campaign of greater significance. The most important initiative has been the undertaking of an Australia-wide survey in order to ascertain from the public those areas of consumer dealings where most of the problems occur and those which warrant the most attention from the Commission. I believe that this is a most important area for the Commission. I commend it for its attempts to handle this and to ensure that advertising is handled in a sensible way within the Australian community. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.50) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I am very interested to see a report addressing the legal needs of institutionalised people, a matter of which I have had some experience, as I shall explain in the next five minutes. I note, in looking at the foreward of this document, an explanation that the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council is required to look at the need for legal assistance in Australia, in particular in respect of Commonwealth matters. In recent years it became very clear that the provision of legal aid was not meeting all the needs of people addressing matters of State law, as well as the Commonwealth law, and to many groups in the community the definition of `need' was becoming more extensive and more obvious. So, in May 1983 the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council commissioned the Redfern Legal Centre to undertake a research project into the legal needs of institutionalised people in order to ascertain whether there are particular groups of people in institutions with significant unmet legal needs; what are the particular legal needs of institutionalised people; and how the legal needs of such people could be met efficiently and economically. The objectives of the research project generally repeat that list. They were to identify the types of legal problems; to identify barriers to access to legal services; to identify any other aspects of legal need that people might have in association with a more specific legal need; and to make recommendations about how these could be met. The research project was designed on what is called `action-based research' because the researchers felt that it would be much better to try to measure the effect of putting a piece of research into place than to make guesses about the needs of people or even to try to talk about them. They felt that in the process of action-based research they might be able to describe and elicit specific needs associated with the delivery of such services. Those who worked on the project were concerned that people cannot identify legal needs in a vacuum. Often it is not easy for people to say what they think their legal needs might be if they were ever hospitalised. But for people in hospital it is very clear. If they have a legal need they can say what it is. Of course, the action-based process might also throw up the fact that legal needs involve the identification of not only types of legal problems but also types of delivery of the legal service. For those reasons, the pilot project was based on an action-based model. It was conducted in four separate institutional settings-a repatriation hospital, a general hospital, a psychiatric hospital and three nursing homes. By and large, questionnaires were put to the patients, the workers and other care-givers and providers in those various institutions. Essentially, what emerged was that the pattern of legal problems for people in the four institutions was directly influenced by the fact of those people being institutionalised-that is, the fact that they were in hospital after an accident contributed very much to the difficulty related to their legal aid and/or their legal needs. The problems varied very much with the institutions. For example, the legal needs of people in an acute hospital very much focused on accidents or wills and estates, whereas patients in psychiatric hospitals or institutions had many more legal needs based on patients' rights requirements. In the general and repatriation hospitals the overwhelming volume of problems were in the areas of what is called traditional legal practice-wills, estates, personal injuries, workers compensation, family law and so on. In contrast, a significant proportion of the problems encountered in psychiatric hospitals were in areas requiring very special legal expertise. My experience on the Mental Health Tribunal in South Australia allows me to have a knowledge of that. In South Australia we have gone a considerable way towards addressing the specific legal needs of personal rights for people in psychiatric institutions. The problems that we encountered and the problems that the Mental Health Act addressed are highlighted by the research addressing the legal needs of people in psychiatric institutions in New South Wales where this study was done. There were other areas that we came across in the course of our work on the Mental Health Act, but I do not believe they are touched on very directly in this report. I hope that at some stage they may be taken up. They address such ethical, philosophical and legal questions as problems of sterilisation, contraceptive care, provision of abortion services and so on for young people who are principally in institutions for the mentally handicapped. That is another area which I hope the Law Council will address in the future. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under sessional orders for the consideration of Government papers has expired. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —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 CROWLEY(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders and unless otherwise ordered, the Order of Business for Thursday, 19 September 1985, be as follows: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions, discovery of Formal Business (4) Questions (5) Ministerial statements-by leave (6) Presentation of papers (7) Adjournment Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I have only today seen the Hansard for 16 September when in the adjournment debate Senator Peter Rae referred to the tabling of the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority for 1983-84. He said: It is not just the fact that it is delayed-- that is, the tabling of the report- that concerns me; it is also the fact that no one on the Government side appears to be interested in the qualifications which the Auditor-General has made about the unlawful investment of $4m. Later he said: Are we going to accept this sort of report and let it pass without comment? Then he went on to say: I have raised it and I shall now keep an eye on what happens in relation to it. As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I assure Senator Peter Rae and the Senate that I have taken action on that matter. The Committee will examine that report, its lateness and the Auditor-General's qualifications. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I thank the Senate for giving me leave and I thank Senator Coates for informing me of the steps that are being taken by the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to investigate the report that I mentioned. Senator Coates quoted some of my words. I would like to make it clear that when I referred to `the Government' I was talking about the Executive rather than honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber. I was concerned that no statement had been made at the time of tabling by the Minister responsible for the tabling, or on his behalf, in relation to that report. I am content that the matter is being taken up by what I believe to be an extremely effective committee, and therefore I will not pursue the matter further. Consideration resumed from 16 September, on motion by Senator Childs: That the report be adopted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 11 September, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the report. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Senator Colston: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.59) —I welcome the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on children's television standards. It recommends that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal should have the power to regulate effectively in the field of children's television. I brought forward a private member's Bill to do this just two days after the High Court ruled that `standards' did not extend to pre-classifying representative samples of children's programs. In fact, the way the High Court prepared itself so that a decision was handed down immediately, while the broadcasting legislation was before the Parliament, left it open to us way back in May to restore certainty to the children's television industry. However, this opportunity was not taken up by the Senate. This report makes it clear that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal should continue to pre-classify programs so that we have a pool of material suitable for showing between four and five in the afternoon each week day. The important thing is to have programming designed specifically for children between the ages of six and 13. This is the best possible investment we can make for the future. As Dr Shelley Phillips, of the Children's Program Committee, said in evidence: Six to nine years of age are crucial years for imagination and make-believe. The latter is very important in a child's intellectual and personal development. Our children spend more time watching television than they spend in school, yet very little has been done by the stations to provide them with a wholesome variety of material. In the last year the combination of the efforts of the Australian Children's Television Foundation, the section 10BA film taxation concessions, and the new drama quotas have drawn the best of our scriptwriters and film making talent into the area of children's programs. Australian programs are winning prizes and audiences overseas. It is important that they also be shown here. We must encourage this development. I now want to deal with the red herring of censorship which has been raised by sections of the commercial television industry. They and the newspaper outlets they control have cheered the decision of the High Court of Australia and warned against attempts to restore the Tribunal's authority. Yet at the same time the Commercial Acceptance Division of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations-FACTS-must clear an advertisement before it is screened. It handles its own censorship in this area. If previewing is censorship, certainly what FACTS does with advertisements is also censorship. Most of the stations also want the Film Censorship Board to classify overseas programs, as it has in the past. This is also a form of censorship. These arrangements restrict both what can be screened and when. The C classification, however, should be viewed as an opportunity for both the film making industry and the television licensees to have a guarantee that their children's programming commitments are well on the way to being met. As was stated in evidence by the Tribunal in relation to the C classification system: The system does not operate that a particular program gets classified then a licensee has to televise that program. The idea is to classify a pool of programs which are all suitable from which licensees can select those programs which best meet the needs of particular licensees. Stations such as NWS-9 in Adelaide, which has been taking full advantage of this area and offering several different types of programs in a week, have drawn a substantial viewing audience. However, those stations which have been unadventurous and have continually repeated programs have succeeded only in boring our children and that has resulted in those children turning off the programs. I think the problem is largely one of attitude. The Committee had before it an employee of a commercial station who said: Once a station has been given a `C', there is very little incentive for that station to look around and seek another formula, so it just keeps churning them out. The word `formula' says it all. It treats children as passive reagents rather than entertaining, stimulating and enlivening them with thought-provoking programs and exposing them to the beauty and mysteries of the world. For our children's sake, I would like to see the commercial television stations co-operating fully with the Children's Program Committee so that a variety of high quality programs are broadcast. I do not detect any antagonism in the Children's Program Committee's approach. It has been trying to ensure the broadcast of material that is specifically for children, rather than for family viewing. Every project that has had a provisional C classification on the basis of the script has in fact received a full C classification on completion. That will always happen provided it does not depart markedly from the thrust of the script and is not poorly made. With the talent we have in our film and television industry licensees can have confidence that their people will be able to turn a good script into a good production, made specifically for children in the six to 13-years age group, that most impressionable age. A positive attitude will lead to the nurturing of our children and greater public respect for the efforts of the commercial broadcasters. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.06) —I rise on this occasion to indicate my disagreement with the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts and, in particular, to draw attention to what I think is the increasing degree of unnecessary interference with the operation of the commercial television sector in Australia. Before I address the matter directly in terms of the recommendations of the Senate Committee and, as I understand it, the matters which the Government proposes to bring forward in legislative form, I do think it necessary to make a comment on one of the matters raised by Senator Vigor. I refer to his attempt to parallel the criticisms about potential censorship with the operation of the Commercial Acceptance Division of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, FACTS, by claiming that people had to submit their proposed advertisements to CAD and that this constituted a form of censorship. We have only just finished debating the annual report of the Trade Practices Commission for this year. If one looks at that one will see the history of the discussion between FACTS and the Trade Practices Commission in which FACTS attempted to lay down, with the Commission, a regime for its Commercial Acceptance Division which would be given recognition by being registered by the Trade Practices Commission. The Commission proposed to FACTS that in order to approve the scheme of arrangement which FACTS was proposing it would have to be satisfied that on an annual basis FACTS would enter into negotiations with the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, the Commonwealth Department of Health and, if my memory serves me correctly, the Commonwealth Department of Transport. On the basis of that requirement, FACTS declined to pursue the matter before the Commission and therefore entered into an arrangement whereby its Commercial Acceptance Division works on a purely voluntary basis. It is therefore not a form of censorship. It is not a form in which advertisers are obliged to submit their advertisements for passage through CAD but in fact is a voluntary scheme. That makes it different from the regime which has operated in the past, and I think it ought to be understood as such. If we turn specifically to the issue which lies at the heart of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, it is the question of the classification of children's television programs and it arises from the decision of the High Court of Australia in the case of Herald-Sun Television Pty Ltd and others v. the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The nub of that case was whether in fact the powers of censorship inherent in the Tribunal were questions of censorship of program standards or censorship of program conditions. No one, including the commercial broadcasters, has objected to the Tribunal having the power to set standards in terms of the quality of children's television programs. What people have objected to is the introduction and preservation within the legal framework of the sort of quota arrangements leading to the system of pre-classification of all children's television programs produced. I think that something ought to be said about children's television programs and the role of the Tribunal. Firstly, the early quality children's television programs were produced and shown on Australian commercial television before the Tribunal's regulatory system was put in place. Secondly, in a hiatus which occurred between the bringing down of this decision and the replacement of members of the Children's Television Panel, who have a responsibility, through the Australian Children's Television Foundation, for making recommendations about classifications, most of the quality children's programs which are now shown on Australian commercial television were put in place. Those programs are being broadcast now without having to have been subjected to the regime of pre-classification which is sought by this Senate Committee report and, indeed, by ministerial announcement that legislation would be enacted along these lines. The programs currently being shown were put in place without that regime having to be applied to them. Therefore, there is evidence, both in terms of the period which operated when the pre-classification system was in a state of suspension, and prior to the introduction of the pre-classification system, that quality, decent, locally-made, Australian children's television programs were just as available as those which it is alleged are supported and assisted by having the regulatory system in place. I think that we are going entirely overboard at present in the regulation of commercial television. We shall be addressed by legislation to tidy up not only this matter but also a related matter which arises from the decision of the courts in the case of Saatchi Compton Pty Ltd dealing with the quota arrangements for commercial advertisements shown on television. We are reaching a stage at which the commercial television stations are being required to live within a progressively more narrow and restricted regime of Tribunal and government-backed regulations. The effect of this is reflected in the extent to which resources within the sector are increasingly diverted into compliance with various bureaucratic requirements and bureaucratic rules, which have more to do with the philosophy of regulation than they do with the philosophy of broadcasting. When one considers the opportunities which are opening up to broadcasters with the advent of the satellite, when one considers the implications of the comments of the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, about equalisation, when one considers the problems of aggregation, and when one considers the review which is under way of the two station rule, one can see that the opportunities, in a technological sense, for broadcasting to enter into new, more diverse, more exciting areas are being held back by the progressive demands for regulation, restriction, Tribunal censorship and Children's Television Panel operations. These amount to a form of control over commercial broadcasters which I do not believe is in the interests of the viewing children, because they are protected if the standards requirement is adhered to. In other words, the programs should meet standards of decency and taste and all the rest of it. That is the protection which is properly afforded to the interests of children as television viewers. But we are progressively denying to the commercial television stations the capacity for experimentation. Who will launch into making new programs when one potentially runs foul of the regime of pre-classification by the Tribunal? The most expensive television programs to produce are children's drama programs. They cost more to produce than any other form of locally-made television content. We are putting them potentially at risk with the pre-classification system, which I believe is quite unnecessary once one has in place a standards classification system that will ensure that standards of taste, issues of violence and all the other things are properly addressed. To that extent, having read the Senate Committee report, the legal cases on the matter, the various submissions made to the Committee and the background paper of the Department of Communications which was provided to the Committee, I find myself in very strong disagreement with the Committee's recommendations. Undoubtedly, we shall have the opportunity to explore this matter further if legislation is forthcoming to put those recommendations into effect. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.16) —I welcome Senator Puplick's robust views on the third report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. I happen to be Deputy Chairman of that Committee. I was able to be fully involved in the inquiry, the report of which is before us now. I welcome Senator Puplick's remarks because I know that he, like me, on the Liberal side of the chamber, has taken a very real interest in communications matters and in ensuring that there is a growing set of good programs for Australian viewers. But I disagree with him in his assessments. One of the reasons why I welcome his putting his views is that there has been such a comparative avalanche of views in the Senate in favour of the conclusions that the Senate Committee unanimously adopted. So I look forward, as Senator Puplick has, to the debate that will be held in this chamber, and no doubt in the House of Representatives, when, as I fully expect, legislation is brought forward to put into practice the amendment to the Broadcasting and Television Act for which the Senate Committee has called. This inquiry is all about those measures which we believe will best ensure that children aged 5 to 14 in all parts of Australia will have good, constructive, entertaining programs available to them at times when they mostly watch television. All of us are greatly dismayed when we see overseas cartoons or inadequate, amateurish, cheap television programs being produced for our children to watch. In fact, it has been noted by a Senate committee in the past that on any weekday in Australia, at a little after 5 p.m., about half of all children are watching television. Senator Coates —They are not listening to Parliament. Senator TEAGUE —No, they are not listening to Parliament. They regard that as even more unattractive than the television that, particularly some years ago, was the regular diet. I for one, as a parent, in league with many other parents, have encouraged my children to be involved in their own constructive recreations and reading activities, so that they are not fed a weak diet of television. But the question is: How shall we provide for the children of Australia? What is the good deal for Australia's children? The Senate Committee, from the time I first joined it seven years ago, had an inquiry into children's television in Australia, and we brought down a substantial report. The recommendations in that report have led to the establishment of a Children's Television Foundation, which is flourishing, and which, for example, has just produced the Winners series to be broadcast over the coming months in Australia. It is a very substantial piece of children's drama which is at present the major program of the Children's Television Foundation. The Children's Program Committee was established by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to give advice and, after a public inquiry, to set standards for children's television. These standards have been published and stations have agreed to meet them. After the enormous improvement in children's television production and in the programs actually broadcast, the only matter at issue is whether there should be pre-assessment by the Tribunal of the programs that are intended to be classified C. That issue was at the nub of the inquiry and at the nub of the High Court hearings earlier this year. The High Court, after discussing the meaning of the word `standard', concluded that the Tribunal, in a technical sense, did not have the power legally to make a pre-assessment of C classified programs for children. I remind the Senate that the C classification is intended for programs shown on all television stations in Australia on weekdays during the 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. time slot. That hour is devoted exclusively to the broadcasting of C classified material. That material is intended specifically for children aged between 5 years and 14 years, but not in a general or documentary sense. It is to have an entertaining goal. It is not to be a general program that would be inoffensive for children of that age or even educational; it must be age specific and distinctly entertaining. The criteria for the C classification, expanded from the few points that I have outlined, require very careful planning by those producing films for television stations to broadcast at that time. In addition, there is a quota of eight hours of first release Australian children's drama to be classified C-that is age specific and entertaining-to be shown at the C classification time of 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. or at any other time. We are in a bind with regard particularly to the C classification for children's drama productions. Senator Puplick rightly referred to television stations being reluctant in principle to allow pre-assessment of the programs they produce. They argue that it is tantamount to censorship and they object to it as a matter of principle. On that basis, they took their case to the High Court and the High Court, I believe on a legal technicality, granted their case. That decision in turn has led us to believe that the Broadcasting and Television Act should be amended so that the pre-assessment can continue. The real reason why the television stations are opposed to the pre-assessment power of the Children's Television Committee of the Tribunal is that the amount of money outlaid in producing a program is so large that they do not want to have any risk involved in their being able to show the end product of that costly production. It may cost $150,000 an hour and even up to $750,000 an hour to produce the kind of quality children's drama that is required to meet the specification of the C classification. The television stations are saying: `We want to be able to produce such films without anyone denying us the right to show them and then, after the event, you can classify them in the C category and the repercussion for use would be that if we have not produced to the agreed standard you would then deny us our licence or restrict the period of a renewed licence'. I believe that that risk can be made reasonable by the pre-assessment system. The Committee set out in its report that this is the only way that we could ensure that these standards can be achieved. Because of the high costs involved, market forces alone would not produce the quality programs that we believe children should be able to see in Australia. So, very conscientiously, the Senate Committee has concluded that this power ought to be given to the Tribunal. The Committee has made a finding in advance of the Government introducing legislation into this chamber. In so doing, I believe that the Senate Committee has given great service to this Parliament and we might achieve a great deal for children in Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That consideration of Committee Reports pursuant to Sessional Order be not further proceeded with this day. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave, in the spirit of peace and goodwill, to recommit a motion I moved earlier this afternoon concerning the rearrangement of the order of business for tomorrow, 19 September 1985. Leave granted. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders and unless otherwise ordered, the Order of Business for Thursday, 19 September 1985, be as follows: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Questions (5) Ministerial Statements, by leave (6) Presentation of Papers (7) Adjournment. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.27) —I thank the Manager of Government Business (Senator Grimes) for seeking leave of the Senate to recommit this motion. I shall explain why I requested him to do so. Until Question Time today the Opposition was under the impression, following the discussions at the Whips meeting this morning, that the order of business tomorrow would be Estimates committees in the morning and Question Time at the usual time after lunch, with the Senate sitting in the afternoon and in a position to receive the Government's statement on taxation. At Question Time today Senator Button indicated to me that he had in mind the order of business which is now proposed in the motion moved by Senator Grimes, which has the effect of putting us on to Question Time as soon as we sit and, after a small amount of formal business, adjourning for the day for Estimates committee hearings. The net effect of that would be that the Senate would not be able to receive the Government's statement on taxation when it is put down in the other place tomorrow afternoon. As I indicated to Senator Button at the time, the Opposition is opposed to that procedure because it is the belief of the Opposition that the taxation statement, given the importance which has been attached to it by the Government and its essential involvement in the Budget process of the Government, is a statement which should be made in both Houses. In the current year we have had the unusual situation of a Budget effectively being brought down in three parts. Expenditure cuts were announced in May, general expenditure programs were indicated at the normal Budget time in August and an announcement was made at that time that a tax package would be brought into the Parliament, probably in September. I understand that that is what is proposed for tomorrow. The importance of this tax package has been emphasised by the Government. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, said just yesterday in the other place that we were about to see the largest and most significant tax reform in this country's living memory. Indeed, the Opposition has been seeking to raise in the Senate this week issues of the Government's tax package. It is worth remembering that when we raised the matter on Monday as a matter of public importance Senator Maguire, who led on behalf of the Government, said: . . . the Opposition is jumping the gun. The details of the policies on taxation and its effects are not yet known. The package has not been released and will not be released, I understand, until Thursday-- When we questioned Senator Walsh about it yesterday, he responded to Senator Sheil by saying that Senator Sheil would get his answer in about 27 hours time. We have a situation where it is clear from what has been said by government representatives and what has been printed in the media that major changes to the tax system have been proposed. We have new taxes proposed and we have alterations to the incidence of existing taxes. The simple point which the Opposition would wish to make is that in the normal course a statement of that importance should be made in both chambers so that both chambers have an opportunity to give the matter early consideration. The Government's timing with respect to the tax package may have been imposed by the difficulty it has had in trying to come to grips with the taxation issues. It has certainly changed directions frequently over the last few months and reports would suggest over the last few days and perhaps even the last few hours. But the net result of the Government's deliberations is that it is introducing what it describes as the most important tax reform package just as the Parliament is lifting for two weeks. I believe that this is calculated to reduce the opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny at a time when there will be major public interest in what the Government is proposing. The Opposition is quite dissatisfied with this and believes that the Government has an obligation to allow Parliament to share in the early consideration of these important measures. On that basis we oppose the motion which has been put forward by the Manager of Government Business. We suggest that the Government should stick to the timetable which was no more than mooted at the Whips' meeting this morning. The indication was that the Government would accommodate Estimates committees in the morning and that it would accommodate other parliamentary business in the afternoon, which would have given this Senate an opportunity to contribute to what is a fundamentally important debate. I hope that we might get some support from the Australian Democrats in this instance. The Australian Democrats have spoken a great deal about their attitude to this Parliament. I remember that they came in here a few years ago promising never to support gags or guillotines and generally to foster debate in this place. In this case if they choose to support the Government's motion, they are of course giving the most effective gag and guillotine that can be imagined-they are precluding any parliamentary debate at all on this package for at least two and a half weeks. I suggest that that is most unfortunate and it would represent a healthy step back from the principled approach to the Parliament which the Australian Democrats promised their supporters. Unless the Government is prepared to accede to the Opposition's view in the gracious way that the Minister acceded to the request that this motion be recommitted, I propose that we should divide on it. I would expect that if the Democrats still profess the principles that they professed when they were elected here-namely, a concern to have free and fair debate in this place-we would have their support. The fact of the matter is that there is probably no issue closer to the hearts and minds of the Australian people at the moment. One needs only to scan the newspapers to see that. One gets the feeling that it is as close to the hearts and minds of honourable senators opposite as it is to honourable senators here. I do believe that it is to cheapen the place of the parliamentary institution in the political life of this country to ensure, as I think the Government is trying to ensure, that the early and important debate on these measures takes place out of the Parliament. I think that is a step which is calculated to lessen the standing and the importance of the Parliament. The Opposition objects to it and believes that the Government should reconsider its proposal. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(6.35) —in reply-As to Senator Chaney's wish or hope that I and the Government might accede to his entreaties, I might add that, although I was very kind, placid and peaceful in agreeing that we should recommit this motion, my name is Grimes and not Santa Claus and I will not be acceding to the request that he made. I thank Senator Chaney for pointing out at the end of his speech that what he described at the start of his speech as an arrangement made at the Whips' meeting was something that was no more than mooted at the Whips' meeting. I have again prevailed on my colleague Senator Robertson, our Whip, that in the spirit of peace and good will he should not get up and wax indignant about what happened at the Whips' meeting this morning, which so often happens. I congratulate Senator Chaney on his speech. Over our relatively short time of about 11 years in this place we have both made speeches like that. We have both heard speeches like that from both sides of this table and I dare say we will again. But I really think it is going just a little far to suggest that in carrying out the normal procedure tomorrow, which we normally do when Senate Estimates committees are on, in not bringing the Senate back for an hour so that the document produced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tomorrow on taxes can be brought down in this place is somehow an insult and denigrating the chamber and the Parliament, is really a bit rich. In fact, what would happen tomorrow afternoon is that the statement would be put down and someone would make one speech in reply. What will happen now is that we will all actually go away and read the paper, have a couple of weeks to look at it and digest it. It will be of even greater advantage to honourable senators opposite that they will be able to assess the attitude of people in the community and then they can come back and debate it in a measured, learned, scholarly and thoughtful way. In taking these procedures, we are actually improving the standard of the debate in this place and we are giving the Opposition a chance to consider the statement properly. I will request my colleagues on this side of the House to support the motion that I have moved. I understand from Senator Chaney's statement that the Australian Democrats will be voting with us and I suppose that is that. I am not here to defend the Democrats against the vilification of Senator Chaney. Even though they are a small party, they can do that themselves. I suggest that the best thing to do is to get this matter out of the way and have the vote now. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —by leave-The only thing I wish to add to the debate is that no arrangement was made within the Whips' meeting today regarding the sittings tomorrow but an undertaking was given that the leaders were going to discuss the situation. It was my understanding that the leaders were discussing the possibility of the Senate Estimates committees sitting in the morning and in the afternoon the Senate would meet again when there would be the normal formalities such as Question Time and so on. I repeat that no arrangement was made at the Whips' meeting, but the suggestion was made that the matter should be considered by the leaders. One would have thought that this would have been a very reasonable idea because everybody-senators and the nation-is awaiting the tax paper with interest. It would have been a very good idea if the Estimates committees could have sat in the morning. The Senate could have met in the afternoon, received the tax paper and taken the matter from there. But the Senate will rise tomorrow morning at some stage and will not be able to consider the paper for some two or three weeks. That is most unusual. Quite obviously the Government is afraid to allow the Senate to consider the paper. One would have thought that it was the right of the Senate to be able to consider the tax paper. I suggest that this incident is akin to the time when the Budget was introduced. Having been introduced, the Senate rose for two weeks without giving honourable senators the opportunity to consider it within a reasonable time. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —by leave-Mr Deputy President, I wish to make a brief statement. Senator Chaney —A brief declaration of support. Senator HAINES —I am sorry, but it is not going to be a declaration of support for sitting tomorrow afternoon to discuss this paper. Senator Puplick —Thank heavens for that. I thought that you were going to go on about adhering to principles. Senator HAINES —No. I am sure the honourable senator means thank heavens because those who have not already caught their planes in the afternoon can now catch their planes home. This matter was discussed this morning in our Party room and I know that the leaders have discussed it. We do not support the idea that the Senate sit again tomorrow afternoon simply to discuss this paper, about which there has been so much speculation and discussion already. As I have explained outside the chamber to members of the other parties, the paper will be discussed fully in the House of Representatives where, as far as the Opposition parties are concerned, their point will be made rather forcefully by Mr Howard and presumably anybody else in his Party who wishes to make a point. Anything that is said in the Senate, particularly on a non-broadcast day, is superfluous. As far as we are concerned, I would have thought that there may have been some reason to have a say and to have our position made perfectly clear by putting it in Hansard. I can assure the Senate that we will see fit to make our position clear in other areas. There is absolutely no point at all in keeping the Senate back for extra time, and changing the Estimates committee arrangements, simply in order for a number of Liberal senators to grandstand on an issue that will be well covered by their colleagues in the House of Representatives. Question put: That the motion (Senator Grimes's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, MDevlin, R. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sanders, N. K. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Siddons, J. R. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Sheil, G. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Coleman, R. N. Reid, M.E. Cook, P. F. S. Messner, A. J. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator JONES(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Tate, the Chairman of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I present the eleventh report of 1985 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985, the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill 1985, the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill 1985, and the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Bill 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.50) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- CHEQUES BILL The purpose of the Bill I introduce today is to provide a separate law on cheques. The Government foreshadowed its intention to introduce this legislation when it released a draft Cheques Bill for public comment in February 1984. The law on cheques is presently governed substantially by the Bills of Exchange Act 1909 which also regulates the law relating to other negotiable instruments such as bills of exchange and promissory notes. Essentially, the Bill will revise the provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act applicable to cheques, effectively confining the operation of the Act to bills of exchange other than cheques. The Bill will also clarify the law on cheques in certain areas of existing uncertainty and make a number of substantive changes to that law. However, the new legislation will not alter the fundamental legal character of cheques. In conjunction with the present Bill, I will be introducing a Bill to amend the Bills of Exchange Act making certain changes to the Act that are largely consequential upon the introduction of the Cheques Bill. Background The Bills of Exchange Act is modelled on the United Kingdom Bills of Exchange Act of 1882. The only amendment of the Australian Bills of Exchange Act of any substance-made by the Bills of Exchange Amendment Act 1971-reduced the need for endorsement of order cheques lodged by payees with their banks for collection. Thus, the present law on cheques in Australia effectively dates back over 100 years. Some of the more important changes the Bill will make to the law on cheques are based on recommendations of a committee, chaired by the late Mr Justice Manning of the New South Wales, Supreme Court, which reviewed the Bills of Exchange Act. The Manning Committee was appointed by the then Government in 1962 to examine, among other things, the provisions of the Act and to recommend any amendments to the Act it considered desirable. The most important recommendation of the Committee, which reported in 1964, was that there should be separate legislation dealing with cheques. This recommendation was based on the following factors: Since the enactment of the Bills of Exchange Act, the use of cheques had increased enormously compared with other bills of exchange considerable confusion and uncertainty had developed in relation to the law on cheques because that law and the law on other bills had become intertwined under the Bills of exchange Act the law on cheques had assumed great importance to a large number of people, whereas the law relating to other bills of exchange was of significance to comparatively few people. The Bill represents reform of a very technical area of the law. Possibly for this reason, previous governments did not accord its enactment a sufficiently high priority. It gives me considerable pleasure, therefore, to introduce this Bill today after many years of relative inactivity on the part of previous governments. Public Consultation Prior to the public exposure of the draft Bill from February to May 1984, discussions on the legislation were held over several years with the Australian Bankers Association, the Australian Merchant Bankers Association, the Commercial Law Association and the Law Council of Australia. In the pre-exposure period, comments were also sought from the States and the Northern Territory, as well as the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies and the Australian Association of Credit Union Leagues, as well as the relevant trade union organisations. The purpose of calling for comment was to give the public, including the general business community-the people who write and receive most cheques-the opportunity to participate in this important reform of the law. The public exposure period also gave the legal and banking professions, which had already been consulted, the chance to make further comments. A number of changes have been made to the exposure draft of the Bill in the light of submissions received and I will mention some of the more important changes shortly. Implications of the Bill for the Domestic Payment System It has been suggested at various times in the course of preparation of the Bill that it should perhaps be deferred until there has been a broader consideration of the payment system and its legislative framework. The proponents of this view have, essentially, two concerns. The first concern is that any legislation that deals with an aspect of the payment system (such as the Cheques Bill) should regulate the rights and obligations of users and providers of electronic funds transfer systems. The second concern is that the formulation of the Bill should take account of any government decision on the access of non-bank financial institutions to the cheque clearing system. Electronic Funds Transfer Systems On 25 June 1984, the Treasurer announced the establishment of an inter-departmental working group to consider the consumer protection aspects of the development of electronic funds transfer systems in Australia and to advise whether supervisory arrangements (including legislation) are necessary. The Government considers that it would be premature to make any decision regarding legislation on EFTS until receipt of the Working Group's recommendations. In any case, even if legislation on EFTS is recommended in the future, it can be expected to be considered separately from the cheques legislation. This Bill is concerned with the cheque as a negotiable instrument, whereas EFTS is, of course, a system for moving money by means of electronics. Two fundamentally different means of achieving a transfer of funds are therefore involved. Access to the Cheque Processing System by Non-bank Financial Institutions The Treasurer's Press release of 25 June 1984 also advised of the establishment of the Australian Payments System Council. One of the important matters referred by the Treasurer to the Council was the question of access by non-bank financial institutions to the cheque clearing system. In the course of its deliberations, the Council examined existing commercial arrangements between certain banks and non-bank financial institutions whereby customers of non-bank financial institutions are able to issue cheques drawn on banks with whom the non-bank financial institutions have accounts. Several problems were identified with these arrangements in the context of the operation of the present law. I am pleased to be able to tell honourable senators that the Bill has been amended in several important respects to meet these problems. The Council has submitted its report to my colleague, the Treasurer, and consideration is currently being given to the need for further changes to be made to the Bill to confer certain protections and impose certain obligations on non-bank financial institutions along the lines of those applicable under the Bill to banks. I stress that the provisions in the Bill which affect non-bank financial institutions in no way pre-empt any future decision that may be taken by the Government on the question of access by non-bank financial institutions to the cheque clearing system. Future decisions on the access question will be taken by the Government when the consideration of this matter has been finalised. Vesting and Access of Paid Cheques Clause 68 of the Bill makes provision with respect to how paid cheques are to be dealt with. The basic thrust of the clause is that, when a cheque is paid by the drawee bank, the drawee bank has the right to possession of the cheque. This approach basically follows that taken in the Bills of Exchange Act. However, this right that the drawee bank has will not disturb the common law principle that the ownership in a paid cheque vests in the drawer of the cheque. This common law rule is preserved by virtue of sub-clause 4 (2) of the Bill. It has been proposed that the ownership of paid cheques should vest in the drawee bank. On the other hand, it has also been suggested by interest groups (notably local government associations) that cheques issued by such groups should be exempt from this requirement on the basis that those groups need to have access to their own cheques for audit purposes. The Government has considered a submission from the Treasurer on certain recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission relating, among other things, to banking controls, including those relating to the retention of banking records. In response to this, a working group of officials was established from interested Departments and agencies under the chairmanship of a Treasury officer to consult, as necessary, with State authorities and the industry and to advise the Treasurer as to what action may be practical and appropriate with respect to those recommendations. The working group, which reported to my colleague, the Treasurer, in July this year, considered the question of the vesting and acces of paid cheques. The Government will be in a position to make a decision on the paid cheques issue when it has fully examined the working group's recommendations. The Government considers, therefore, that it would be premature to deal in the Bill with the question of access to, and vesting of, paid cheques other than by preserving the legal status that paid cheques currently enjoy. Again, I stress that the present provisions in no way pre-empt the Government's future consideration of this issue. Changes Resulting from Exposure of Draft Bill A number of changes have been made to the draft Bill following its exposure for public comment in February last year. Some of the more important of these changes are summarized as follows: the insertion of sub-clause 6 (2) which ensures that certain rights and obligations under the Bill cannot be altered by agreement. the deletion of certain provisions contained in the exposure draft of the Bill requiring a notice of dishonour to a drawer or indorser of a cheque before the drawer or indorser could be regarded as being liable on the cheque. a general revision of the provisions in the Bill dealing with material alterations. These, and other amendments to the Bill, reflect the Government's willingness to seek and, where appropriate, to accept suggestions for changes from interested bodies in the course of the finalization of the Bill. A comprehensive list of these changes is contained in an attachment to the Explanatory Memorandum on the Bill. The Banker-Customer Relationship The Bill does not deal in detail with the relationship between banker and customer. Although the release of the exposure draft of the Bill prompted some calls for comprehensive coverage of this subject in the Bill, it has been decided that codification of the common law is not at this point justified in this area. The Bill does, however, deal with the banker-customer relationship in certain limited respects. For example, the Bill imposes a duty on banks to present cheques promptly and to pay or dishonour cheques promptly. Banks will be liable to the holders of cheques for breach of this duty. Content of Bill Some of the more important features of the Bill which I will now outline represent, in my view, significant advances in the law on cheques. Definition of `Bank' The Bill departs from the approach of the Bills of Exchange Act in its definition of `bank' in sub-clause 3(1). In the Act, the defined term is `banker' and it includes any incorporated or unincorporated body which carries on the business of banking. Because the term `business of banking' is undefined, there is, in the Australian context, some uncertainty surrounding the proper interpretation of the word `banker'. This led to the possibility (recognized by some writers) that various corporations authorized under the Banking Act 1959 to carry on the business of banking would not be bankers for the purposes of the Bills of Exchange Act. Conversely, a person could be a banker for the purposes of that Act while carrying on business in contravention of the Banking Act. The Bill seeks to overcome this problem by defining the term `bank' and limiting it to the Reserve Bank, banks within the meaning of the Banking Act, State banks and persons who carry on the business of banking outside Australia. Alteration of Rights, Duties and Liabilities of Persons in Relation to Cheques One of the most important provisions of the Bill is clause 6 which provides that, subject to certain specified exceptions, nothing in the Bill will prevent two or more persons from altering by agreement their rights, duties and liabilities in relation to one another under the Bill. An agreement between two parties cannot, of course, affect the rights, duties and liabilities of a third party. But there are important exceptions to this general principle. The provisions of the Bill that may not be altered by agreement will ensure, in particular, that the crucial legal features of the concept of a cheque may not be altered. Transferability of Cheques One of the underlying philosophies of the Bill, which is reflected in clause 39, is that every cheque should be capable of being transferred by negotiation until it is discharged. This provision will have effect notwithstanding: (a) any agreement between the parties to the cheque; (b) anything on the face of the cheque, for example, words indicating an intention that the cheque not be transferred such as `pay X only'; and (c) the crossing of the cheque. Clause 39 changes the existing law in this area as section 13 of the Bills of Exchange Act makes it clear that a bill of exchange (which includes a cheque) may be made non-transferable. The inclusion of this clause is considered desirable for the following reasons: the holder of a cheque has always had the right to negotiate or transfer his cheque instead of paying it to the credit of his own account crossed cheques are the medium used for making many types of payment some people without such accounts find it convenient to cash cheques, for example, with shopkeepers or people who provide similar services. The provision also gives effect to a recommendation of the Manning Committee. Crossing of Cheques The crossing of cheques will be simplified and standardized by clauses 53 to 57 of the Bill. Nothing on the face of a cheque will be effective as a crossing except: (a) 2 parallel transverse lines; or (b) 2 parallel transverse lines with the words `not negotiable' placed either completely or substantially between the lines. Although crossings other than those just referred to will not be effective as crossings, this does not mean that a bank will be able to totally disregard a non-permissible crossing if the words of the crossing, either alone or in conjunction with other circumstances known to the bank, are sufficient to put the bank on inquiry. For example, the words `Account Payee Only' will not make a cheque non-transferable but a court might well hold that a collecting bank (not `drawee' bank as was inadvertently referred to in the Second Reading Speech of the Attorney-General) was negligent in not considering the implications of those words in paying a cheque to someone other than the original payee. Truncation of Cheques Probably the most significant feature of the Bill is the presentment provisions which will enable the `truncation' of cheques. Under sub-clause 62 (2), a bank will be able to present a cheque for payment by physically presenting the cheque or by employing any other means to effect presentment. There is no restriction on the `other means' that may be used for presentment. Thus, the demand could be made, for example, by exhibition of a facsimile copy of the cheque, transmission of a copy of the cheque or transmission of particulars of the cheque by electronic means. It is clearly desirable for the means that may be used to effect presentment to be left completely open in view of the advances in banking practice in recent times. Although the collecting bank will be able to choose any means to effect presentment of a cheque, the means chosen by the bank will be one of a number of factors to be taken into account in determining whether it has fulfilled its duty under clause 66 to present the cheque `as soon as is reasonably practicable'. Sub-clause 62 (3) of the Bill provides that, where the cheque is not delivered to the drawee bank, the demand for payment of the cheque will have to identify the cheque with reasonable certainty and be in a form that is intelligible to, or readily decipherable by, the drawee bank. It will also be possible for a bank to designate, by notice published in the Gazette, a place for the purpose of presenting cheques or for the giving or receiving of further particulars to facilitate the payment of cheques. The changes in the area of presentment of cheques have been made specifically to take account of developments in technology by en- abling cheques to be presented for payment by transmission of particulars without physical movement of the cheque itself. This method of `presentment by particulars' will speed up transactions and enable the faster clearance of cheques. Needless to say, this will provide benefits not only to banks but also to the general cheque-issuing public. Dishonour of Cheques The most significant aspect of the provisions in the Bill dealing with dishonour is that the drawee bank must pay or dishonour a cheque promptly. Sub-clause 67 (1) of the Bill imposes a duty on the drawee bank to either pay or dishonour a cheque presented to it `as soon as is reasonably practicable'. If it fails to do so, the bank may not dishonour the cheque and is liable to pay the amount of the cheque to the holder. It has been decided not to impose an arbitrary standard time limit for the payment or dishonour of cheques, firstly, because such a limit may not always be appropriate in the future given technological developments in communication and, secondly, because arbitrary time limits could be too onerous in certain cases. Material Alteration The provisions in the Bill relating to the material alteration of cheques represent an important change of approach from the corresponding provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act. Section 69 of the Act provides, among other things, that where a bill of exchange is materially altered without the assent of all parties liable on the bill, the bill is `avoided'. The section also specifies the instances where alterations will be regarded as `material'. The problem with enumerating the circumstances in which an alteration of a cheque is to be regarded as material is that it is virtually impossible to provide an exhaustive list of these circumstances. Any such enumeration could, therefore, result in anomalies as it may be that, in a particular case, an alteration (such as that to the date of a cheque) should not be regarded as material. Basically, an alteration will be material, under sub-clause 3 (8) of the Bill, if it has the effect of altering the rights, duties or liabilities of the drawer, indorser or drawee bank in respect of the cheque. This test is well supported by authority and it is considered that a general guiding principle in determining material alterations is preferrable to the enumeration of a miscellany of separate instances. The new test should also overcome difficulties that the present law produces and that have been evidenced by recent judicial decisions. Standard of Care for Application of Protective Provisions to Paying Banks At present, the Bills of Exchange Act, with one exception, requires a paying bank to act in `good faith and in the ordinary course of business' if it is to have the benefit of the protective provisions contained in the Act. The exception is section 86 which requires a bank to act in `good faith and without negligence' in the payment of crossed cheques. The latter standard has been adopted in all the protective provisions contained in the Bill that apply to paying banks because the existing law has the effect that a drawee bank may act negligently so long as it is in the ordinary course of business to do so. It is clearly in accordance with the modern concept of `duty of care' that banks be required to act without negligence in all cases. Other Significant Features of the Bill There are several other features of the Bill which deserve brief mention: sub-clause 3 (5) of the Bill will extend by three months the period during which the cheque operates as a valid mandate to the drawee bank. A cheque will now not become stale until fifteen months after the date upon which it is drawn where a cheque inconsistently describes the sum ordered to be paid (because the words and figures used express different amounts) the cheque will be deemed to be an order to pay the smaller of the two sums mentioned. This is provided in clause 15. Previously, where the two differed, effect was given to the words expressing the sum to be paid and the figures were ignored clause 16 of the Bill will clarify the status of post-dated cheques to ensure their validity as cheques where they meet all other necessary criteria. Under the Bills of Exchange Act, it was unclear whether a post-dated cheque was in fact a valid cheque under clause 17 of the Bill, it will not be possible for the drawer to limit his liability on a cheque. In this respect, the Bill equates the drawer of a cheque with the acceptor of a bill of exchange and ensures the drawer's primary liability on the cheque clause 5 will provide that, with certain specified exceptions, the provisions of the Bill apply to `bank cheques' and `bank drafts' clause 98 will give legal effect to the established practice of affixing a signature on a cheque by stamp or by mechanical means clause 91 of the Bill will provide that where a cheque is fraudulently altered so as to increase the amount of the cheque, the alteration is the only material alteration made fraudulently and the drawee bank pays the cheque in good faith and without negligence, the bank will be able to debit the drawer's account for the original amount of the cheque. Financial Impact Statement The Cheques Bill is concerned with the law relating to cheques. It will not provide for any additional powers and controls to be vested in any public official. The Bill will, therefore, have no impact on Government revenues. I commend the Cheques Bill to the Senate. BILLS OF EXCHANGE AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The purpose of the Bill I introduce today, in conjunction with the Cheques Bill 1985, is to amend the Bills of Exchange Act 1909. The Bills of Exchange Act substantially governs the law in Australia relating to bills of exchange, including cheques and promissory notes. Upon enactment of the Cheques Bill, the law relating to cheques will be governed by that Bill. The Cheques Bill and the Bill to amend the Act will have the combined effect of confining the application of the Act to bills of exchange other than cheques. This Bill to amend the Bills of Exchange Act will also revise certain provisions of the Act to either mirror similar provisions in the Cheques Bill or give effect to recommendations of the 1964 Manning Committee Report on the Act. Content Of Bill The more significant provisions of the Bill are as follows: Act not to apply to cheques The Bill will insert a provision into the Act to provide, in effect, that the Bills of Exchange Act will not apply to cheques drawn on or after the date of commencement of the Cheques Bill. However, the Bill will also provide that cheques drawn before that date will continue to be governed by the Act. Clarification of Certain Expressions in Section 14 of the Act To be a valid bill of exchange, a bill must, among other things, be expressed to be payable for a sum certain in money. The provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act which relate to what constitutes a `sum payable' and a `sum certain' by a bill of exchange will be expanded and clarified to accord with current commercial practice and to bring the provisions into line with the Cheques Bill. Thus, a bill of exchange will be valid even though it is expressed to be payable for an amount plus bank charges. The possibility of an injustice being caused under the present provisions of the Act to a drawer of a bill of exchange who makes an error when writing in the sum payable will be removed by the insertion of a new provision which provides that, where more than one sum is expressed to be payable in a bill, the lesser or least of the amounts so specified will be taken to be the operative amount. This provision will mirror a provision in the Cheques Bill and give effect to a recommendation of the Manning Committee. Extension of Time in Relation to Noting of Bills In the case of certain bills of exchange, evidence may be required to indicate that notice of dishonour has been given in relation to the bill. This evidence is provided by noting or protesting the bill. As the noting or protesting of a bill involves compliance with certain formalities and there are, as the Manning Committee noted, occasions when considerable technical difficulties have been experienced in complying with the relevant requirements, the time allowed for noting a bill will be extended from 24 to 48 hours after its dishonour. Moreover, a bill which has been returned by post dishonoured will be able to be protested not later than the next business day after the day of its return. These changes will introduce more flexibility in the noting and protesting of bills of exchange and, again, will give effect to a recommendation of the Manning Committee. Expansion of Provisions Dealing with Replacement of Lost or Destroyed Bills The provisions in the Bills of Exchange Act dealing with the replacement of lost or destroyed bills will be revised to bring them into line with the provisions in the Cheques Bill dealing with the replacement of lost or destroyed cheques. These changes will also give effect to a recommendation of the Manning Committee. The current provisions in the Act authorise the person who was the holder of a bill which has been lost or destroyed before it is overdue to apply to the drawer to give him another bill of the same tenor. The holder may be required to give security to the drawer as an indemnity in case a lost bill is found. This provision was criticised by the Manning Committee on the basis that it did not give equivalent rights against the acceptor or any indorser of the bill. This defect has been rectified by a new provision to be inserted into the Act by the present Bill. The new section will make detailed provision with respect to the method by which a request for a replacement bill may be made. Under the new provisions, the request must: (i) be in the form of a notice in writing; (ii) be served either personally or by post on the drawer; (iii) clearly identify the original bill; and (iv) contain sufficient information to enable the drawer to draw a new bill. The new provision will also specify certain time limits within which a drawer will be required to provide a replacement bill. Similar time limits will apply to an acceptor or an indorser of a bill in relation to the acceptance or indorsement of the replacement bill. Financial Impact Statement The Bill will not provide for any additional powers and controls to be vested in any public official and will, therefore, have no impact on Government revenues. I commend the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.51) —This evening I wish to speak briefly on the Federal Government's decision to incorporate the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases as stage 3 of the Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. Already stages 1 and 2 of the Kakadu National Park take in approximately 12,730 square kilometres. The incorporation of these pastoral leases-that is, Gimbat and Goodparla-would add another 6,726 square kilometres to the park. I am not opposed to the creation of national parks in the Northern Territory or, for that matter, anywhere in Australia. I would be among the first to acknowledge their great potential for bringing in tourist dollars. But, more important is our responsibility to conserve national parks for the present generation and for future generations. We have a considerable responsibility to carry out an adequate stewardship. However, in the case of stage 3 of Kakadu it is difficult to justify the addition of these two pastoral leases to the existing park, given that there is very little within either of the two pastoral leases which is not already represented in stages 1 and 2. The proclamation of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases as additional areas for inclusion in the Kakadu National Park seems to be more for Federal control than conservation purposes. There is no question about the need to arrange for the conservation of further land in the Territory but I believe it must be done in a rational manner having regard to achieving a balance of developments in each region. It is becoming clear that the Alligator Rivers region is contributing a maximum proportion of its land to national park use and, as things stand, it is of great concern to many people in the Territory that this is causing the sterilisation of regional resources. It is important to recognise that both Gimbat and Goodparla have potential for multiple land use pursuits, some of which could be commenced immediately and others which would require further investigation. This is not to say that there are no pieces of land on the leases that require conservation for park or recreational use but simply that, following the initial and illogical north-south, east-west pastoral decisions, is perpetrating errors that the Territory needs corrected. The Gimbat and Goodparla leases have a high potential for tourism and recreation. I believe that this potential can be best realised without the encumbrance of a national park status over the whole area, having in mind the huge area of Kakadu National Park. The lessee of Gimbat has already introduced controlled access through Gimbat and has proposed the establishment of significant tourist facilities and controlled safari hunting. The development of facilities to promote recreational needs embodying outdoor experience is considered most appropriate and tourist development within both Gimbat and Goodparla could alleviate certain pressures on Kakadu National Park itself. The two pastoral leases form part of the uranium-gold province of the Alligator Rivers region and are considered highly prospective for copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, uranium, tin and tungsten. Recently, a major gold discovery was made at Coronation Hill on the Gimbat lease. The deposit at Coronation Hill has characteristics similar to the very large deposit at Kidston in north Queensland. Forecast annual revenue is of the order of $100m. This project will generate some 200 permanent jobs, and arguably, more than 500 jobs downstream in the work force. It is my concern that the Federal Government may ignore the potential of this area, which is proposed to be declared part of Kakadu National Park, and proceed with the declaration. There seems to be every indication that that will happen soon. If that happens, there is no guarantee that the mineral exploration leases which have already been granted over the area will be of any value. I ask the Government to take heed of the fact that there are legislative difficulties in providing for mining areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The Federal Government has shown no intention of introducing special legislation to facilitate the continuing operation of the present exploration leases. Nor has the Federal Government given any commitment to permit the granting of further exploration of the area, despite the fact that the whole area to be declared is highly prospective for gold, base metals and other minerals. I ask the Government to look at this matter. I ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to guarantee that the development of the ore body discovered at Coronation Hill will be allowed to proceed, given that the ore is on Commonwealth land. I have indicated its potential value and its employment possibilities. If the Minister can guarantee that development, under what legislation will it be allowed to proceed? If it is not allowed to proceed under existing legislation, is it the Government's intention to legislate to allow development to proceed? Given that the whole area proposed to be declared a national park is highly prospective for gold, base metals and other minerals, is it the Government's intention to permit further exploration outside the existing mineral leases? I believe that this matter is extremely important. This is another project that can bring about the development of the north in the areas of population and capital outlays. I hope that the Federal Government will provide the answers to some of these questions, and also indicate whether compensation will be paid to the developers who, in good faith, have outlayed vast amounts of money exploring for minerals, and even finding them, only to face the prospect of being refused permission to mine them. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.58) —Tonight I desire to raise three interwoven matters concerning relationships between Australia and Indonesia. They are matters of concern to the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International. They indicate, at least in two instances, that the Government of this country is not prepared to stand up and be counted in regard to certain matters of concern to us. I will try to deal as briefly as possible with these matters. The first matter, about which no criticism can be levelled at the Government, concerns a newspaper article written by Ian Davis two days ago entitled `Indons Execute Political Activists'. The article states that three remaining persons of the five who were threatened with execution after being in goal for a long period have now been executed by the Indonesian Government. In fact, the three political prisoners in question had been kept in goal for almost 20 years. The report states: The three were executed despite Australian Government requests that the death penalties not be carried out in view of the long jail terms already served. It was the approach not only of Amnesty International but also of our country that capital punishment is an undesirable course of action. In this case there is a double penalty. These people-men in their sixties-who were in goal for 20 years, have at last been executed by the Indonesian Government. I find this deplorable. Representations have been made by me, the Amnesty organisation and by the Australian Government in respect of this matter. On 30 May 1985 I wrote to Mr August Marpaung, the Ambassador of Indonesia in Canberra, and complained about this matter in the terms which I have already mentioned. I have not had the courtesy of any reply from Mr Marpaung. I also wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) pointing out the concern of the Parliamentary Amnesty Group and enclosing the Press statement from Amnesty International in which, among other things, it states: The recent executions of PKI prisoners were the first in more than 10 years and took place despite informal assurances to other governments in 1980 and 1984 by the Indonesian authorities that no prisoners accused of involvement in the attempted coup would be put to death. That referred to prisoners who had earlier been killed and now three more have been put to death. The statement continues: Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases as a violation of the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and the right to life as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thus Amnesty also made this protest. I believe the Australian Government also made a similar protest but the result has been that it has been entirely ignored by the Indonesian Government which has used this double penalty on prisoners. This must be of concern to us as a neighbour of Indonesia. The second matter I wish to refer to does involve criticism of this Government. I refer to the problem which has arisen with East Timor. It is a long-standing problem. I think I can safely say that all governments over the last 10 years have had a very sorry record in regard to the claims, particularly the human rights claims, made about this area. East Timor is close to this country and we have obligations to those people following their war-time services for our country. We have let them down very badly over the years. We have taken a number of them into our country, which is at least something that can be said. But we have been pusillanimous in our attempts to uphold their rights throughout that period. What is worse is that this year Amnesty International has issued a report which sets out a record of the human rights disgraces of the Indonesian Government over the past 10 years. :That report, and other matters related to it, has been sought to be discussed by National Amnesty with the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden. But apparently he is unable to see anyone at any time during this year. When these Amnesty International representatives go to see officers of his Department they are told that the departmental officers are not in a position to make decisions and that they must await Mr Hayden's decision. It is outrageous that at no stage during this year, 1985, will the Foreign Minister be able to meet and discuss the human rights allegations. I am not talking about other matters which are of significance such as the question of the takeover of the country, the right to an act of a free choice and whether anything can be done about that. I am speaking about disgraceful behaviour towards people inside that country, as pointed out in that report which is based on fact. Yet the Foreign Minister has declined throughout 1985 to discuss their plight with Amnesty. We in Amnesty find this extraordinary behaviour. I have put on notice various questions that the Amnesty organisation wants asked and I hope that the Foreign Minister will see fit to answer them soon. But that is no excuse or solution to the problem, which is the desire of Amnesty International to discuss with the Foreign Minister these very important allegations. That is the second allegation. The third matter, to which I wish to devote most of my time, relates to the five Irian Jayan refugees who are now held on Thursday Island. There has been a great deal of obfuscation and there are mistakes in the statements made about these people. A suggestion has been made that they are the forefront of some great flood of people into this country. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hurford, has gone on record as indicating, in the most outrageous terms, I believe, his desire that they should not stay here as it may upset the Indonesian Government and his intention to send them to some other country, which is something he cannot do, as I understand it, under the terms of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or even the Migration Act of this country. The fact is that we have five men who have not just travelled a few miles across the water, as has been said, but have travelled hundreds of miles through jungle to get away from persecution. In fact, one could say that they were in fear of death. The Melanesian people of Irian Jaya do have this fear. I understand that they are deeply religious men. They have come this distance and at the moment are held while the Australian Government decides its course of action. I will go on to show that the Australian Government is adopting a very curious course in these matters. In coming to a conclusion on this matter, I refer honourable senators to a report by Paul Kelly in the Australian of 17 September headed `Hawke puts Jakarta first in refugee row'. I think that is very much what has happened. He has determined that he will not have any trouble with Indonesia by giving any credence or any possible acceptance to the refugee status which these people seek. The article states: Acknowledging the imperatives of Indonesian and PNG sovereignty, Mr Hawke said that Australia's interests were also involved. Australia's position, in private rather than in public, is that PNG's relations with Indonesia must prevail over sympathy for the ethnic Melanesian people of Irian Jaya. The view towards Indonesia is that caution should accompany the far-reaching trans-migration program which is one of the most significant movements of people in Australia's part of the world for decades. Indeed it is. One sees developing an enormous transfer of Javanese people into lands held for many centuries by Melanesian people, forcing them out. There are many examples that we know of, from what has been reported, of deaths and the fleeing of some 8,000 or 9,000 people across the border into Papua New Guinea. The Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, Hon. Bill Morrison, comes into the picture. He has just completed a visit to Irian Jaya lasting 10 days and has made statements about the Free Papua Organisation. He has expressed views critical of it. I read the news release that Mr Michael Hodgman, MP, issued the other night about Mr Morrison's intervention. He said: The Ambassador is behaving like an appeasing apologist for Indonesia. He should be told bluntly that his job is to represent Australia-not to behave like a lap-dog for Indonesia. I think Mr Hodgman was a little mild in his language when referring to Mr Morrison because, in my opinion, Mr Morrison has for years been not a lapdog but nothing more or less than a spokesman for Indonesia. It is an outrage that our country should be represented in Indonesia by one who is really a friend and supporter of the dictators who control that country. His views should not be heard in Papua New Guinea, out of his own range of territory, anyway. Be that as it may, at a Presss conference in Papua New Guinea, Mr Hawke reaffirmed Australia's policy on the five West Irianese who came directly to Australia last June and applied for refugee status. He said: They are not getting refugee status. I want to make it quite clear as far as Australia is concerned we do not want to see any exodus of West Irianese into Australia. I am saying that that is a breach of our obligations. I refer to Cabinet decisions which are in breach of our obligations under international covenants. It is also in breach of our Migration Act. Finally, these decisions are racist because they are based on the fact that these people are Irian Jayan residents and therefore by reason of law are deemed not to be allowed in. We have a recognised system in this country whereby people are brought before the Determination of Refugee Status Committee in which arguments on refugee status are considered. Here we have the Prime Minister of this country trying to king-hit and decide this matter in advance before any evidence has been called or determined. He went on to say: I want to make it quite clear as far as Australia is concerned we do not want to see any exodus of West Irianese into Australia. Mr Kelly's report continues: The Australian Government is anxious to signal that its own territory cannot be seen as an ultimate haven for either genuine refugees or OPM sympathisers. It want to cut off any such interest in Australia before it takes hold. It is clear from the material I have, including a very substantial brief supplied to me by the solicitor for these people, that they are not OPM people; they are genuine refugees who have come to this country because of a state of fear and we should treat them in the way we normally treat people and not prejudge them in this way. I have been involved in this matter for some time, and as Chairman of the Parliamentary Amnesty Group I wrote to the Hon. Chris Hurford after he made the statement that they would be sent to some other country, perhaps to a cold climate, and some other offensive remarks he made. To save time, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my letter of 31 July 1985 and the Minister's reply of 28 August 1985. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA-THE SENATE OFFICE OF SENATOR ALAN MISSEN SENATOR FOR VICTORIA COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT OFFICES 400 FLINDERS STREET MELBOURNE, VIC. 3000 Telephone: 62 2521 31st July 1985 The Hon. Chris Hurford, MP Minister for Immigration &Ethnic Affairs Parliament House CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Sir, Re: Five Refugees from Irian Jaya My attention has been drawn to your statement reported in the Age of the 30th July 1985 and earlier, whereby you indicated that you were ruling out permanent residence status for the five men who have come to Thursday Island from Irian Jaya. It has been pointed out to me that such a claim based upon their race would appear to be a breach of Articles 5 and 1, paragraph 3 of the International Convention on Racial Discrimination because it specifically specifies their race as a determinant. It also seems to me to be contrary to justice that such a determination should be made prior to proper consideration of the reasons for their coming and the dangers imposed upon them should they have to return. I have had correspondence with the Foreign Minister, and I will send a copy of this letter to him, about the problems of border crossers and refugees from Irian Jaya. I believe this is a very serious problem and, although the Australian Government has done something, it has tended to sheer away from the responsibility for this area. I am not satisfied that your action does other than to cause embarrassment to this country by prematurely determining an attitude against these five men. Yours sincerely, Alan Missen Senator of Victoria C.C. Hon. W. G. Hayden Minister for Foreign Affairs M. Clothier MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ETHNIC AFFAIRS The Hon. Chris HURFORD, M.P. Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 251982 28 August 1985 Senator Alan Missen Senator for Victoria Commonwealth Parliament Offices 400 Flinders Street MELBOURNE, VIC. 3000 Dear Alan Thank you for your letter of 31 July 1985 in which you express your interest in the situation of the five Irian Jayans presently on Thursday Island. As you are aware, I announced on 17 July 1985 that the Government would not, as a matter of policy, grant permanent resident status to any of the five. In your letter you allege that the Government's decision is in breach of the International Convention on Racial Discrimination. I am afraid I cannot agree. The policy I announced applies to anyone who could make such easy entry to Australia and undermine the integrity of our migration policies. Each of the five has made an application for refugee status; these applications are individually under consideration by my Department. Should the Determination of Refugee Status Committee recommend that the five be awarded refugee status, I have decided that they will be regarded as refugees temporarily in this country until a permanent solution can be found for them. My statements do not in any way predetermine the outcome of the Committee's deliberations: in deciding who is a refugee and who is not, you may be assured that normal procedures will be followed. In all of the circumstances, I believe that this is the only responsible approach open to me. In coming to this decision, I have weighed up the many implications involved. I am firmly of the opinion that a potentially damaging precedent may be set if we are not able to control direct arrivals on our shores and if we seem to be willing to accept permanently all those who can arrive so easily from our near neighbours. At the same time, you may be assured that in accordance with Australia's humanitarian obligations under the United Nations Convention and Protocol the interests of the individuals concerned will be full protected. PS. We're following well established international practice. For instance, Ian McPhee, in advocating the policy we've adopted, drew attention to the Austrians seeking third country resettlement of Poles! Yours sincerely CHRIS HURFORD In the reply the Minister said that the people would be regarded as refugees only temporarily. He said: My statements do not in any way predetermine the outcome of the Committee's deliberations: in deciding who is a refugee and who is not, you may be assured that normal procedures will be followed. I do not accept that assurance. I do not believe that the facts show that that has been done. In a footnote to that letter is a reference to Mr Macphee. I have every reason to believe that Mr Macphee does not approve of the course of action which has been taken by the Government in this regard, or of some things that have been done. The position as I see it, and as I am informed by the solicitor for the parties concerned, is that the Cabinet made a decision on this matter very early in the piece. The Cabinet decision was made on 17 July 1985 and it was made rather hurriedly. The Cabinet decision was that these five people would not be granted refugee status at all. I call on the Government to produce the minutes of that Cabinet meeting. As I have said, I believe that the Cabinet decision is in breach of the international law because it takes into account local and domestic concerns, whereas the international convenant provides that it will be a breach of international law if the domestic immigration concerns and bilateral foreign policy implications are taken into account, yet it is clear from the description I have of the Cabinet decision that these matters were taken into account. I believe that that decision was substituted for another decision which was even more objectionable. The letter from Mr Collaery states: . . . Secret Cabinet Decision of 17 July 1985 alluded to the rejection of both refugee and permanent resident status for my clients. I understand that a substitute version dropping reference to the refusal of refugee status has been produced. I refer you to Mr Hurford's letters published in the Age and Canberra Times and to his assurances to Senator Missen. I believe that the Government decided, in breach of its international obligations, to do this, I believe also that what has been done is in breach of the Migration Act and the Racial Discrimination Act, which do not enable these things to be done in this country. Section 41 of the Migration Act 1958 states: Where a person is in custody under this Act the person having his custody shall, at the request of the person in custody, afford him all reasonable facilities . . . for obtaining legal advice or taking legal proceedings in relation to his custody. I will not go into detail. I believe these five people did not have the proper opportunity to obtain legal advice before they made statements and I believe also that the statements were withheld from the solicitor. Mr Collaery is a former chairman of the DORS Committee and is able to say-and has checked that this is still the case-that statements are automatically given to the solicitor for people whom the Committee is investigating. These were delayed and they are still unable to know what the determination is. I believe therefore that the practices which have been adopted over many years have been affronted and denied in the case of these five innocent refugees. The Act provides also that there shall be no intimidation, yet attempts have been made to persuade these people to go to other places. They do not want to go to Vanuatu. They are not OPM sympathisers, they are not politically involved; they want to stay on Thursday Island and then come into Australia. I do not believe for one moment that they will be the forerunners of a flood of people coming into this country. I believe that the Government has acted disgracefully in regard to these five people and I will await production of the Cabinet meeting minutes to see how the decision was made and how the Government responded to these matters I have raised. I believe therefore that the Parliament has a right to know from the Government just how it has acted in this regard. Will it comply with the normal procedures? Will it recognise the possibility that these are genuine people who are entitled to refugee status, or will it use the fear of Indonesia, the fear of what might happen. This has been a cowardly show by a government of this country which the Indonesians will never respect. We should have learnt by now that this sort of attitude of appeasement to the bullies in this community is not the way to achieve anything internationally. The results of 1938 and 1939 should have told us that. I believe that it is time the Government stood up on this matter and on the other matters to which I have referred tonight. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(7.17) —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the unsatisfactory situation that still obtains in the Lindy Chamberlain case. In spite of the fact that very carefully researched and documented evidence was presented to the Northern Territory Government some two months ago which rebuts the two main areas of forensic evidence on which Mrs Chamberlain was convicted and imprisoned, the Northern Territory Government has not agreed to what are demonstrably very reasonable requests for a fresh inquiry. This is not a matter for a leisurely approach. The arguments put forward by the Innocence Committee, of which I am a member, are clear and straightforward enough and I can see no reason at all for delaying a decision which ought to have been possible long since. On the other hand, I can see many reasons for not delaying a decision. Injustices which involve money, after all, can be redressed and any financial harm repaired, but when the days, months and years of a person's life are involved no such compensation can be provided. If there is the least doubt of Mrs Chamberlain's guilt-I am personally convinced that those doubts exist-she should not be confined in Berrimah Gaol in Darwin but released until such time as an inquiry of one sort or another can be held into the new evidence. On that basis, Mrs Chamberlain's continued imprisonment is an affront to all reasonable opinion and an affront to any rational view of what ought to constitute justice. I feel sure that all honourable senators would agree with that view. It is a serious situation and I believe that because of it a first step must be to release Mrs Chamberlain on licence as soon as possible. The Innocence Committee is heartened by the support now coming forth from the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, Mr Bob Collins. I have had conversations with Mr Collins today and he said that he had no doubt at all in his mind of the necessity for a judicial inquiry into the Chamberlain case with terms of reference as wide ranging as possible. Mr Collins was good enough to telex me a copy of a letter he sent yesterday to Mr Tuxworth, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and because of the basic significance of this document I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. I believe that both the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) saw this document earlier today. Senator Button —I have not seen it, but I have absolute confidence in the integrity of the document if it is verified by you. Senator MASON —I have a copy of it, which I will send to Senator Button. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Dear Mr Tuxworth, The convictions of Lindy and Michael Chamberlain have created unprecedented controversy throughout Australia. Thousands of Australians firmly believe there was a gross miscarriage of justice. Fresh evidence which was not available at their seven week trial in the Northern Territory Supreme Court has now come to light and must throw enormous doubt on the convictions. The jury and the appeal courts were swayed in their verdicts against the Chamberlains by: 1. Forensic evidence which overwhelmed eyewitness evidence, including a crown witness, that nine week old Azaria was not murdered. 2. Foetal blood was allegedly found on Michael Chamberlain's camera bag and in the family car, especially in a spray pattern under the dashboard. 3. Azaria's jumpsuit was allegedly cut by scissors or a similar instrument rather than the teeth of a dingo. 4. There were allegedly no dog hairs found on the jumpsuit. A vast body of research has been gathered since the trial and appeal and the Chamberlain Innocence Committee tendered much of this as new evidence to your Government on June 4 this year. I understand they believe that this proves beyond any reasonable doubt: 1. The reagent used to detect foetal blood was unsuitable for that purpose. The manufacturer, Behringwerke of Germany, has confirmed this. 2. The spray pattern found under the dashboard, which was alleged to have been consistent with an arterial spray of blood, has been found in a significant number of similar Holden Torana models and is, in fact, a sound deadener, known as dilux. 3. The jumpsuit was cut by canine teeth. 4. Hairs found on the jumpsuit were definitely canine hairs. 5. Further evidence to add to that presented at the trial to show dingoes are predatory killers capable of having killed the child. This must be added to the already extraordinary features of the case and I refer of course to the absence of any motive, body or confessions. Legal counsel retained by the Chamberlains has advised that there is grave doubt on any further appeal to the courts. It has been their advice that an application should be made to your Government for the establishment of a judicial inquiry either under the Northern Territory Inquiries Act or under the prerogative power to establish a royal commission. I believe a judicial commission of inquiry should be established with the widest terms of reference. I am advised that special legislation will be needed to set up a judicial commission to look at aspects of the case. Obviously the legislation would specify the terms of reference as well as the powers etc. The Ananda Marga case in New South Wales took the form of an inquiry into the conditions under section 475 of the Crimes Act. The Governor directed a Supreme Court judge to inquire into their guilt or mitigating circumstances or evidence. It was found that doubt remained as to their guilt and on the basis of the report, the Attorney General recommended a pardon. In this case there had been a lot of controversy and call for an inquiry but at the same time the main prosecution witness had changed his story. In the absence of our own Commission's legislation, I believe the best course is a special Bill to provide for a commission of inquiry in terms similar to those used for the Ananda Marga case. I also believe that the person (1) or persons (3) who receive the Commission should be of Supreme Court calibre and not District Court as in Splatt's case which I suspect was more straight forward. It is my belief that there has been an extraordinary miscarriage of justice in this case. I urge your Government to consider this as a matter of urgency. Yours sincerely, (Signed) BOB COLLINS Senator MASON —Mr Collins has also told me that he intends to bring forward a private member's Bill in the Northern Territory legislature to institute such an inquiry. Unfortunately, that House does not sit until 12 November and, while I appreciate Mr Collins's intention and see it as being of first importance, it certainly may be desirable for the matter to be resolved well before then. There is every intention on the part of the Chamberlain Innocence Committee that it will be resolved before then, one way or another. There will be an important policy meeting of the Innocence Committee in Sydney on Friday and I feel compelled to recommend to it that the major groundswell of public support for the Chamberlains, now in restraint pending a Northern Territory decision, should be organised for yet another mass campaign. That would be an enormous cost of human effort, goodwill and time, but believe me, it is something that can and will be organised if necessary. That massive repeated campaign could be averted now by a wise decision by Mr Tuxworth to free Mrs Chamberlain and institute a judicial inquiry as soon as possible. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(7.22) —In speaking to the adjournment motion tonight I wish to present, however briefly, a case for Australia Post to give recognition to an important primary industry. I am talking about the Australian wine industry. May I say, somewhat parochially, that the wine industry is one in which my own State of South Australia has a very rich reputation. The Australian wine industry has undergone many changes in the last two decades. These changes have seen the industry's transition from what had been up to the 1960s virtually a cottage industry-except for a few major wine producers-to an integral and dynamic part of the competitive consumer goods market. History tells us that vines came to Australia with Captain Arthur Phillip. A few days after he took formal possession on 26 January 1788, Phillip ceremoniously planted vine cuttings in a spot which I am told is now part of Sydney's Botanic Gardens. Although the vines struck, the yield was absolutely no pointer whatsoever to the product which today enjoys the approval of both parochial and impartial connoisseurs. In 1822 George Blaxland shipped what was then referred to as a quarter pipe-I understand that that is properly converted to 1,408 litres-of his wine to England from the vineyard that he had established on his property. Senator Crichton-Browne —Was that a red or a white? Senator VANSTONE —I do not know senator; it was just wine. Judges of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce awarded Blaxland's wine, the first exported from Australia, a silver medal. They commented: It appears to be a light but sound wine with much of the odour and flavour of claret. From the inexpertness of the manufacturer and the youth of the wine the sample is by no means of a superior quality. Yet it affords a reasonable ground of expectation that, by care and time, it may become a valuable article of export. How perceptive were those judges. In view of the new dynamic nature of the Australian wine industry and its ever-increasing contribution to this nation's primary production, I believe that it is appropriate that there should be recognition of that contribution. I suggest that a commemorative postage stamp series would be an appropriate form of recognition. In the past Australia Post has used commemorative stamps to acknowledge a number of primary industries. With the indulgence of the Senate, I remind members of some of those stamps. In 1934, the centenary of the death of John Macarthur, four stamps were issued relating to merino sheep. In 1948, as part of a zoological series, there was one stamp featuring a Hereford bull. Also in 1948 there was another stamp commemorating the activities of William Farrer and the wheat industry. In 1953 there was a series of six stamps put out as two sets of three relating to food production. In 1961 the cattle industry got some recognition. There were two stamps and strangely enough these had the same design and the same colours but were printed on different coloured paper, one paper being white and the other being cream. Had I been in the Senate at the time I may well have asked the purpose of the production of two stamps with different coloured backgrounds. In 1969 the first primary industry series was released. It was also the first series of stamps relating to primary industry that were in decimal currency. The industries featured were sugar, timber, wheat and wool. In 1970 there was one stamp to commemorate the eleventh International Grasslands Congress and that had a cow as its feature. In 1970 again there was one stamp to commemorate the eighteenth International Dairy Congress. In 1972 there was a second in the series of primary industries with fruit, rice, fish and beef all getting some recognition. Still nothing for the wine industry. In 1980 the wine industry was thrown a small crumb-one pre-stamped envelope for the sixth triennial convention of the International Food and Wine Society. In 1970 there was an issue of stamps, not specifically on primary industry, but related to national development. There were four stamps in that series-one on the Snowy Mountains, one on bauxite, one on oil and natural gas and one on Ord River and cotton. If the development of the cotton industry at Ord River can merit a stamp issue, given the disaster that that was, surely the wine industry, which started from very small beginnings and is now a dynamic industry, deserves some similar commemoration. In 1973 there was the second in the series on national development-shipping, iron ore, mapping and beef roads getting recognition. Still nothing again for the wine industry. I acknowledge the small crumb in the form of a pre-stamped envelope in 1980 for the triennial conference of the International Food and Wine Society, but there has not been a stamp issue which features the wine industry. Relatively few people buy pre-stamped envelopes. The wine industry deserves to be given the recognition of a stamp issue that will reach so many more Australians than any pre-stamped envelope ever could. I believe that the wine industry is an important part of Australia's economic and certainly social life and I hope that Australia Post will give serious consideration to featuring that industry on a future stamp issue. This is especially true in light of the fact that history tells us the first plantings of grapes were made in 1788. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(7.29) —Tonight I raise some matters concerned with South Africa. One of the disappointing and, in fact, almost depressing aspects of this argument is that when one rises to speak on this subject one has to qualify oneself by saying one is anti-apartheid, that one finds it abhorrent and that one is totally opposed to the present distortion of political representation in South Africa. One is not able to begin a speech on South Africa without prefacing it with those remarks. However, I rise particularly to record my concern at some recent statements on South Africa that have been made by a number of people, not least those by a past Prime Minister of this country, one John Malcolm Fraser. I do not do that because I abhor apartheid less or more than does Malcolm Fraser. To me that is not the point. No one, in my view, has an absolute mortgage on morality. Senator Button —Certainly not you, Senator. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Well, I do not have a mortgage but I have my corner of the market. I have not seen the honourable senator's yet, but I am still waiting optimistically. The indignation of some seems to be based on white upper middle class social guilt complexes, whereas on the other hand there are those who more properly have a concern which touches upon a capacity for compassion and empathy. I take issue particularly with Mr Fraser because I do not believe his strident, intemperate, emotional and biased statements and views lend themselves either to an understanding of the events or circumstances in South Africa or to a constructive contribution to the peaceful co-existence between all people of South Africa in the future. One could almost be led to believe, from the remarks of Mr Fraser and others-I refer to Mr Fraser particularly because he is the one who has been getting the media coverage and he is the one who is likely to influence people who in their own minds are not able to draw an opinion other than that which they read in the newspapers-and from their high moralising, that white Australia's treatment of our indigenous people was of a divine, inspirational nature, that we are the model upon which all other white democratic nations ought to model their actions. Perhaps we ought to remember that prior to 1967 Aboriginals in Australia were considered to be so unimportant that we did not even bother to count them. That was true of successive Liberal and Labor governments. They did not consider them important enough to include them in a census and did not know how many there were. Prior to 1967 the Constitution specifically stated: In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, Aborigines shall not be counted. In 1967 that section was repealed and in 1971, for the first time, our Aboriginals were taken by the Commonwealth Government to be of equal consequence to white people in terms of a referendum. Senator Button —It is now 1985. Senator, we are talking about 1985. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, we are talking about 1985, but I am talking about ten years ago, which is not very long in the evolution of man and his maturity and understanding. Prior to that there was some counting by some States. However, 1971 was the first year they were counted with whites. Senator Jessop —How many Aborigines are in Australia? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It depends on whether we are talking about those with full blood, half castes, quarter castes, or one-eighth castes. Perhaps we ought also to look at the enlightened approach of successive governments of both Liberal and Labor persuasion in respect of the entitlement of Aboriginals to vote. Prior to 1961 they were not entitled to vote in elections for the House of Representatives or the Senate unless they were entitled to vote in a State for the more populous House of that State, if they were ex-members of the defence forces or if they had become naturalised. Indigenous Australians had to become naturalised and only then could they get a partial vote in Commonwealth elections. As we know, in 1962 the Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended to allow Aboriginals for the first time an of right vote in Federal elections, but still not on the same basis as whites-quite separately. The difference was not too subtle. On that occasion they were entitled to vote but not compelled to. The distinction for them, compared with whites, was based purely and exclusively on race and colour. There was one law for blacks and one law for whites up until that time. It was only in 1983-Senator Button says that it is now 1985-during Senator Button's period in government that for the purposes of enrolment the Aboriginal community was placed in the same category as whites in terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I ask the Senate to go back a little in history-but not too far-in contemporary times and to the opening remarks of a 1961 House of Representatives inquiry into the voting rights of Aboriginals, which was the model for the 1962 amendments and which simply said that they could enrol but that it was voluntary. They did not necessarily have to vote in an election for a State parliament. The report stated: The Aboriginal people are increasing in numbers. Changes have occurred in their customs of the great majority which ensure, in the words of one of our witnesses `that they will never tend to die again'. They were not going to die off, they were a reality and they were with us forever. The report further stated: The Aboriginal people are a permanent part of the Australian community. This is the interesting line: This makes imperative-- that is, the fact that they were not going to die off- the recognition of their proper status and the planning of their integration into the Australian community. To give honourable members a final quote, I refer to the bottom line of the first page, which states: It was demonstrated to your committee that any policy other than integration of the Aboriginal people of Australia would be impractical. This was 1962, but they had to be integrated. We have been enlightened since then. We now have separate development. We have blacks living in areas for which whites need permits to enter. We have separate development, separate schools, separate education, separate facilities and separate budgets. We have more separation here than in almost any country bar South Africa. But of course in 1961, in that enlightened period, we were saying that they had to be assimilated and brought into the Australian community. By any standard, the first page of that report can be interpreted only as a begrudging or perhaps pragmatic acceptance by the white community and the government of the day that Aboriginals were here to stay and that therefore it was imperative to recognise that they ought to have proper rights. The determination to give them proper rights was based on the premise that they were not going to die off, that they were a reality. I shall give the Senate some sober reminders of the Australian Parliament's attitude to Aborigines at the time of Nelson Mandela's incarceration. Honourable senators will recall that he was originally incarcerated in about 1961. The following quotation I think sums up the views of many at the time: Surely enough has been said in this Parliament to make honourable members doubt the wisdom of giving full voting rights to Aborigines immediately. If I said that now, what would Senator Button say? Senator Button —I did not hear what you had to say. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I will read it again for the honourable senator's benefit because he is the responding Minister. The following is a quote from a parliamentary Hansard, somewhere in the world: Surely enough has been said in this Parliament to make honourable members doubt the wisdom of giving full voting rights to Aborigines immediately. That is a statement by John Malcolm Fraser, appearing in Hansard of 1961. I go on to quote him further: An Aboriginal who has lived a nomadic life can probably never be fully assimilated into the Australian community, but his child can if he has the right attention, care and help from welfare workers and from the State and Federal governments. It could be P. W. Botha giving us this little speech. Mr Fraser was talking about assimilation in generous terms. He said: Surely it means that ultimately the aborigines will have the same privileges, responsibilities and rights that other Australians now have. In other words, aborigines will live in the same street . . . The marriage of two persons of different colour would be a part of their assimilation. They ought then, at a later date, to be treated as equals. He continued: It may well be that by that means the aboriginal race will be absorbed over a period of time. As far as I can see, assimilation and absorption are part of one and the same thing. John Malcolm Fraser was telling us that we had to have assimilation, and that that was the only way the Aboriginal community could go. Let us see what Mr Fraser had to say about education. He said, in very generous terms: The provision of special schools is a transitional process which we hope will not last for too much longer. But: The special school is necessary because of language difficulties, environment and heredity. There had to be different schools because of heredity! That was John Malcolm Fraser in 1961. There are those who strut the world stage now with the conscience of society cast heavily on their shoulders. Twenty years ago, many years after Mr Fraser first got into Parliament, the man of conscience, the man of the world, had those sorts of things to say about the Aboriginals in the Australian community. How is his born again, enlightened conscience now in regard to the black community? Let us not have this pious approach. Let us not believe that any of us has a mortgage on knowledge, wisdom, understanding or morality. Some recent comments Mr Fraser has made are very distinct in prejudice or ignorance-or they are designed particularly to reflect something other than the truth; I am not in a position to make a judgment about that-which in my view can add nothing to the debate in persuading the white South Africans that changes in their political system to accommodate the political aspirations of all South Africans must take place. We can be certain of one thing: There is nothing more calculated to drive the South African Boers into their laager mentality than to have them read statements of overseas opinion which, frankly, are just not true. Let us take the first of Mr Fraser's statements. He claimed recently on Australian Broadcasting Corporation news programs that the Australian cricketers were being used to say that Australia supported apartheid and that the South African Government was using the media to give the impression to South African people that it was the official Test team. That is what the media in South Africa was saying, according to Malcolm Fraser in his flying three-day visit to that country recently-and I understand that he spent six days in Zimbabwe. Let me just give the Senate the headline story in the Sunday Times-hardly a South African newspaper known to be sympathetic to the Government: A fresh uproar over the rebel cricket tour of South Africa has rocked sports-mad Australia. The new row centres on whether Australians-most of whom back the tour-will be able to see the matches on television. In the latest turn, tough Australian TV tycoon Rupert Murdoch-nicknamed the Dirty Digger-was last night poised for a showdown with Prime Minister Bob Hawke. In the Star of Thursday, 5 September 1985-these are the reports that are apparently intended to give the South African people the impression that it is an official Test team-this was written from Canberra by Geoff Kitney: An agonising search has begun here for explanations for Australia's failure in the Ashes series in England and attention has focused immediately on the damage done to team morale by the South African rebel tour upheaval. I could go on and on with that article. Again in the South African Star of Monday, 12 August 1985, under the headline `Hughes under renewed attack' these words appeared: Former Australian cricket captain Kim Hughes says he will reconsider his participation in a tour of South Africa later this year only if the trip is shown to be a `scam'. Here we go again with the foreign news service of the Star: Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke is determined to show the world that despite the rebel cricket tour, Australia's anti-apartheid stand remains undiminished. That is hardly likely to convince people that it is an official cricket tour. `Rebels' prospects under fire'-and so it goes on and on. There is not one single indication in the media that it is the official cricket Test team. Quite the contrary; every article refers to them as the rebel cricket team. The past Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has said in recent days that all political prisoners ought to be released, including Nelson Mandela. Clearly, Malcolm Fraser sees Nelson Mandela as a political prisoner. I can only take it that he is at total variance with Amnesty International, a world-wide body. The President of its Canberra branch, Senator Alan Missen, is hardly, I would think, a mad extreme right winger. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, would understand and appreciate, Amnesty International is an organisation of and with the highest integrity. I quote what it had to say about Nelson Mandela: Amnesty International opposes torture and executions in all cases and seeks fair and prompt trials of political prisoners. It works for the release, however, only of prisoners of conscience. These are defined in the Statute of Amnesty International as people detained anywhere by reason of their political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs or by reason of their ethnic origin, sex, colour or language, provided that they have not used or advocated violence. Amnesty International does not believe that this definition applies to Nelson Mandela. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964 after acknowledging in court his participation in the planning of acts of sabotage as a leader of the African National Congress. He certainly was not convicted of trumped up charges. Of the five charges he pleaded guilty to four. In my view, Nelson Mandela ought to be released from prison. I do not say that on compassionate grounds, particularly in view of Mandela's own refusal to accept release. I believe that it is not politically wise for South Africa to leave him in gaol. If I were being purely pragmatic and political, I would say to the South African Government: `He is a greater martyr in a greater cause and a greater symbol of the ANC and the aspirations of black Africans as long as he is incarcerated in that prison'. I am sure that the South African Government recognises that, and that is why it offered him a release. It was prepared to provide him with a pardon and to release him on one condition-that he disavowed violence. But he refused to do so. As was said in an interview which was well documented and broadcast: In January, he informed Lord Nicholas Bethell, Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament's Human Rights Committee, that he still supported violence. If any prisoner in Australia who had been given a life sentence came before a parole board which was seeking to identify whether he was likely to offend again or whether he was reformed, or whatever expression is used these days with prisoners, and he said `No, I am not, if I am charged with murder, I give no undertaking, and in fact I give you the undertaking that I shall offend again', clearly he would not be released. In those circumstances no responsible government could release a prisoner. If some of us are to call for Nelson Mandela's release, it is worth knowing why he was convicted and gaoled in the first place. Before I touch on that, let me say, as I have said before, that I believe he ought to be released for a number of reasons. The South African Government believes he ought to be released, but, quite properly, it is terrified that he would be out of gaol for five minutes and, more than likely, somebody from the left and not the right would shoot him to make him a greater martyr than he presently is. No black in South Africa would believe that that was not done by the secret police, as the police are sometimes called by some people. I think that the greatest fear the South African Government has is that Mandela will die in gaol. It would be glad to have him out of gaol. When he gets out the blacks will have real problems. There is Bishop Tutu, the de facto leader, in his mind at least, of part of the black community. There is Chief Buthelezi and a whole range of United Democratic Front leaders. There is a whole range of new people who had hardly been born when Mandela went to gaol and who now have control of the ANC and the United Democratic Front in South Africa and they will not give it up too easily. When Mandela gets out of gaol he will be just in the ruck with all the rest. As long as he is in gaol he really is a symbol of all that the blacks represent. The sooner he gets out, the sooner, in my view, his influence will be considerably diminished. Having said that, let me just remind the Senate of the reasons for Mandela being incarcerated. Without reading the fine print of the various charges, I will refer to the opening address by counsel for the state at the trial of Mandela and other accused. I remind honourable senators that Mandela pleaded guilty to the last four charges, but not the first. He stated: As the indictment alleges, the accused deliberately and maliciously plotted and engineered the commission of acts of violence and destruction throughout the country . . . The planned purpose thereof was to bring about in the Republic of South Africa chaos, disorder and turmoil, which would be aggravated, according to their plan, by the operation of thousands of trained guerrilla warfare units deployed throughout the country at various vantage points. These would be joined in the various areas by local inhabitants as well as specially selected men posted to such areas. Their combined operations were planned to lead to confusion, violent insurrection and rebellion, followed, at the appropriate juncture, by an armed invasion of the country by military units of foreign powers. Counsel stated that the resulting chaos, turmoil and disorder was planned by the accused to set up a provisional revolutionary government to take over administration and control of the country. It continued: By the latter half of 1961 the African National Congress had decided to embark upon a policy of violence and destruction-a policy of sabotage-in order to achieve its political aims and objectives. For this purpose they formed the Umkhonto We Sizwe- this means the spear of the nation- This organization was recruited from followers who were prepared, whatever the odds, to die if necessary, in the execution of acts of violence and destruction. That organization placed itself under the political guidance of the National Liberation Movement, of which Nelson Mandela was the head. The extent to which the national high command plotted its policy of sabotage, violence and destruction throughout the country can be gauged from the production requirements. It was a program which it planned to complete in six months. These requirements, as documented, include 144 tons of ammonium nitrate-for those who know what ammonium nitrate is-21.6 tons of aluminum powder and 15 tons of black powder. Without taking into account the explosive and detonators which the members of the sabotage squads throughout the country were enjoined by their leaders to steal from explosive magazines at various mines, the experts say that the aforementioned `production requirements' constituted sufficient explosive power to blow up a town as extensive as Johannesburg. The saboteurs had planned the manufacture of at least seven types of bombs and 48,000 anti-personnel mines, also known as land mines, each containing 5lb of dynamite. A sample of such a mine was found at Rivonia, which is the name of the place where the accused were arrested. The saboteurs also planned to manufacture 210,000 hand grenades, each containing a quarter lb of dynamite, petrol bombs, pipe bombs, syringe bombs, thermite bombs and bottle bombs, colloquially known as `Molotov Cocktails'. That was their little contribution to a revolutionary form of change to the political structure. They had just enough explosives to blow up Johannesburg, which has a population of 2 1/2 million people. Is not that a nice little opening shot? Nelson Mandela, in his own handwriting-some people may not find this offensive, but if I were a South African I would find it particularly so-stated: The people of South Africa led by the South African Communist Party will destroy capitalist society and build in its place socialism . . . The transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke, cannot be effected by slow changes or by reform, as reactionaries and liberals often advise but a revolution. One therefore must be a revolutionary and not be a reformist. He continued: We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing the society and the world . . . (The enemy) must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist World can be realised. That is what Nelson Mandela was all about. That is why he was charged with sabotage and got life imprisonment. He could have been charged with treason, but the prosecution charged him with a lower offence. If he had been charged with treason and convicted, it automatically would have been a capital offence and he would have been executed. Senator Button —He could have been sentenced to death here, too. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Absolutely, but he was not. As I have said, I believe that the South African Government takes my view. It would save that Government a lot of pain if they could let him out of gaol. He knows he is a martyr as long as he is in gaol; he may not be a martyr if he gets out. His power base might diminish. If a person were given a life sentence in Australia for such an offence and that person was not prepared to repudiate that type of violence, when that person's probation came up, to use a colloquialism, he would go back in the slammer very quickly. It is worth while that we understand what Nelson Mandela was charged with and convicted on. I refer to another of Malcolm Fraser's comments on South Africa. He said: Per capita spending on black education and health is but a fraction of that spent on white education and health. He continued: They have made absolutely no attempt in any budget for 40 years to do so. That is blatantly and manifestly untrue. The most charitable interpretation that one could place on those statements is that Mr Fraser does not know what he is talking about. In the last three years the disparity between black and white education has been reduced from 7:1 to 4:1. That is still not good enough, but it is a dramatic change in three years. For instance, between 1981-82 and 1983-84 there was a 10 per cent movement between funds for black education and funds for white education. Just over $1 billion was spent on black education in one year. The tragedy for black education right now is not the level of money that is being expended on it but the fact that the blacks have burnt down 328 of their own schools. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(7.59) —I would like to make a few short points about the shabby treatment that has been meted out this year to local government. I think it is very important that when the report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance is presented in October, the Government and this Parliament give the report detailed and sensitive consideration. With the announcement of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that there will not be any referendums before 1987, the constitutional recognition of local government has been placed on a back-burner, despite the fact that it was recommended by the Australian Constitutional Convention. State governments will still be able to dismiss local councils for a variety of political reasons totally unrelated to standards of administration. Earlier this week a deal was made between right wing Labor and Liberal aldermen to de- stabilise the Sydney City Council and prevent reforms from being carried out in that city. Last May that same right wing Labor and Liberal partnership ganged up in this Parliament to make it possible for personal income tax sharing moneys to be snatched from local government at the last moment. Councils in New South Wales were nearly half way into their financial year. They had to readjust their budgets, cut services, and let opportunities go because of the rate-pegging regime that had been introduced by the Wran Government. The problem would not have been so bad if either the Government or the Opposition had stuck to the promise of 2 per cent of personal income tax for local government. For instance, the shire of Warracknabeal wrote to me saying: Council cannot believe that the Liberal and National Party voted with Labor in slicing back the promised 2% and has written to the leaders of both parties requesting an explanation. At this stage I do not believe that the Council has received an explanation. Mr Howard said at the time of the mini-Budget that local government had been treated gently. I do not believe this to be the case. The newly-appointed shadow Minister, Mr Beale, has said that local government should not get anything. No wonder Opposition senators lined up to make sure the councils would not get the money they were promised. The Australian Democrats alone stood up for local government in this situation. I hope that the report of the Self Inquiry into Local Government Finance will be read without prejudice or political opportunism. I hope that honourable senators will take the opportunity to consult the transcript of evidence on some of the key points and take heed of the views of those who serve this level of government which is closest to the people. The whole exercise of taking evidence, collecting factual material and analysing data will have been pointless if the Government and the Parliament take a knee-jerk reaction or sweep the report under the table. The report is due out between now and the time the Parliament returns. I believe that we should take careful note of it. Local government should be our partner in serving Australians everywhere. Let us recognise it as such. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(8.03) —I would like to thank honourable senators for their contributions, particularly those who made short contributions, to the adjournment debate. I will comment briefly. Senator Kilgariff spoke early. Senator Gareth Evans has assured me that he will examine Senator Kilgariff's point about Kakadu National Park. I guess the honourable senator can expect a response from him in due course. Senator Missen made a long speech about Amnesty International, particularly about Irian Jaya and the relationship of the Australian Government with Indonesia. I will refer the contents of Senator Missen's speech to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) with a request that he see the Amnesty group. With regard to the questions on notice to which Senator Missen referred, I will see whether an early answer can be obtained. Senator Missen devoted some time to discussing the position of five refugees held on a Torres Strait island and the comments of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) about that issue. I will not accede to the request that the Cabinet's minutes be made available. I think there is some serious disagreement between the Government and Senator Missen about the circumstances and the importance, both in international relations terms and in human terms, of this issue. That is a matter which I will ask the Foreign Minister to address. Senator Mason called again for a judicial inquiry into the Chamberlain case. I do not know whether the Commonwealth really has a function in respect of that matter, but I will refer his request to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Senator Vanstone asked that Australia Post give recognition to the wine industry. I totally agree with her point about the importance of the wine industry and the assistance and recognition which it should be given. I do not know that the symbolism of a postage stamp will take the wine industry very far, but I will certainly refer the honourable senator's request to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). In the case of Senator Crichton-Browne's comments, I will refer them to Mr Malcolm Fraser. Senator Vigor made a few comments about local government. I think we would be in fundamental disagreement with him about the generosity with which local government is treated. Indeed, I suppose we would be in fundamental disagreement with him about the role of rational and reasonable government in this country on this issue. I understand the honourable senator's concern for local government. It must be regarded as admirable. But whether the Commonwealth should do more for it I very much doubt. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee B will meet in the Committee Room No. 6 shortly after 8 p.m. and Estimates Committee E will meet in the chamber at 8.30 p.m. Prior to the sitting of committees the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 8.06 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1985- No. 7-New topics to be included in the population survey. No. 8-Survey of exits from the labour force. Defence Act-Determination 1985-No. 58-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and others. Public Service Act-Determinations 1985 Nos. 71, 77. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 290) Senator Lewis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, 10 May 1985: In respect of the development of the Gaslight Estate at Evatt, using fast tracking construction: (a) what was the total cost of developing each block of land on which a Government house has been erected; (b) what was the total cost of erecting each Government house in the first stage of this development; and (c) how do these costs compare with similar developments on Government serviced land using conventional construction methods. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (a) In arriving at the payment for the lease of the estate an allowance of $540 000 was made to cover the cost of servicing the 30 Government house sites (i.e. $18 000 per block). Costs were not determined for individual blocks. (b) The cost charged for the 30 Government houses provided in the Estate was $1 266 000. This is an average cost of $42 200. (c) The allowance made for the cost of land servicing was about the same as for a National Capital Development Commission undertaking. Based on average cost per square metre the cost charged for the Government housing was again about the same as for National Captial Development Commission constructed houses. (Question No. 396) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What was the total cost of supporting parents' benefits paid in 1983-84. (2) What proportion of the cost in (1) above can be attributed to payments to: (a) unmarried parents; (b) widows not eligible for the widow's pension; (c) separated husbands or wives; (d) persons whose spouse has been imprisoned for 14 days or more; or (e) persons who cannot live with their spouse because of illness or infirmity. (3) What proportion of the cost in (1) above can be attributed to fathers defaulting on their maintenance payments. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) $889.6m. (2) Expenditure on sub-groups of supporting parent beneficiaries is not separately identified. However, of the number of supporting parent beneficiaries current at 30 June 1984: (a) 28.1 per cent were unmarried parents; (b) a negligible percentage were widows not eligible for widow's pension; (c) 57.0 per cent were separated husbands or wives (a further 12.3 per cent were separated de facto husbands or wives); (d) 0.2 per cent had a spouse who had been imprisoned for 14 days or more; (e) a negligible percentage were persons unable to live with their spouse because of illness or infirmity. (3) No information is available. (Question No. 471) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) What provision is made by the defence forces to assist families in regard to the education of their children. (2) How does the Department of Defence minimise the effect of disrupted schooling among children of defence personnel. (3) Does the Department have a policy to avoid mid-year transfers. (4) Does the Department liaise with state education departments to ensure families have up to date information about schooling in different states. (5) Does the Department offer any tutoring schemes to assist those children whose education suffers as a result of transfers and different standards. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Families may be assisted, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, by the payment of a non-taxable Education Allowance. This is payable to assist in defraying costs incurred when, on long term posting within Australia, a member wishes to leave his or her child in the present school or education system, in order to prevent serious interference to the child's secondary education. The Allowance is also payable for limited periods when a member places a child in a new locality in advance of his or her posting, to avoid subsequent serious interference; and may be payable in other circumstances such as when difficulties in arranging secondary education for handicapped children arise on posting. (2) With the intention of minimising disruption and inconvenience to families where a mid-year move becomes necessary, in addition to considering the needs of the Service, the posting authorities consider such family factors as the number of children and their ages, and whether the member's wife is working. Provision exists for a member to move unaccompanied to his or her new location until the end of the school year, or school term, when he or she can then return to uplift his or her family to the new posting location. (3) Although there is no set policy which directs posting authorities to avoid mid-year postings, planning gives high priority, to the need to reduce as far as possible the number of postings involving mid-year movement of personnel. The vast majority of postings occur in December/January of each year with only the absolute minimum occurring mid-year. Most of the necessary mid-year postings are for personnel attending training courses, both overseas and in Australia. Other mid-year postings are occasioned by the requirement to replace personnel who resign or retire from the Defence Force or to fill newly established positions. (4) On a continuing basis, the Department seeks information from Education Departments at both headquarters and regional level. This information is provided to unit or establishment education officers who provide an advisory service to personnel undergoing interstate posting. (5) No such schemes exist. Senator Gareth Evans —On 23 August (Hansard, page 290) Senator Harradine asked me a question without notice about the establishment of a company called IVF Australia Ltd. I was unable to answer part of the question and undertook to seek a reply to that part as soon as I could. I am now able to give the following additional information: A company by the name IVF Australia Pty Ltd was incorporated in Victoria on 12 June 1985. Companies are no longer required to state their objectives in their memorandum of association. However, I am advised that, in a letter seeking reservation of the company name prior to incorporation, the nature of business to be conducted by the company was stated to be the provision of services of in vitro fertilisation. The question of the commercial exploitation of reproductive technology is one that the Government will be considering in formulating its response to the Family Law Council Report referred to in the second part of the Hon. Senator's question. For the information of Hon. Senators, the Family Law Council noted that: `The Community needs to give careful consideration to the appropriateness of permitting the Commercial exploitation of reproductive technology-and, if the latter is to be permitted, to its regulation.' It also recommended (at paragraph 6.11.1) that the commercial exploitation of reproductive technology be considered by the proposed National Council on Reproductive Technology.