Tuesday, 5 November 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 11.30 a.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 1 November 1985, of former Senator Joseph Francis Fitzgerald. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 1 November 1985, of Joseph Francis Fitzgerald, Senator for the State of New South Wales from 1962 to 1974, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and the members of his family in their bereavement. All honourable senators will be grieved to learn of the death of a former colleague, Joseph Francis Fitzgerald, a senator for New South Wales. Former Senator Fitzgerald served three terms in the House of Representatives-1949, 1951 and 1954-and was elected to the Senate for New South Wales in 1961. He then served in this place for 12 years-from 1962 to 1974. Former Senator Fitzgerald occupied the position of Temporary Chairman of Committees in the Senate from 1967 to 1973. He was also a member, at various times, of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, the Senate Standing Committee on Disputed Returns and Qualifications and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Former Senator Fitzgerald enjoyed a life-long association with the Australian Labor Party. He was Secretary of the Parliamentary Labor Party in 1955 and worked as Secretary to Australian Labor Party parliamentary leaders from 1956 to 1961. Joe Fitzgerald was a long-standing and respected member of the Senate. On behalf of the Government, I extend to his widow, Patricia, and his family sincere sympathy in their bereavement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition, I support the motion of condolence which has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). Former Senator Fitzgerald had a very brief part of his term to serve when I became a member of this place and he was never personally known to me, but I have spoken to a number of honourable senators who have all testified to his kindness and decency and to the contribution which he made in the Senate. The Opposition joins the Leader of the Government and Government senators in extending sympathy to his family at this very unhappy time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Members of the National Party of Australia would also like to be associated with the condolence motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). I did not know former Senator Fitzgerald but, as the Leader of the Government has outlined, he was not a senator who came into this place and did not do much for his State or his country. He was obviously very involved in all aspects of the Senate and its committee system, and thus played a very useful and commendable role here. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I would like to associate my Party with the condolence motion and extend our sympathy to his loved ones. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —On behalf of the members of the Australian Labor Party in the Senate and the Labor Party generally, I would like to support the remarks made by the respective leaders of the parties in the Senate. In particular, I wish to add my contribution to the condolences which have been extended to the former senator's wife and family. Joe Fitzgerald was a very significant figure in the Australian Labor Party in the State of New South Wales and, in fact, was held in such high esteem that on many occasions he was able to gain the support of the Party to be its candidate not only in the seat of Phillip, which he served for six years-he was first elected in 1949-but also later in the Australian Senate. He was a victim of the Cold War hysteria of the early 1950s and was defeated as the member for Phillip in the 1954 election. However, his record, standing and prestige in our Party was such that very shortly after that election he was appointed by the Leader of the ALP, Dr Evatt, as his private secretary. He served in that position with a great deal of distinction for a number of years. In 1961, when my Party conducted its pre- selection processes, he was, together with yourself, Mr President, and Mr Justice Murphy, selected by the Party to be a Senate candidate. All three Labor candidates were elected to the Senate on that occasion. He served the Senate from 1962 until the double dissolution in 1974, when, on account of ill health, he did not contest the election. I think I have to say for those members of the Senate who were here in that period-I had only a short couple of years with him, having become a member of the Senate in 1971-that he was well regarded by all members of the Senate. I noticed the rapport which he had with all honourable senators. They respected his integrity, compassion and gentleness as a human being. It was quite a lesson to me to see, in a place where party politics sometimes has a rugged edge, Joe Fitzgerald somehow or other outlived the prejudices and passions that sometimes divide this place. He was committed to the fundamental principles of the Labor movement. He certainly understood and accepted his responsibilities to the working men and women of Australia. He ably represented them for the 18 years he served in the national Parliament. Joe Fitzgerald was stricken with a fairly serious stroke in 1971. Nevertheless, he overcame those difficulties. In fact, throughout his life he overcame many difficulties of a personal and a political nature. He was unfortunate enough to lose his wife in rather tragic circumstances. He later remarried. I have to pay tribute to his second wife for her efforts in the years that she shared with him and the way in which she nurtured him, nursed him and got him back to being an active person in our society. To his family, and to his wife in particular, I say that the way in which he carried out his public functions, the way in which he acted as a citizen and the way in which he represented the view of our Party and of our movement were a tribute in every way to the personality and the characteristics of Joe Fitzgerald. I speak on behalf of those members of the Senate who worked with him over many years. I express my deepest sympathy and support the condolence motion. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I wish to pay a personal tribute to Joe Fitzgerald. It was my privilege to know him and to associate with him over virtually the whole of the post-war years. He had very remarkable qualities of character as a man. He was what I suppose in the old days people would call a good natured man, a man who showed a warmth of friendship and affection whilst preserving his principles. He was a man whose decency was visible to all. He was an excellent party man. I knew him as such. Nevertheless, he could cross the boundaries of the chamber to be a friend of those on the other side. I shared with Senator Gietzelt the sadness when Joe Fitzgerald had a disabling illness in the early 1970s. I pay tribute to his widow who nurtured him over the period since. From time to time I was privileged to see Joe Fitzgerald in recent years and, indeed, in recent months. I was delighted that he was still mobile and still showing the kind of spirit which was the very nature of the man. He had his own philosophical views-very strong views-and I saw those views differ with those of his Party as well as those of others in this chamber. Quiet men are often strong men and he had the quiet dignity that gives strength and I think we will all be the lesser for his passing. I express to his widow our sympathy in the loss and our gratitude to her and her family for their nurturing of him over the journey of his illness. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —As has been said, Joe Fitzgerald had a distinguished parliamentary career and a lifetime of history of service to the Labor movement. From 1949 to 1955 he was the member for Phillip, one of the most marginal seats in Australia. He was then the private secretary to Dr Evatt and Arthur Calwell and a member of the Senate from July 1962 until the double dissolution in 1974. I first met Joe Fitzgerald when he was a member of the New South Wales Australian Labour Party Executive and later when he was the duty senator for the Mackellar electorate council of our Party of which I was President. He was also of great assistance to me in 1966 when I contested a House of Representatives seat. I could tell lots of stories about Joe Fitzgerald but I will tell only one because I think it is a lesson for all of us how quickly the political climate can change in this country. In 1966 there was a casual vacancy for a New South Wales Senate seat and the election was held in conjunction with an election for the House of Representatives. Bob Cotton, now Sir Robert Cotton, was the successful Liberal Party candidate. The Labour Party received less than 40 per cent of the vote. That is the only time, certainly in my memory, that that has happened. A few months later, in 1967, there was a preselection ballot for the Labor Party Senate team. Understandably no one was keen to be No. 3 on the ticket. Mr President, as you would remember, it was one of the most keenly fought preselections in New South Wales Labor Party history. In the result, Senator Fitzgerald was relegated to the No. 3 position on the ticket. After two countbacks he finished level with Senator Murphy. The next day I called into his office to offer commiserations because I had supported him in the ballot. Being Melbourne Cup day, it would be fair to say that I had an each way bet on you, Mr President, and you were successful. Senator Fitzgerald was cleaning out his parliamentary office, packing up his Hansards, books and papers. He said: `The polls show that we have 40 per cent so there is no chance that I will be elected in a half-Senate election in three or four months time'. It is now history that later that year there was a half Senate election and in New South Wales three Labor senators were elected without the distribution of preferences, which happens very rarely indeed. Three senators were elected on the transfer of the surplus vote and the team received in excess of 50 per cent of the primary vote. After that victory Senator Fitzgerald rang me and he said: `It just proves that there is no such thing as a certainty in politics'. It is something that I have never forgotten. To his wife Pat, his son Paul and all the family, I express my deepest sympathy. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —It is rare that I ask to be associated personally with a motion of condolence for one of our former colleagues but on this occasion I want personally to pay tribute to the late Joe Fitzgerald. I recall his friendliness on my swearing in in 1971, and only a very short time afterwards he was stricken with a severe stroke. I admired enormously his courage and resolve to become an active member of the community. During my years as Minister for Social Security he served with great distinction on the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped. It was a position he valued and one to which he gave very valuable service. I always enjoyed seeing him and his wife, Pat, when they were in Canberra. I regarded him as a very distinguished Australian. He translated his very long and distinguished parliamentary career into service to the community in general. On this occasion I wish to be personally associated with the kind remarks that have been made about Joe Fitzgerald, his lovely wife Pat and his family. I feel sure that his wife and family would value our respect of a very fine Australian at this time of our sad loss. The PRESIDENT —I should like to say a few words on this condolence motion because I had a very close association with the late Senator Joe Fitzgerald during a large part of his political life. He was, of course, part of the era of the great members of the Australian Labor Party-members such as the late Eddie Ward, the late Dan Curtin, the late Bill Colbourne, the former New South Wales Minister, Harry Jensen, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Jim Cope, and so many others. Mention has already been made of the late Senator Fitzgerald's political life in this Parliament, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate. All I need to say is that Joe loved Australia. His social awareness was developed by the harshness and difficulties of the Great Depression of the 1930s. He was accutely aware of the problems of the physically handicapped. As a result, he was an active member for many years of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. He had a tremendous knowledge of the history of the Labor movement and of the people who comprised its membership. He dearly loved his wife and his family, he was forever loyal to his friends and, as I said, he was a great Australian. I attended his funeral yesterday, representing my Senate colleagues. The large cross-section of the community in attendance was testimony of his lifetime work for people and for humanity. I ask honourable senators to indicate their support for the motion by standing as a mark of respect to the memory of our esteemed colleague, the late Senator Joseph Francis Fitzgerald. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: `That we deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and childcare in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services.' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vanstone (from five citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Every citizen should have- 1. A constitutional guarantee of the right to vote and 2. A constitutional guarantee of the equality of votes. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should- Support the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) 1985 Bill and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Government did not honour its promise to consult with veterans before introducing the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should- Oppose any sections of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill which would have the effect of reducing veterans' benefits and particularly that section which seeks to change the onus of proof. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 49 citizens). 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 weaponary. 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 weaponary 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 verfied by both sides. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: A concern for the continuing spread of pornographic material, especially video tapes, within the Australian community. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should seek to have re-enacted the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hardcore pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth concern for pending proposals to effectively alter the import duties applicable to parts for vehicles 30 years old and older, as from 30th June, 1985. Such proposals will clearly render pursuance of the laudable pastime of restoration of such vehicles, in many families and circumstances, financially unviable. Persistence with the policy adopted by senior officers of your Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, is anticipated to have a devastating impact upon employment in associated industries, and will significantly interfere with the preservation of a major component of our national heritage. At the same time, little if any revenue will be attracted in excess of that required to meet the administrative costs necessarily accruing to the proposed complex procedures. Your petitioners therefore pray that you investigate their grievances as a matter of urgency, and we seek your support to undertake the necessary steps to ensure the continuance of the favourable import concessions for such parts, bearing in mind that complete vehicles of this age category are still to be deservedly the subject of concessional entry into Australia. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 237 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 the Veterans' Entitlement Bill dated May 1985 is taking a fair `earned service' from the men and women of Australia, who kept this country free so that Governments of today could have the freedom to be able to Govern fairly. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in the Parliament assembled ensure that the previous legislation in respect of Servicemen and Women and their dependants entitlements be restored. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 425 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the following Bills introduced by Senator Don Chipp are: Australian Airspace (Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1985 Australian Waters (Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1985 Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill 1985. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Partiament assembled, should support the passage of these Bills. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 68 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The unrelenting ever expanding money extortion to which home purchasers are being subjected has exceeded the bounds of all logical reason. It is neither linear or progressive. It becomes transparently clear that the constant edging up of interest rates for investors by banks, lending institutions, and banking consortiums are collectively responsible for the monetary explosion, lack of employment and all that that entails and is causing grave social disruption to hundreds of thousands. Behind it all, the absence of control that is now politically essential in the interest of justice and fair distribution of burden. No government, recent or future should tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the existence of family life, together with all the well known disastrous repercussions that follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge all politicians to unite nationally to do all within their power to reduce interest rates across the board and that: This country needs a five year period to reduce this unwarranted absurdity by tackling it at it's source, as follows: firstly a 2% annual interest reduction on home loans, until it is down to 6%. This to come into force immediately subject to the urgent necessary legislation. This would, or should curtail union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures. It would also certainly ease the burden on social securities. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 191 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator 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 Chaney (from 115 citizens), Coates (from 340 citizens), Crichton-Browne (from 253 citizens), Durack (from 496 citizens), Mason (93 citizens), Teague (from 45 citizens) and Withers (from 104 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to supress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 450 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that woodchipping and clearfelling will destroy the Otway forests, water catchments and jobs in tourism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will protect the Otway forests for the future and refuse any licence to export woodchips from the Otways. by Senator Button (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: Whereas space technology involves many of the very highest engineering and scientific disciplines that Australia possesses, which may by applied at an international level to reap significant economic and technological return to the nation, and; Since an appropriate space program for Australia must involve presently unco-ordinated industry, government and research agencies, united together with Federal Government funding; Your petitioners therefore pray that you will support the establishment of an Australian Aerospace Agency to manage aerospace programs under a Federal Budget, promote technology transfer, and market our expertise overseas, while ensuring the continued operation of existing space-related facilities within the nation. by Senator Chipp (from 15 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 intentions to impose a tax on fringe benefits and so increase the level of taxation in Australia, will impose an unnecessary and harsh burden on many companies, a burden that could have an adverse effect on employment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will abandon this unfair and potentially job destructive tax and your petitioners in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 549 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, and for other purposes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to enact certain transitional provisions in consequence of the enactment of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1985. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Atomic Energy Act 1953. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 to provide for the granting of exploration permits by way of cash bidding, and for related purposes. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the notice of motion given by me to disallow the Freedom of Information (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Amendment) contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 106 be withdrawn. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —Mr President, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 3) 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 40 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. I seek leave, Mr President, to make a brief statement about this matter. Leave granted. Senator COATES —This Ordinance extends the jurisdiction of the Australian Capital Territory Court of Petty Sessions by giving magistrates increased jurisdiction over indictable offences. Generally the increased jurisdiction may be exercised only with the consent of a defendant. However, for certain offences which could be serious, there is a discretion for a magistrate to hear a case summarily without the consent of the defendant. This may affect a person's traditional right to a jury trial for those offences. The Committee has recently written to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) requesting his views on this aspect of the Ordinance. The Attorney-General's reply was received only yesterday, so the Committee has not yet had an opportunity to consider it. However, today is the last day for the giving of notice of motion on this matter, so I have done so to protect the Committee's freedom of action. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: (1) That Amendment No. 43 of the Telecommunications (General) By-laws, made on 10 July 1985 under the Telecommunications Act 1975, be disallowed; (2) That Amendment No. 44 of the Telecommunications (General) By-laws, made on 14 August 1985 under the Telecommunications Act 1975, be disallowed. I seek leave, Mr President, to make a brief statement about those two matters. Leave granted. Senator COATES —Both these by-laws appear to give Telecom Australia discretionary powers to make administrative decisions which could be of considerable commercial significance to suppliers and subscribers. The discretions are not subject to any appeal procedures, and the Committee has asked Telecom for its comments on making these decisions subject to merits review. The Committee is holding a hearing this week to discuss the issues with representatives of the Australian Telecommunications Commission. Pending resolution of the matters, I have given notice of motion to protect the Committee's freedom of action. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —I give notice that, contingent upon the introduction of a Bill in the Senate, or the receipt of a Bill from the House of Representatives, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Hamer moving a motion to refer that Bill or part thereof to a standing committee. I seek leave, Mr President, to make a brief explanatory statement about this contingent notice of motion. Leave granted. Senator HAMER —I think that all honour- able senators are aware that a great deal of effort has been going on to investigate the improvement of the method of referral of government Bills to Senate standing committees. It has been, I think, generally accepted that all the Bills-far too few, of course-which have been referred to Senate standing committees for public examination have been greatly improved thereby. Public input has frequently revealed unsuspected defects in legislation. Such thorough examination of Bills is a vital part of our legislative role. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, has a motion which has been on the Notice Paper since 10 May 1985 which would authorise the setting up of an all-party selection committee to consider all Bills and to recommend whether Bills should be referred to a standing committee and, if so, to which committee, at which stage and by when the committee should report. The motion also provides for the establishment of a standard point in the day's program at which motions to refer Bills to standing committees could be moved. The debate on such motions would be limited to 30 minutes. It now seems that this motion will not be supported at this time. The Opposition has therefore decided to set up its own selection committee to move appropriately in this chamber, pursuant to this contingent notice of motion, to make any necessary referrals. The Opposition will, of course, be giving the Government, the Australian Democrats and other senators warning of our intentions and will be seeking their support. I should emphasise that this procedure is second best to having it done on an all-party basis, but it is to be hoped that after trial of this procedure the Democrats and the Government will seek to become involved, as was originally proposed, and of course we would welcome this. A further problem is the lack of clear coverage of Government departments by the standing committees. This has been discussed for many years, and some time ago the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the chairmen of the standing committees should become an informal committee and agree among themselves and with their committees as to which Government department should be covered by which standing committee. The Leader of the Opposition also proposed that the chairmen should report the result to the Senate, and report again if any changes were made. He also thought that the naming of the committees should desirably reflect what they did and, consequent upon acceptance of responsibility for the various departments, the various committees might like to consider whether some change of name would be appropriate. This would, of course, involve an amendment to Standing Orders. Until this distribution of responsibility has been undertaken, the Opposition intends to use, mutatis mutandis, the recommendations produced by the all-party Committee on Senate Standing Committees in 1982, chaired partly by Senator Peter Rae and partly by you, Mr President. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard this distribution of responsibilities. I have shown the document to Senator Gareth Evans. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PROPOSED COVERAGE OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS BY STANDING COMMITTEES Committee Department Constitutional and Legal Affairs Parliament Prime Minister and Cabinet Attorney-General Special Minister of State (including Federal Police) Employment and Industrial Relations Education and the Arts Education Communications The Arts Finance and Government Operations Treasury Finance Local Government and Administrative Services Territories Foreign Affairs and Defence Foreign Affairs Defence National Resources Resources and Energy Housing and Construction Transport Aviation Science, Technology and Environment Science Arts, Heritage and Environment (except the Arts) Social Welfare Community Services Social Security Health Aboriginal Affairs Veterans Affairs Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Sport, Recreation and Tourism (except Tourism) Industry and Trade Industry, Technology and Commerce Trade Primary Industry Tourism Senator HAMER —I emphasise that this is only a guide and the Opposition may seek to refer some Bills, or some parts of Bills, which have special features to a committee other than that shown on the list. I should also point out that the legislative work load of the various committees will be very uneven, which merely reinforces the point I made a moment ago about a re-examination of the committee structure. As I said at the outset, the Opposition hopes that ultimately this procedure we are using will evolve into a systematic consideration, on an all-party basis, of which Bills would benefit from public examination by Senate standing committees. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that Australia's 6.5 million wage and salary earners have been awarded average pay rises of $15 a week by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission- (a) congratulates the Commission for its detailed evaluation of the case; (2) congratulates the Federal Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions for the success of its accord; and (3) praises the trade union movement for its patience and tolerance in helping the Hawke Labor Government administration to guide the economy back to the road of recovery from the rocky path it inherited from the previous administration. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) for his lack of understanding enunciated by his report to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on the licensing of the Tasmanian woodchip industry. For instance, Mr Cohen's report would, if implemented, deny for any logging 40 per cent of the Australian Newsprint Mills concession- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is making a statement now rather than giving notice of a motion to be moved. Senator WALTERS —It is an example of why I am moving the motion. I have only two lines left. The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator should seek leave to make a statement after giving her notice of motion. The honourable senator is clearly out of order in the way in which she is approaching the matter now and I suggest that she move in that way. Senator WALTERS —Having given the notice of motion, I now seek leave to add a few words. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —I thank the Senate. For instance, Mr Cohen's report would, if implemented, deny for any logging 40 per cent of the Australian Newsprint Mills concession and result in the loss of 3,000 jobs with the possible closure of one of Tasmania's most efficient industries. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses its concern at the holding of the Pacific Area Defence Exhibition (PADEX) in Darwin in May 1986, in the middle of the International Year of Peace; (b) condemns the Australian and foreign companies that are involved in exhibiting weapons; (c) urges Customs not to grant `event' status to PADEX, which would facilitate the importation and re-export of arms equipment; (d) alerts the Government to the probability that countries with poor human rights records, such as the Philippines, North and South Korea, Indonesia, Pakistan and South Africa, will be attending the exhibition; (e) urges the Government to obtain an assurance that equipment bought through PADEX will not be used in violation of human rights in these countries; (f) demands that the Government give an assurance that it will not permit weapons to be sold which are designed for crowd control, for use in torture, that are nuclear capable and are in contravention of Australia's treaty obligations; (g) deplores Australia's involvement in PADEX as a significant upgrading of our involvement in the corporate arms trade; and (h) condemns this Government's support for the PADEX in contravention of the Australian Labor Party's existing policy. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) noting the cost of unemployment benefits being paid to New Zealanders living in Australia is some $63m per annum; and (b) recognising that Australia's economy is reportedly going downhill, as indicated by the lack of strength of the Australian dollar, and can no longer afford `free lunches' for New Zealanders- calls upon the Federal Government to re-examine the `open door policy' by which any New Zealander can enter Australia without the same immigration procedure as applies to those from the rest of the world. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with a list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Prices Surveillance Authority-Annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 44 of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983. 2. Department of Communications-Annual report 1984-85. 3. Rainforest Conservation in Australia-Report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment relating to the report. 4. National Conservation Strategy for Australia-Final report by the Interim Consultative Committee-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment relating to the report. 5. Immigration Serving Immigrants and Australia-Text of a statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. 6. Policy on Illegal Immigrants-Text of a statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. 7. Arts Policy-Text of a statement by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment made in the House of Representatives on 17 October 1985-included with the statement are three documents: (1) a chart on funding of arts and heritage projects under the community employment program, (2) a fact sheet which sets out the total Government appropriations for arts expenditure since 1983, and (3) a letter from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment dated 5 September 1985 to the Chairman of the Australia Council, Professor Donald Horne. 8. Apples and Pears-IAC report. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.05) —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- This Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1985-86 totalling $4,135,269,000. Of this amount, $1,752,467,500 was authorised by the Supply Act (No. 2) 1985-86; the balance of $2,382,801,500 would be authorised by this Bill. The Bill provides for proposed expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites and buildings, certain advances and loans, items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital expenditure and expenditure of new policy initiatives for which legislation has not previously been provided. Provision is made also for grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory. As previously announced, negotiations are continuing with the states and Territories for the establishment of a new home and community care program on a cost-shared basis. Pending finalisation of agreements with the States and Territories and passage of associated legislation, existing legislation will be utilized to the extent necessary to provide advances so that recipient organisations are not disadvantaged. Clause 7 of this Bill deems payments made in respect of existing legislation to be payable from the Appropriation Bill No. 2 and an amount of $117,451,000 is included for this purpose under Division 841 of the Bill. An amount of $130,000,000 is included under the advance to the Minister for Finance, the same amount as was provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1985-86 which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill and the main features were outlined in the Treasurer's Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.06) —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- Pursuant to accepted arrangements relating to the Parliament's appropriations and staffing, I present the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86. The purpose of the Bill is to appropriate moneys of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the recurrent and capital expenditures of the Parliamentary Departments for the year ending 30 June 1986. The total amount sought is $45,333,000. Of this amount, $19,535,000 was authorised by the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1985-86, the balance of $25,798,000 being sought in this Bill. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in schedule 2 to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. Debate resumed from 17 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. upon which Senator Archer had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after `That', insert `these Bills be withdrawn and redrafted, to remove the current excessive reliance on regulation, for presentation in redrafted form at the commencement of the 1986 Autumn sittings'. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(12.08) —We believe that the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 and the allied Bill have been brought in with undue haste and without proper consideration of those people who will be affected by their provisions. Senator Archer has moved an amendment, which I support, to enable proper consultation to be carried out. The amendment is: Leave out all words after `That', insert `these Bills be withdrawn and redrafted, to remove the current excessive reliance on regulation, for presentation in redrafted form at the commencement of the 1986 Autumn sittings'. I believe that the Government should pay regard to that amendment as being a responsible suggestion which would enable appropriate consultation to be carried out with the road transporters of Australia, particularly the small operators. The Opposition's spokesman on transport, Mr Lloyd, pointed out in the debate in the House of Representatives that the coalition supports the overall aim of the legislation, but is concerned about the questions of adequate consultation, reliance on regulation and unresolved details of implementation. When one looks at the Bill, one sees that no fewer than 50 clauses are subject to regulation. I refer to some comments that have been made by the States on this matter. I remind you, Mr Deputy President, that, according to our information, the governments of Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania are opposed to the legislation and request a six-month delay. The Government of the Northern Territory has also expressed grave reservations about the passage of this Bill in its present form. At this stage no State has given any thought to the preparation of legislation. That is another very valid reason why a delay should take place. Operator organisations from Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania have not yet been lobbied or properly informed. New South Wales organisations support the Bill as its stands. I immediately become somewhat suspicious about that. In South Australia Barry Lewis, who represents the transport operators in South Australia-- Senator Messner —A very good man. Senator JESSOP —He is a very good man who is extremely concerned about the whole question, the costs involved and the impact it is likely to have on small operators. He opposes the Bill and also claims to represent-this has been substantiated-Western Australia's opinion. When one considers that this Bill contains no fewer than 50 clauses that are subject to regulation, it seems to make a mockery of the Government's undertaking to deregulate industry. Certainly, the Opposition is of that view and when we are re-elected to government after the next election we will do all we can to deregulate industry, to free it up so that costs can be kept at a minimum and enterprise can be allowed to carry on without being encumbered by unnecessary bureaucratic or government controls. I refer to several comments following the Australian Transport Advisory Council's meeting in Perth not very long ago. A typical comment is that under the Bill the Commonwealth has responsibility for determining how the fees and charges collected under the Bill are distributed. As the sole rationale for a State's participation in the scheme is to receive some funds out of it, all States should have an input in determining the way in which these fees are distributed. There has been no consultation in that respect. It is also recognised that section 92 of the Constitution limits the flexibility of the Federal Minister in this regard, it being necessary for the funds to be spent on roads which are damaged by interstate vehicles. However, it would seem reasonable to all the States that they should be consulted before the Minister determines the allocation each year and in particular, before he nominates the roads on which the funds are to be spent. Senator Archer has drawn my attention in particular to the fact that Tasmania is particularly vulnerable in all questions of funding allocation. I believe that Tasmania's circumstances ought to be considered with respect to the formula that may be proposed. I add also that Tasmania has only a few hundred interstate vehicles registered at present and it is not expected that the amount of funds that will ultimately be derived from Tasmania by way of the proposition put forward by the Commonwealth will be very great compared with the amount derived from other States. Of course, the point is that, apart from New South Wales, all States have expressed concern and they seem to be in agreement. They point out that, in addition to the question of equitable distribution of revenue, they are concerned about the possible use of proposed new section 34. The Minister should act or produce Federal road safety regulations only in order to resolve specific conflicts between State authorities and then only with the agreement of the States through ATAC or one of its sub-committees. Proposed new section 34 of the Interstate Road Transport Bill states: Federal road safety standards 34. For the purposes of this Part, the Minister may, by order in writing, declare standards, to be known as federal road safety standards with respect to road safety matters. Certainly I subscribe to the view that it is necessary to look at road safety standards on a Federal basis. But this should not be done autocratically by the Commonwealth Government imposing its views on what the standards should be without appropriate consultation with the States. The other matter is that in my view and in the view of the Opposition this measure will place additional costs upon the transport industry. As I understand it, it seeks to impose fees which, in my view, are unrealistic and unfair. The Bill should not be allowed to pass until all these matters are thoroughly canvassed. I believe that Senator Archer put forward some very positive reasons why that should occur. The Northern Territory also has reservations in common with those of the States of the Commonwealth. The Northern Territory points out that there are questions, again in a repetitive sense, about how the refunding of revenues will work. People in the Northern Territory are not clear about how the scheme will apply to trailers owned by people other than the prime mover owners. That presents a problem which needs to be discussed. The Commonwealth has been advised by the Northern Territory at a departmental level of the concerns it has. The Northern Territory has given suggestions, other than for the trailer aspect, on how the registration scheme could work most effectively. The Commonwealth was also advised that the operator provisions are premature for the reasons I have previously stated-lack of consultation with operators and lack of communication with the governments of the States and the Northern Territory. A Commonwealth-State meeting was held in Sydney on Friday, 23 August. It was aimed at sorting out these types of problems. That meeting resolved some of the problems, but the impression is that the Commonwealth Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is committed to proceeding with both the operator and the registration provisions. Through lack of advice, the Commonwealth Minister will retain provision for separate Federal safety standards and for offences where State or Territory offence provisions already exist. I know that Senator Kilgariff, who is in the chamber at present, has been very concerned about the impact of this legislation on the Northern Territory. He has expressed his disgust at the lack of consultation with the Northern Territory Government on this important matter. Other comments that have been made have been based on a presumption of the content of the Bill presented in the Federal Parliament from the contents of a draft Bill previously circulated for comment, plus alterations advised by the Federal Minister to the Victorian Transport Minister, and other information. They are also based on very limited opportunity to examine the detailed implications of the Bill. I am afraid that I could go on for an hour or so giving other illustrations. I know that the Acting Deputy President would have no objection to that. He may even indicate that he is sympathetic to what I am saying. But certainly the Queensland Government in his State has registered its dismay at the lack of consultation with respect to this important matter. Comments have been made on the matter, and the call from the industry seems to be generally that the Bill should be deferred to enable proper consultation to be carried out. I wish to quote from an article in the Border Watch, a paper that is avidly read by many members of this Parliament and by some former senators like Senator McLaren, and I believe even Senator Withers occasionally reads the Border Watch, because it contains some significant articles. This article arose as a result of meetings that were held in the south east attended by Mr Porter, the honourable member for Barker. The first comment in that article states: Truck operators want deferment of the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 so that apparent anomalies can be rectified in consultation with the transport industry, It goes on to highlight the points I have already made. Another headline in the newspaper reads `Truckies in new attack on ``Tax'' '. That article reads as follows: The Federal Transport Minister, Mr Morris, had not told `the whole truth' about proposed transport industry reform, according to South Australian truck drivers. That refers to recent times, namely 25 October this year. The article continues: There were obvious intentions behind the Interstate Road Transport Bill that Mr Morris could not explain . . . That claim was made by the South Australian Professional Drivers Association whose President, Mr Barry Lewis, said: . . . the association saw the Bill as a `backdoor to road tax.' The Bill introduced two methods of calculating truck registration-either by a straight $1,400 fee or on mileage, as measured by a monitoring device. Mr Lewis said Mr Morris had failed to explain why the two methods were needed. Mr Laurence Byrne, General Manager of the Scott Group of Companies in the south-east, said: . . . industry should be consulted and not rail-roaded into `an ineffective, unresearched, unworkable, over-governed legislation for an already troubled and fragmented industry'. So the article goes on, repeatedly emphasising the lack of thought put into this Bill; the determination of the Government through at least 50 clauses to be able to regulate the industry without any parliamentary supervision or any consultation with the industry at all. I totally support the Opposition's approach. I hope that the Australian Democrats will support a deferment of this Bill to enable adequate consultation to be carried out with people involved in the industry. We are particularly concerned about the small operators. The big, monopolistic type of operators may be able to overcome some of these problems without a great deal of inconvenience, although at an additional cost. However, we are very much concerned with the small business operators who are providing an important service to the whole community in this important area of transport. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.24) —The Opposition approves of the principle behind the Interstate Road Transport Bill, but it has some reservations over the Bill and its effects and it will be moving an amendment. Most of the problems arising from this Bill occur because of the haste with which it has been put before this Parliament. The Bill and its allied Bill allow for a system to be established whereby heavy vehicles involved in interstate trade will be federally registered. The registration fee will go into a trust fund called the Interstate Road Transport Trust Fund and it will be administered by the States. This fund will be used for road repair and maintenance. The legislation covers only those vehicles that are used in interstate trade. I know that some associations are desperately trying to get this legislation through, irrespective of whether it is complete. Their argument is that any legislation is better than none and that someone has to make the first move so the States will move to get their legislation through. I say to those associations: We state in our amendment that we would like this legislation to be pulled out and redrafted, and the anomalies sorted out. I note in passing that an examination of the present State charges shows that the two free enterprise States, Tasmania and Queensland, have the lowest registration fees of any State. That is another example of why people should support the free enterprise side of politics. This legislation introduces a Federal operators licence to carry on an interstate road transport business. The fee is to be paid annually and a register kept of the licensed operators. That measure, of course, is to be welcomed. The whole important issue of Federal and road safety standards-- Senator Walsh —Who wrote that for you? Senator BOSWELL —I thought the Minister would keep quiet after the question asked of him a few weeks ago. The important issue of Federal and road safety standards is given to the Minister by this legislation. The Minister is given the power to establish standards by regulation without any guidelines or conditions, and that is causing the Opposition some concern. This legislation is wide in its application and it attempts to deal with many aspects of the road transport industry. The key to this legislation is the agreement between the States and the Commonwealth to introduce complementary legislation, yet a lot of the States have not put down their legislation as yet. The State legislation will cover what is called `the fast track package': The introduction of a graduated truck licence and minimum requirements for operators to observe; action to improve railway cost recovery to match any improvements in cost recovery in the road freight industry; the removal of speed limit differentials beween trucks and other vehicles outside built-up areas; and the removal of fees charged by some States on vehicles already registered in other States. As I understand it, due to the haste with which the Government has attempted to put through this legislation, much of this complementary State legislation is not in place. The proposed State legislation represents some of the compensating factors for the truck operator in return for paying the new Federal charge of around $1,400 a year. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the Federal and State laws be implemented at the same time. The States' obligations cover very detailed matters. There is general public concern about the speed limit question. The matter of comparable rail cost recovery is also an enormous question. It will require endless research and discussions. It will obviously be a tremendous exercise. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) referred to the vexed issue of the relative levels of cost recovery for competing interstate road and rail operations. The Minister should have waited for the report of the new Inter-State Commission to come down. He has not done that. This is putting the legislation at risk. As much of the State legislation is not in place and as much of it requires long deliberations on the part of the State, it is of concern to the industry and to the Opposition that this report has not been accepted. The Minister, in his second reading speech, has not given any assurance to the industry that it will receive its side of the bargain, at the same time as bearing the cost of new charges. The Minister, in his ssecond reading speech, has told us that the vehicle registration scheme will be proclaimed once substantial progress has been made on implementing the fast track package and that the operator licensing scheme will follow and be proclaimed to match equivalent State legislation. Mr Lloyd, the shadow Minister, has asked repeatedly for an assurance from the Minister that the legislation will not be proclaimed until the State legislation is in place, but he has not received an assurance as yet. The road transport business is an expensive business, especially for the small independent operator. Many of these small businessmen struggle under enormous work loads and debt repayment commitments. Yet, at the same time, it is their way of life. It is the job that they wish to do. They are prepared to endure the hardships that the trucking business puts out to them. They are free enterprise people. They want to do their own thing, but they want some protection. These people, like so many in small business, have been slugged by this Government's big taxing ways and its economic mismanagement. This year there has been an increase of 10c a litre in the price of fuel and the imposition of a capital gains tax. We have now been told of the ruling of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that capital gains tax will apply to leased equipment. The devaluation of the dollar has pushed the cost of rigs, which have to be imported, right through the roof. Most of the independent operators have to buy rigs from overseas and the high interest rates are crippling them. The truckie now spends most of his income on overheads. I object to the unwarranted costs, such as fuel taxes, high interest rates, capital gains tax, exorbitant export charges and straight jacket tax rulings, that this Government has imposed on small business and farmers. These costs are unfair. They merely take from the productive sector and put into the public sector. To prevent yet another unnecessary charge being put on small business, I ask the Minister to assure road transport operators that the Bills will not be proclaimed until more consultation is held with the operators, until the vagueness of the regulatory powers is worked out and until the counterbalancing State legislation is put in place. I know that another area that is causing some concern in my State is the allocation of funds out of the Interstate Road Transport Trust Fund for road repairs. This is not surprising when one considers the raw deal which Queensland has had from this Government. The Queensland Government has been short-changed in respect of Medicare, youth unemployment and education-to name just a few areas-to the tune of $250m. It is concerned, rightly, that it will not get its fair share out of the Interstate Road Transport Trust Fund. It is probably another penalty that this Government wants to impose on Queensland for supporting a free enterprise Queensland State Government. I return to one area which the Bill addresses; that is, the need for licences for operators. For too long, small independent truckers have been at the mercy of unscrupulous operators who often leave the independent trucker little or no alternative than either to lose his livelihood or breach road and safety laws to fulfil a contract. Hopefully, this type of situation will end under the introduction of operators' licences and graded licences for drivers, a system which is already in place in Queensland. Senator Walsh —I thought that you were for free interprise. Senator BOSWELL —I am for free enterprise. I know that there is some concern in the industry. The report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills dealt with this matter. The regulations and rules are open- ended and the punishment is somewhat draconian. I request that the Minister review some of the draconian laws that the Bill would enact. Two specific concerns to the industry are the possibility that there will be a large rise in registration fees, which will act as a de facto road tax, and that the Bill allows penalties which are too severe for any accidental breaking of the law. For instance, one area about which concern has been expressed is that, if the monitoring device is stolen, accidentally knocked off or tampered with and the truck is discovered without it, the truck can immediately be taken off the road. There seems to be a need to give some consideration to that aspect of the Bill. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has drawn attention to the fact that the maximum registration fee that can be charged is not stipulated. Again there seems to be a need to have a maximum limit so that truck operators will not face unreasonable costs. In conclusion, apart from these technical matters due mainly to the haste with which the Bill has been brought before the Parliament, it is a Bill which I believe has the support of the Opposition but which needs some refinement and adjustment. If the legislation protects small business and improves safety standards for both the industry and the general public honourable senators on this side of the chamber will support it with the reservation that more consultation with the industry is needed and some of the specific problems that I have brought up need to be addressed in the legislation. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.36) —In speaking to the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985, I endorse what has been said by previous speakers on behalf of the coalition. They have outlined what we see as the problems associated with this legislation. It has been said that this legislation stems from the findings of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry held last year. A committee of inquiry was established to look into the problems of the industry and it has produced a report which includes some 98 recommendations. The industry and its representatives have generally been supportive of the recommendations of the committee, particularly as they relate to the need for adequate safety standards and uniformity between the States. But, as several of my colleagues have already pointed out, the industry is not satisfied with the legislation proceeding at this stage because there is a feeling in the industry that there has been far from adequate consultation on the effects of the Bills proposed by the Government. I note that Senator Archer, the shadow Minister in charge of this legislation, referred to a telegram from Mr Reg Mullins. It is interesting to note that the telegram stated: . . . that an estimated 95 per cent of interstate road freight is carried by owner drivers. Contrary to information you may have, very few of these owner drivers are represented by any organisation, i.e. Freight Forwarders Association, Master Carriers Association, TWU or the Long Distance Road Transport Association. The telegram continued: No doubt the above organisations claim to represent a large proportion of interstate owner drivers, however-- according to Mr Reg Mullins- this is quite untrue. He says that he represents the views of many individual owner-drivers and that the legislation should not commence until the proposals are looked at in detail. The people in the road transport industry are worried. They are legitimately concerned that they may be hit with charges which they will not be able to meet and which, in some instances, will make their businesses unviable. One can well imagine that with today's cost of fuel and other associated costs. We have also been told by the Government that the cost of registration will be in the order of $1,400; yet figures four and five times as high are being cast around by some sources. It is very indefinite. The difficulty people in the industry have with this legislation is that they still do not know how the registration fee will be calculated, and the reason they do not know is that the Government itself does not know and therefore is unable to tell them. Yet we have the situation that, with what seems to be almost indecent haste, this legislation is being rushed through the Senate. This is a very moot point. The legislation before us is supposedly part of uniform Commonwealth and State legislation. Yet, as far as I can see from what has been said in the Senate today-Senator Jessop, for instance, spoke about the attitude of the States and what have you-the States are a long way away yet from being able to appreciate what is in the May report and bringing in legislation of their own. So it would not matter if this legislation was not passed now. As I see it, this legislation, if pushed through and passed now, will not commence for perhaps six months or 12 months. Why rush through legislation at this time when so much more information is required? Certainly, there needs to be much more consultation. Of course, the Inter-State Commission is looking into cost recovery for road and rail transport. I understand that that report will not be available until next April. Obviously the legislation before us will not commence until perhaps the latter part of next year or maybe 1987. Surely it would be sensible and wise to see what is in the report on cost recovery for road and rail transport. The States obviously need more time to study the May report and the report of the Inter-State Commission which has yet to be tabled. This whole matter comes back again to the question of consultation, particularly consultation with the owner-drivers who feel that they have been left out on a limb despite the claim by Mr Reg Mullins that some 95 per cent of the long haulage freight is carried by these people. As I was saying, the problem is that the road transport industry has no idea at this stage of what sort of fee will be involved. It is quite obvious, from listening to the debate today, that we do not know either. It appears that perhaps the Government does not know what the fee will actually be under a formula that it has still to introduce. It seems to me to be a rather poor approach for Federal parliamentarians to pass legislation now which will affect people in the trucking, carriage or transport industry when we do not know the costs that we are going to put on their shoulders. This seems to be a rather unusual way of approaching legislation which is going to hit a most important part of Australian life and certaintly life in the outback. I will have a few words to say about that in a little while. Like many of my coalition colleagues, I have received representations from those most directly affected by the legislation before us. All of the representations that I have received have called upon me to move, with others in this Senate, to defer the passage of this legislation so as to allow, as I have said before, for full consideration of the legislation by people in the industry. A Northern Territory operator has informed me that this legislation has the potential to add approximately $1,400 to the cost of a truck and trailer travelling from Alice Springs to Darwin. The operator protested very strongly and went so far as to suggest that the success of this legislation could mean the failure of his business. Having some knowledge of the trucking business in the outback, I can very much appreciate his fears. Given that the Inter-State Commission will not be reporting until next April, I cannot see why this legislation cannot be dealt with in the autumn sittings of Parliament next year when we will all be more aware of its total impact on the road transport industry and its indirect effects upon the community. Might I add that everyone in the Senate and within the community wants uniform road safety measures. At least we will have State road safety legislation to fall back on until such time as the Federal Government's legislation is commenced. Perhaps not all of the State measures are desirable. However, a uniform situation will not be brought about until the States have passed their legislation. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Finance to the further drop in the value of the Australian dollar, which traded below 70c in New York overnight. I ask the Minister: Will yesterday's 3.8 per cent wage rise have a positive or a negative effect on the value of the dollar? Senator WALSH —I do not think that it will have any effect at all-although that is, of course, just an opinion-because it was what everybody who knew anything had anticipated for some months would happen. I do not know whether the Opposition anticipated that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would grant the 3.8 per cent increase, but just about everybody that I know of who knows anything about it or takes any interest in it anticipated it, so I would not expect that it would have any effect on the value of the dollar. It is possible, I suppose, that there might be some ill-informed people overseas who were to some extent affected by what happened, but, by definition, they would be ill-informed people. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister agree that the further wage rise will, in fact, further reduce Australia's competitive position? Does he agree that that is unhelpful to the value of the dollar? Senator WALSH —Any wage rise, as a matter of simple fact, is likely to reduce our competitive position relative to what it would have been had there been no wage rise. The point, however-before the Opposition becomes too eager in pursuing that line of argument-is what wage rises would have occurred in the absence of a centralised wage fixing system at a time of unprecedentedly high and sustained economic growth and what would have happened to wages in the absence of a centralised system and of the prices and incomes accord. We got one example of what would happen at a time of short lived but relatively high growth in 1981 and early 1982, when the previous Government, inspired by the present Leader of the Opposition, decided to flirt with a completely deregulated and decentralised wage fixing system and decided to give collective bargaining a run. What that produced was a wages explosion, with a wages increase of 11 per cent in one year, 14 per cent in the next year, ultimately double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and the deepest economic recession that the country had seen since the 1930s. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy seen reports in the South Australian newspaper the Advertiser of Friday, 1 November, when Premier John Bannon announced a joint petroleum exploration venture on the State's Pitjantjatjara lands between the Pitjantjatjara people and the United States oil company Amoco and three other companies? Does this not give the lie to claims by the State Opposition that the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act should be amended to break the deadlock on lands exploration? Given the degree of good will between the Pitjantjatjara people and the proposed explorers of minerals and gas, will the Minister elaborate, so as to allay not only the fears but also outrageous commentary to the contrary of the Opposition? Will the Minister comment on the values of the exploration by Amoco and the prospects for South Australia and Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the report to which Senator Crowley refers. Indeed, that report has been printed in every newspaper, I think, in the country in the last couple of days-and so it should have been, because, as Mr Bannon said, this certainly is a breakthrough in access for petroleum exploration on the Pitjantjatjara lands. Contrary to the State Opposition's criticism of the terms of the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act, this settlement demonstrates beyond question that, given a constructive and imaginative approach by the parties concerned, agreements can be reached. The agreement also assumes some significance in a larger context in the light of the current campaign by the Australian Mining Industry Council about land rights generally when one notes that the Pitjantjatjara Act is in fact, in many respects, closer to the existing Northern Territory model land rights Act than even subsequent legislation in South Australia, with the Maralinga Land Rights Act. If agreement of the kind that is involved here was able to be reached against that background, that again, one would think, significantly undermines a number of the claims that are currently being bandied around about the impossibility of reaching rational settlements in the national interest on these matters. As to the particular details of this agreement, I am advised that the exploration permit has been granted over 20,749 square kilometres of the Officer Basin, covering the south-east portion of the Pitjantjatjara lands. The successful consortium comprises Amoco Australian petroleum company, 50 per cent; AP Oil Pty Ltd, 20 per cent; Crusader Oil NL, 15 per cent; and Quadrant Energy Development Limited with 15 per cent. The work program over the initial five-year term of the licence involves expenditure of $32.5m on the acquisition, processing and interpretation of 3,400 line kilometeres of seismic surveying and the drilling of five wells. The commercial arrangements which have been negotiated provide for the direct participation of the Pitjantjatjara in the consortium through AP Oil Pty Ltd. Senator Chaney —How come you don't know all this and are reading it? Come on! Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not need to read that part of my answer which amounts to congratulations to all the parties concerned for demonstrating that with good will and common sense-qualities that are not apparent in either the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition opposite-the Act can operate for the benefit of all parties and not least for the people of South Australia. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. I refer the Minister first to the assumption in the Budget Papers of an exchange rate, on a trade weighted index basis, of 68. Is the Minister aware that yesterday the Australian dollar slumped to an all time low, in these terms, of 62? What implications does this have for Budget forecasts? Has any reassessment been made of the forecasts as a result of the further slide in the value of the currency? Senator WALSH —Did the honourable senator mention yesterday's trade weighted index? Senator Messner —Yes-62. Senator WALSH —I did not know precisely what it was; I did not have time to check up. Certainly for the present and indeed for a good deal of the time in recent weeks both the Australia-United States dollar exchange rate and the Australian dollar against the trade weighted index have been lower than assumed in the Budget forecasts. That will have both positive and negative effects on the Budget outcome, in terms of both increasing the deficit and decreasing it. At this stage, to my knowledge, no assessment has been made within the Department of Finance or the Treasury as to what the outcome would be at today's exchange rate. I do not see a great deal of point in making such an assessment because the exchange rate, whether expressed in relation to the United States dollar or as a trade weighted index, moves around constantly and devoting a lot of bureaucratic resources to assessing the likely outcome of today's figures would be chasing a moving target, so to speak. I do not recall whether anything in the Budget Papers set out the likely effect on Budget outcomes of a variation of, say, one percentage point from one or the other. I will check to see whether there is such a calculation and whether any other information can be provided. Senator ELSTOB —Has the attention of the Minister for Education been drawn to a recent article in the Adelaide Advertiser entitled: `A Radical Liberal Policy on Education Funding Evolves'? Does the article portray the confused thinking and lack of understanding that has typified recent Opposition statements on education? The article also states that under a Liberal government there will be a `market shakedown' in the education system. Can the Minister advise the Senate what a market shakedown would entail? Senator RYAN —If ever this country were to get into the hands of people who think that the right way to approach education is to have a market shakedown, I guess we would discover what it meant. Trying to find some thread of sense in the statements currently being made by the Opposition spokesperson on education, Mr Shack, is a difficult task. I do not really know what Mr Shack and the Liberals mean when they talk about a market shakedown. I do know that the provision of high standard education in a form which is accessible to all Australians on the basis of merit is not something which lends itself easily to a market analysis. I think it is the case that most people who are involved in the development and provision of education services in this country strongly favour stability, planning and rational decision making. I do not think any of those would be the result of a market shakedown, whatever that means. I think that predictions like this from the Opposition spokesperson, references to a market shakedown and a flirtation with the tired old idea of vouchers and so forth would do nothing but cause feelings of anxiety and insecurity amongst those people who may think it possible that these ideas will become the policies of a Commonwealth government. I do not think it is possible. Senator Peter Baume —Particularly among the feather-bedders. Senator RYAN —It is also interesting to note-I am reminded of it by Senator Baume's interjection-that the Liberal Party in its public statements on education seems to have taken a radical turn to the Right from the days in which Senator Baume was making statements on behalf of the Party. I do not know how serious the Liberal Party is about these ideas. I do not know how much cohesion there is in the Liberal Party ranks about the idea that education is a commodity that we can buy and sell, that we should deregulate all of our institutions and let people who can afford it just buy their way into them. Senator Chaney —The Catholics have been selling it for years. What are you talking about? And very well, too. Senator RYAN —These sorts of ideas obviously have some sort of support from the free marketeers in the Liberal Party, but I do not know whether that faction of the Liberal Party of which Senator Chaney, for example, is a member would find itself particularly attracted to these ideas. Senator Chaney —I am a member of the Catholic faction. We have been selling education for years and it works. Senator Walsh —He is not a member of the Shack faction. Senator RYAN —Senator Walsh informs me that Senator Chaney is not in Mr Shack's faction. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to ignore the interjections and answer Senator Elstob's question. Senator RYAN —I hope that the Liberal Party is able to make a more constructive contribution to the education debate in our country than we have seen over the last couple of months since Peter Shack started saying these things. There is room for a diversity of approach but certainly the idea that education institutions should be turned into some sort of education supermarket is not an idea rejected only by us but, I believe, one which would be rejected out of hand by all rational and concerned people who are involved with the development of education services. Senator SANDERS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In the light of the June 1985 defence mapping support report and congressional document No. PE 351 for the financial year 1986, does the Government continue to deny that the Geosat exercise in August was primarily designed to make the first strike MX and Trident II missiles absolutely accurate? Why did the Government not know about the content of these documents? Does it still deny their contents? Can the Government categorically deny that this Geosat exercise in August was to prepare for the MX missile test to be conducted off Tasmania early next year? If so, on what grounds? Will the Government be offering any assistance at all to the MX test through airport or port facilities? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Sanders's question, like the public contributions to this matter of Senator Chipp and I think also Senator Vallentine in recent days, has made three separate claims based on that report from the United States of America about links between the Geosat program and the Trident II missile: First, that our support for the Geosat geodetic satellite involved Australia in the testing of the Trident II missile; secondly, that it involved us in the testing of the MX missile; and, thirdly, that I had somehow misled the Senate in allegedly covering up this involvement or indeed any association between Geosat and military matters. Senator Chipp —Unwittingly, we said. Senator GARETH EVANS —Perhaps so. I am indebted to Senator Chipp for his giving me the benefit of the doubt in that respect. I think the best way I can answer Senator Sanders's question is by tracking over each of those three claims in turn. If I have left anything unreplied to at the end of my answer I will be happy to endeavour to answer a supplementary question. As to the first point, there is no link between our support for the Geosat program and tests of the Trident II missiles. The Trident II tests are not, never have been and, on information available to us, are never likely to be conducted in our region. I will say something further in a moment about such links as do exist between Trident and Geosat programs generally, but as to the specific testing question, that is as explicit as I can possibly make it. To come to the second point, there is no connection between our support for Geosat and MX testing. The area that was previously prepared for MX testing in international waters by the placing of deep ocean transponders is not the same as the area covered by P3C validation flights operated by the United States from Australia. In fact, the United States has not carried out any MX tests south of the Equator since Australia's concerns about the MX testing program were raised by the Prime Minister in Washington earlier this year. Moreover, the Australian Government has now been advised by Washington that the United States has no current plans to conduct MX testing in the Tasman Sea. Senator Chipp —Do you believe that? Senator GARETH EVANS —I believe it on exactly the same basis as I believe the assurances that are given by our allies in other respects. Senator Chipp —You would believe anything, then. Senator GARETH EVANS —I hope that Senator Chipp would at least take into account, if he does not accept the direct denials that are made in this respect, the circumstantial evidence which in fact supports those denials. I make the point, as I did a moment ago, about the location of those transponders in relation to the areas tracked by the P3C flights. If Senator Chipp is unable to appreciate the significance of that particular point, I am sorry for him. The point I am making is that the supposed link between our support for Geosat and the MX intercontinental ballistic missile testing program is doubly misconceived on the two grounds that I have mentioned. I turn now to the charge that I have, unwitting or otherwise, misled the Senate in my statements about the Geosat and its relations to the Trident II program. Neither I nor anyone else in the Government has ever denied that data derived from the Geosat satellite has a range of applications, both military and civilian. On 21 August I said in this chamber: The Government certainly does not deny that there is a range of uses, civil and military, for the Geosat data. Moreover, on 10 September I acknowledged, at the first opportunity available to me after the office of the Minister for Defence corrected information initially provided to me, that funding for the Geosat program had been provided under the Trident II vote for a period up to 1 October this year, although funding for the Geosat now falls under the defence meteorological satellite program. So the claim in the light of that that I had in any way concealed or covered up such link as did exist between Geosat and Trident II, or had in any way misled the Senate as to the existence of such a link, is, with respect, Mr President, simply ridiculous. Claims that are now being made that the Trident II is the primary purpose of the Geosat are something else altogether-and those are claims with which the Government does not agree. I note that in the congressional document PE351, which has been quoted in Press reports and relied upon by the Australian Democrats and Senator Vallentine in recent days, the key word `primary' is nowhere used to describe the relationship between Trident and Geosat. In fact, the United States Pentagon, the supposed originator of this document, has confirmed to us that this is a misinterpretation of the document. The Trident II program is a user of Geosat data, but it is not the primary user. The United States Navy document which has been quoted and which Senator Sanders and Senator Chipp are now getting so excited about, is the United States Navy's bid for funding from Congress. As such, and as with so many similar documents, it is an advocacy document-and that is something with which Senator Chipp is entirely familiar. It stresses those elements of the program that are most likely to find favour in Congress. It is not and it does not purport to be a comprehensive description of the programs and their benefits. Our advice from the Pentagon is that data derived from the Geosat has only indirect application to the Trident II program and we believe that this is a more balanced assessment of the total program. Here again, I wish to stress that our involvement in the Geosat program is not connected with those aspects of it that are involved with Trident II. Finally, the Geosat program has its origin in a NASA-funded Seasat project and, as I have said, it has now been moved out of the Trident project budget into a quite separate program. Geosat data is publicly available and it makes a significant contribution to the study of fisheries, mineral exploration and exploitation, and scientific research. As I said here on 21 August, our co-operation to Geosat is provided on the understanding that it will benefit Australia in all these ways. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Will the Minister advise, in the context of the recent decisions of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Nassau, the latest round of police repression and the new wave of Press censorship in South Africa, whether the Australian Government is further considering changes to air links with South Africa? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Maguire, I am sure, expresses the sentiments of most members of the national Parliament in respect of the distasteful policy of apartheid which operates in South Africa. I refer him to the decision made at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting that is designed to give the South African Government six months to make some progress towards dismantling the very restrictive policies of apartheid as they apply to the overwhelming majority of people who reside in South Africa. The Government, of course, prior to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, took some steps to express its views on this matter. It has also implemented a policy of reducing the number of flights to South Africa to one a week. However, having regard to the unanimous decision taken in respect of the Commonwealth attitude, the Government is prepared to examine further its obligations and has set up an inquiry into what further steps it can take in respect of passenger services by South African Airways to that country. As part of that process the Government has required Qantas Airways Ltd to make a submission, commenting upon further courses of action that can be taken to expedite the desires of the Australian Government as well as the desires of the Commonwealth, as expressed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, to move towards applying what pressures we can so that the whole policy of apartheid is completely dismantled and the principle of equal treatment for every citizen in South Africa is effected. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Reserve Bank of Australia likely to have to impose even tighter monetary policies in support of the Australian dollar which is under renewed pressure as a result of yesterday's national wage case and last week's broad money figures? Does the Minister agree with economist Mr Will Buttrose who said on the AM program today that short term interest rates could rise by another one per cent by the end of the year and that there was little prospect of an easing in rates before the middle of next year? Senator WALSH —I certainly would not take any notice of what Mr Buttrose says about this matter or anything else. He has a record of inaccuracy that is probably equalled or exceeded only by advisers to the former Treasurer. I do not have any brief on the more general question. The Treasurer has still not returned to Australia, but when he does return I will put the question to him and see what response, if any, he cares to make. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I refer to a report in the Australian newspaper of yesterday's date which stated that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, had hinted at a $200m plan for the long term protection of the Daintree Rainforest in north Queensland. In view of the devastation that has already taken place in the forest through the actions of the Queensland Government, has the Bjelke-Petersen Administration given any indication that it would be prepared to co-operate with the Commonwealth on any program of long term protection? When can we expect a firm announcement by the Commonwealth on plans to protect the Daintree forest? Are there any further plans to protect vital rainforests in Australia and, in particular, in Queensland? How many forests are listed under the Australian Heritage Commission and what is the legal value of such listings? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment tabled in Parliament on 16 October this year a report on rainforest conservation in Australia. The report recommended that the Commonwealth adopt a Commonwealth rainforest conservation policy and implement, in co-operation with the States and the Northern Territory, a national rainforest conservation program. In that report are a number of elements concerning conservation. Mr Cohen has sought the views of Commonwealth and State Ministers and major non-government organisations on the report. It is available for public comment until 15 November this year. So far the report has received favourable support from all concerned groups. Last week Mr Cohen discussed with the Premier of Queensland the program recommended in the report. The Premier indicated that he is willing to consider the program cautiously and is happy to receive a proposal from the Government. A major concern of conservationists and others is the logging of virgin rainforest such as that at Downey Creek in north Queensland. Next week Mr Cohen will be meeting with representatives of McIlwraith-Davey Ltd, the parent company of Foxwood Ltd, which is involved in the Downey Creek operations. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the issue of logging in that area in the light of the report. Mr Cohen has stated that he will put to Cabinet in the next few weeks proposals for rainforest conservation based on the report and the comments on that report. I will ask Mr Cohen to provide information in response to the honourable senator's question concerning how many forests are listed by the Australian Heritage Commission and the legal value of such listings. The support the report has received is an indication of Mr Cohen's co-operative approach to the vexed and very important issue of rainforest conservation in Australia. Senator BROWNHILL —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer noted the estimate by the Australian Workers Union in Queensland that about 1,000 of its members in that State alone could lose their jobs in the restaurant and catering industry if the Government proceeds with the planned abolition of tax deductibility for business entertainment expenses? Putting aside the Minister's answers to previous questions on this matter, will the Government reconsider its position on entertainment expenses and modify the proposal as urged by the Opposition, the Western Australian Premier, Mr Burke, and Mr Errol Hodder, secretary of the Queensland AWU? Senator WALSH —No, I was not aware of that wild guess to which Senator Brownhill referred. I am, however, aware of the report appearing in the Sunday Times which is published in Perth. The 3 November issue showed that a survey by the Australian Tourism Industry Training Committee shows that several thousand trained staff, including 100 chefs, are needed by major new accommodation projects already under way in Western Australia. Waiters and chefs at Perth hotels and tourist developments are needed so desperately that the hospitality industry fears that it will be seriously embarrassed before the start of the America's Cup. The director of training with the Australian Tourism Industry Training Committee, Mr Ferrier, also said that there is a shortage of chefs Australia-wide which is so desperate that `we may have to look for them overseas'. Of course, I am aware of a number of wild and exaggerated claims. The highest that I know of I think came from Mr Hodgman, among others, and that is that 80,000 jobs will be lost in the industry because the free lunch has been abolished. The total employment in the industry is believed to be of the order of 76,000. So we have a job loss of 105 per cent because the free lunch has been ended! I am also aware that the industry propagandists have, fortunately, largely discredited themselves. Apart from the forecast that job losses would exceed total employment in the industry, in Adelaide the proprietor of a topless restaurant was wheeled up to put the free lunch lobby's case, followed by a topless waitress who, I believe, was covered on this occasion. She was asked whether she had heard businessmen at these free lunches discussing business deals and sewing up millions of dollars worth of business. She replied that the only things she ever heard them talking about were football, horse racing and sex. Senator Haines —In that order? Senator WALSH —I am not sure whether it was in that order. I have noted that the present Leader of the Opposition-that is, the discredited former Treasurer-has stated as a point of principle that all expenses incurred necessarily in the earning of income should be deductible from taxable income. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people necessarily incur expense associated with the earning of income by travelling to work. Despite that lofty principle, I know that at no time during his five years as Treasurer did the present Leader of the Opposition advocate that that particular expense, necessarily and unequivocally incurred in the earning of income, should be deducted from taxable income. So his adherence to the alleged principle is, to say the least, highly selective. One can also calculate from some of the other claims by the industry propagandists that deals greater than the total private sector contribution to GDP are made over the business lunch. There was a Mr Khoo in Perth, for example, who rang my office and incidentally was so rude and irrational that my secretary, who is a very patient and tolerant person-some would say that she would have to be since she has been my secretary for 11 years-hung up on him. Mr Khoo was later quoted in the West Australian newspaper as saying that multimillion dollar deals were wrapped up at the business lunch, implying at every business lunch. There are, according to other figures supplied by the industry propagandists, something like 800,000 business lunches conducted a week-I have forgotten the precise figure. If multimillion is taken to mean $3m at all the business lunches which are allegedly held, according to figures supplied by the industry, and if four people attend each business lunch and each wraps up a multimillion dollar deal, the amount of business wrapped up at the business lunch exceeds the total private sector contribution to gross domestic product. That demonstrates the sort of absurd propaganda which is being circulated by a noisy minority of selfish people who want to continue bludging on the rest of the taxpayers by having free lunches, and free boozy lunches. In its own advertisements Business against Non-Deductibility, which operates under the acronym BAND, refers to enormous damage being done to the wineries and the breweries as a result of the abolition of the free lunch. I do not dispute that a great deal of alcohol is consumed at these so-called business lunches and, to the extent that indulgence in the business lunch is reduced, instead of tycoons coming back to the office at 4 o`clock on a Friday afternoon half full, they might come back at 2 o'clock, sober, and do some work. Senator BROWNHILL —I wish to ask a supplementary question. As the Minister has expressed so many opinions reflecting other points of view, will he please state his position on the opinions expressed by Premier Burke of Western Australia and Mr Errol Hodder? Senator WALSH —I think that it is implicit in everything I have said. Senator TATE —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware of concern expressed in Tasmania by various ex-service groups, such as the War Widows Guild, the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Soldiers Association of Australia and the Returned Services League, on changes being proposed to the veterans domiciliary nursing service? Will the Minister advise the Senate of the latest arrangements concerning domiciliary nursing services to eligible persons in Tasmania? Senator GIETZELT —An internal audit by the Department of Veterans' Affairs revealed very unsatisfactory financial arrangements in respect of domiciliary nurses in Tasmania, where 4 per cent of the veterans were receiving 11 per cent of the funds. Clearly, there needed to be some examination of this issue. I think I answered a question on this matter from both Opposition and Government members several weeks ago. On the basis of publicity in the Tasmanian newspapers, the Tasmanian Minister for Health approached me, both officially and unofficially, with a view to integrating and co-ordinating the services, having regard to the fact that domiciliary services are generally provided by State governments. I agreed, in response to questions in the Senate, that that was a desirable objective. However, the matter was not finalised and, as Senator Tate has mentioned, there was some reaction from some of the veterans' organisations and some of the very elderly war widows, who suggested that they would like to see the present arrangements continued. Of course, they did not involve themselves in the question of costs in providing the services. Having regard to this, last week I visited Tasmania and met with the representatives Senator Tate referred to. In discussions with the domiciliary nurses agreement was reached in respect of reducing the fees, which were somewhat similar to the fees that had been negotiated with the Tasmanian Government. I think the issue was that domiciliary nurses had established a very harmonious and wonderful relationship with many of the aged veterans and widows and it was their desire to see this service continue. Arising out of the very amicable discussions with the ex-service community, the nurses and the Tasmanian Minister for Health I agreed that we would allow the present arrangements to continue; that is, that domiciliary nurses would continue to provide the services at the reduced negotiated fee to veterans and war widows as had been the practice. I agreed to make a submission to the Tasmanian Government, through its Minister for Health, to negotiate a similar fee for all future services required by veterans and war widows. I believe that those services will grow extensively in the future because it is part of the Government's philosophy to provide services to veterans and war widows so that they can stay in their own homes for as long as possible rather than go into institutions. I believe that that will be a growth area, and it will be the subject of a detailed submission to the Tasmanian Minister for Health. Having discussed the matter with the Minister, I am confident that he will be in a position to take it to Cabinet. In the future-probably starting from 1 January next year-there will be new arrangements for services for new veterans' groups. But the existing arrangements and the very harmonious relations between nurses and patients will continue as a result of the negotiated new rate. Senator HAMER —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, refers to the recent tragic accident on HMAS Stalwart in which two sailors lost their lives. Did the Minister see the statement by the captain of the ship that, after a major overhaul in a dockyard, equipment problems were normal and expected? Does the Government accept this attitude? Why should naval sailors have to go to sea in unsafe ships? Why should they have to complete and redo repair work that was supposed to have been done by civilian dockyard workers who, incidentally, are paid much more than they are? What is the Government doing about the level of quality control in naval dockyards? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have a brief on the circumstances of the particular accident. I am not sure whether it specifically addresses the matters raised by Senator Hamer. Accordingly, I will take his question on notice and give him a reply as soon as possible. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services comment on the report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance which was presented to the Government by the Chairman, Peter Self, last week? Is the Minister satisfied with the extent of local government consultation during the inquiry? Will the Minister inform the Senate about the way in which local government views will continue to be considered by the Government in responding to the report's recommendations? Senator GIETZELT —It is true, as Senator Reynolds suggested, that an inquiry into the financing of local government has been underway for the past two years. I think that the inquiry was established in September 1983. It is to the credit of those involved in such an inquiry that they have travelled not only to the States but also to very many local government areas throughout Australia seeking views and examining the way in which local government finances are organised on a very local basis. I stress that many of the 900-odd local government bodies are small and are in isolated areas. As a consequence of that, the report of the inquiry takes into account the difficulties of local government bodies in remote areas, matters which have been discussed often in this place. I refer particularly to the areas in north Queensland in which Senator Reynolds has an interest such as Cloncurry and Emerald. Therefore, the persons involved in the preparation of the report have had extensive consultation with not only State government and State government Ministers for local government but also local government itself. I think it would be true to say that there is a general acceptance that there is a degree of imbalance in local government finance and that it is not possible for local government to carry out its proper function with the narrow rate base on which most local government bodies have to rely. With an increasing number of local government bodies exercising their option of going into the area of human services, it is all the more important that the Commonwealth, as the principal collector of funds throughout Australia, should establish a policy-I think the report seeks to do that-of providing funds on an equitable basis to every local government body in Australia. Rather than having direct or untied grants, which was examined by the inquiry, the objective has been to try to establish a system in which there would be a greater equality in services and, therefore, a greater degree of Commonwealth involvement in providing funds. The report is in the hands of the Government. The Government has established an interdepartmental committee comprising the departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Finance, Treasury, Transport and the new office of the Minister for Community Services. The Prime Minister has undertaken to write to all State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. We hope that, as a result of the further consultative processes that have been the subject of this report, we will be in a position to make a submission to government. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that the net fuel tax cost to farmers this financial year will be $440m provided there are no more fuel price rises before next July? Does he realise that primary producers will be worse off than they were last financial year despite the Labor Government's supposed help in the Budget to reduce farm costs? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether this Government has any plans to reinstate the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, the withdrawal of which by the Labor Government has cost rural Australia $109m? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has no plans to reimpose that subsidy, for the reason that it has not operated equitably or effectively in the past to significantly reduce costs on the scale that has been claimed by some honourable senators opposite. A very significant program of misrepresentation was mounted at the time that subsidy was removed, or at least limited in its scope. The situation is only that rural consumers are up for another up to 4c a litre as a result of the removal of the subsidy and a great many of them, of course, are up for either no extra costs or something less than 4c. Some of the more extravagant claims about the impact on particular consumers that were made at the time the subsidy was removed are utterly unfounded. I remind the honourable senator that the Government has taken close account of the problem of rural costs by taking such measures as extending to a full rebate the excise duty on diesel fuel used by farm consumers. That measure has been noted-it has not been applauded because it is very difficult to get any applause out of the rural community for anything-as a significant contribution to farm costs. The difficulties of the rural community at the moment are universally acknowledged by probably everyone except National Party of Australia representatives here as being very largely a function not of internal Australian cost factors at all but rather the external market situation that has been created in particular by the operation of the European Economic Community and the real problems that that has created for producers of rural commodities. I further make the point that, insofar as Senator Bjelke-Petersen represents the sugar industry and purports to speak on behalf of that sector of the rural community in what she said here today, the stumbling block for the resurrection of that industry to the extent that it is possible to attain that within this country has not been the Federal Government, which has gone out of its way to try to reach a rational solution in that area, but rather her own State government which has behaved in a manifestly pigheaded, obstreperous and selfish way. It is one which has not won any support from the cane growers in that State. Senator COATES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to media reports of a study by a group led by a Mr Paul Coughlin, of the Melbourne University Graduate School of Management, into the operations of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation? The report claimed that in profitability, efficiency and growth the Commonwealth Bank lagged behind other banks and concluded that the Bank should be sold. Does the Minister agree with the conclusion drawn by the study, particularly the claim of a loss of $182m? If not, will the Minister outline the major benefits, both social and economic, that have accrued to the Australian people through public ownership of the Commonwealth Bank and how these benefits might be affected if, as the report suggests, the Bank were sold to private interests? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the report; I heard it yesterday morning on the wireless. However, I am informed that the figure of $182m, which has been cited in the Press, does not appear in the report. The source of that figure is unknown to me. It was also reported in the Age yesterday morning that the principal author of the report, a Mr Paul Coughlin, worked for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, when Mr Howard was Treasurer. So I think it would be fair to say that there is at least a possibility that there might be a certain amount of ideological prejudice involved in preparing the report. Whether Mr Coughlin helped Mr Howard cook the books when he was preparing the 1982 Budget, or deceived the public early in 1983 as to the likely size of the deficit-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I do not think there is any protection for Mr Coughlin under the Standing Orders but there is protection for Mr Howard, and I suggest that you ask the Minister to withdraw. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw his remarks in respect of a member of another House. Senator WALSH —Very well, I withdraw, Mr President, but I was not accusing Mr Coughlin of anything. I was about to say that I did not know whether Mr Coughlin did those things. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister has withdrawn. I ask him to continue his answer. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. The study as reported, and the study according to my advice, has some inconsistencies. However, it would appear that the figure of $182m relates to some assumed difference between the amount of tax that would have been paid by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation over a 10-year period and the amount actually paid to the Commonwealth in dividends. It would appear that that is the source of it. Until 1 July 1984 the Commonwealth Banking Corporation was not liable to pay income tax. Since that date it has been liable to pay income tax. That was one of the reforms introduced by this Government. However, even if everything in the report is factually and financially sound, a few other points are overlooked. One is that the making of profits was not the entire reason for originally setting up the Commonwealth Bank and I believe that the great majority of Australians have taken this view ever since. It does, to a much lesser degree certainly, like Telecom Australia and Australia Post, accept some social responsibility to provide services in areas where probably other banks would not. In addition, some State governments have received long term benefits from favourable loans provided by the Corporation. It should also be noted-and this has particular relevance to any claim that the Commonwealth Bank has been less profitable than the major private banks-that the new capital injection provided by this Government in 1984 was the first such addition to capital other than retained earnings that the bank had enjoyed since its inception. In the last two years there has been strong growth in profitability by the Corporation, with 55 per cent growth in operating profit before tax in 1983-84-that is, on the 1982-83 year-and a further 24 per cent growth in 1984-85 on 1982-83. I personally have not seen the report. I asked yesterday for a copy to be provided to me. I do not think it has arrived yet but I will certainly have a look at it when it does arrive. Senator MISSEN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of an article by David K. Willis, staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor, published on 19 October this year in which it is claimed that the military Marxist Government of Ethiopia is extracting at least $12m in foreign currency this year from the generosity of donors giving mountains of grain to feed that nation's famine victims? Secondly, has the Minister sought and obtained any evidence from Australian officials and non-government organisations in Ethiopia which confirm that relief agencies have been forced to pay, even after some reduction, an amount of $3.75 per ton to unload and store grain compared with $2 per ton in Mombassa, Kenya, and 50c per ton in Port Sudan? Thirdly, is it a fact that the average grain ship unloading at Assab, Ethiopia, is charged a fee of almost $13,000 compared with a flat fee of $2,000 at Port Sudan? Fourthly, are the grossly excessive payments being used by the Ethiopian Government as a source of hard currency to buy guns and ammunition to fight Eritreans and Tigreans struggling for independence? Finally, when will the present Australian Government and other gutless Western governments raise this matter in international forums and expose this exploitation of world generosity and this exacerbation of suffering by the Ethiopian Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not sure that my brief on this matter covers all the range of concerns of Senator Missen but I will be happy to take anything I cannot answer on notice, except perhaps an acknowledgement of his reference to gutless governments if that was meant to apply to us. I am aware of Press reports critical of the Ethiopian Government for devoting more of its resources to defence and similar expenditures than to humanitarian relief and economic development. There is a continuing concern that aid may not be reaching all of those most in need. We believe the most urgent priority facing the Ethiopian Government and international donors is the provision of emergency humanitarian relief to alleviate as soon as possible the continuing suffering of millions of people still in Ethiopia. Distribution facilities in Ethiopia, both at ports and throughout the country, remain a major concern of the donor community. We hope that the Ethiopian Government will accord a priority to famine and drought relief efforts. I have some figures about Australian aid assistance. However, I am not sure that they bear specifically on the matters raised by Senator Missen. I will take that on board and give him an answer as soon as possible this week. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The main purpose of my question was to ask when this Government and others will raise this matter in international forums and expose the exploitation of world generosity. What will the Government do about that? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have taken on board Senator Missen's concerns. Senator ZAKHAROV —I address my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. What is the Government's reaction to the campaign on Aboriginal land rights launched today by the Australian Mining Industry Council? Does the Government accept the claims made in today's advertisement and the supplementary material being distributed by the AMIC? Senator GARETH EVANS —As the Minister responsible for the development of Australia's mining and petroleum resources, I am acutely conscious of the importance of those resources to the nation's future. To that extent, neither I nor the Government could object to the industry making a public case for continued reasonable access to land. But the Government and the community as a whole have a clear responsibility to take fully into account competing interests where they arise, to recognise the worth of competing claims for land use, and to provide some appropriate mechanism for enabling a workable resolution of conflicts where they occur. The land rights debate, as it has been conducted by this Government, has really been all about trying to find balanced and equitable solutions to very sensitive and difficult questions. It is a matter for real doubt whether the current Australian Mining Industry Council campaign, launched today, will contribute usefully to that process. I am not at all sure that it is appropriate to describe the campaign-which involves newspaper advertisements plus a mass of supplementary material which is made available to the media and others on request-as balanced and reasonable, as it has been by the Executive Director of AMIC, Mr James Strong. Certainly it is an improvement on the crude racism of the campaign waged a few months ago by the Western Australian Chamber of Mines, but a number of aspects of the AMIC campaign are, to say the least, unfortunate. The first unfortunate element is the very graphic series of maps which have already started to appear-inevitably-in the media, showing the land that would be claimable by Aborigines if the Government's preferred model were to be adopted throughout Australia. The point that is not made nearly as graphically in the accompanying text is that the mere fact that land is made available for claim, in the sense that it is presently unalienated Crown land, does not mean that the claim will be granted. That depends, in turn, on a very elaborate claim process, and the clear satisfaction of one or other of a number of very firm criteria, including things like traditional entitlement or long term occupation. The second major concern of the Government with the AMIC campaign is that the campaign's major theme, around which just about everything else revolves, is the claim that there should be a presumption in favour of exploration and mining, with Aboriginal interests having to overcome that initial presumption against their acceptance. The Government's position here is, very importantly, that there should be equal consideration of both interests: There should be no presumption in favour of exploration and mining in a situation in which the general interests of Aboriginal Australians are adversely affected; nor should there be any presumptive right to veto by Aboriginal interests which then has to be reversed. The Government's preferred model, with its tribunal and independent assessment procedures, provides for that equal consideration and will allow governments to make informed and considered decisions in these circumstances. The third and remaining area of difficulty to which I advert is that the campaign material utterly refuses to acknowledge that the Government has already gone out of its way to meet mining industry concerns in relation to what are described in the material as the three unacceptable principles in the Federal model on the subjects, respectively, of access to Aboriginal land, compensation and protection of existing interests. Discussions were held in June this year involving the Prime Minister, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, myself and AMIC which clarified-apparently to everyone's satisfaction at the time-the intended operation of the preferred model in those three areas in question. I subsequently sent a letter to the President of AMIC on 12 June confirming the substance of those discussions. Whilst there has been no formal reply to that letter to date, the Government has received no further representations on these matters, and I have been led to understand, as it certainly appeared at the time, that the Government's response satisfactorily met the industry's concerns. I am surprised that AMIC should see the need for its present campaign in view of the apparently large measure of agreement and understanding that has been reached, even acknowledging that nobody's position in this complex area should be regarded as absolutely final at this stage. For the record I table my letter of 12 June and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans Q.C. Minister for Resources and Energy Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 12 June 1985 Mr B. D. Watson, President, Australian Mining Industry Council, P.O. Box 363, Dickson, A.C.T. 2602 Dear Mr Watson, Preferred National Land Rights Model I refer to your letter to the Prime Minister dated 4 June on the above subject and to the Prime Minister's and my discussions with you on the same day, at which a representative of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was present. In the light of those discussions, and having regard to comments made in your letter, it may be helpful to clarify the Government's position in respect of the three particular issues which you identified in your letter, namely access to Aboriginal land, compensation and existing interests. I should mention that I am writing to you myself in the absence of the Prime Minister on leave, and that Mr Holding has seen and endorsed the text of this letter. Access to Aboriginal Land The Prime Minister has consistently made it clear not only to AMIC representatives but to Aboriginal groups, and by way of public statement, that no one group within the community should have the right to veto the development of national resources. He did so again at our meeting on 4 June. The Government does support, however, the right of Aboriginal traditional owners to object to proposed exploration or mining on Aboriginal land. To the extent that there are objections, which cannot be resolved between the parties by negotiation, they will be heard and assessed by an independent tribunal, which will in turn make recommendations to the Government for final determination. While this process does acknowledge the special interests of the Aboriginal people concerned, and the need for the Government to be fully and objectively informed of the issues involved before making a determination, it cannot in any way be interpreted to amount to an Aboriginal veto. Given the expressed intention to ensure that both the preliminary negotiation stage and any subsequent tribunal process will be constrained by specified time limits, the Government cannot accept, either, that such a procedure would amount to a ``de facto'' Aboriginal veto, or would amount to such an impediment or disadvantage to the mining industry as to dissuade potential investment in exploration and development of resources in this country. In the course of our discussions, you pointed to the wording in paragraphs 9.1 and 9.7 of the preferred model and indicated that your Council had drawn the conclusions that Aboriginal traditional owners of land would be given the right to refuse consent in a way similar to that which is provided to Land Councils under section 40 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. I hope that what I have said above makes it clear that what we have in mind is simply an objection procedure-to be resolved by the machinery I have described-and not what you call a ``presumptive right to veto which has then to be reversed''. As was indicated during our meeting, I and Mr Holding will be willing to meet further with AMIC representatives, either personally or through our officials, with a view to looking further at the wording in the model so that any doubts you may have as to the Government's intentions on this issue are removed. Compensation As to compensation, the Government seeks to do no more than ensure that compensation is based on actual damage or disturbance to the land in question. What must be recognised, however, is that the relationship with that land of the Aboriginal people involved may well-given the very basis of the principle of Aboriginal land rights-be of a specially sensitive character, and that cannot be ignored in the assessment of that compensation any more than any other specially sensitive land use can be ignored in assessing compensation in a non-Aboriginal context. What is involved in the preferred model in this respect is not any generalised extension of the ``sacred sites'' concept, but rather simply a spelling out of the consequences, in this context, of an ordinary damage-based compensation regime. Again it would appear that further discussion between your representatives and me and Mr Holding, or our officials, would be productive in resolving any misunderstandings which may flow from the language in which the preferred model is presently expressed. Existing Interests While the Government is not inclined to accept-given the very much greater impact upon the land that may be involved in actual mining operations-that the mere existence of a prior exploration title should in itself guarantee follow-on development title without further opportunity for negotiations and tribunal consideration, we do acknowledge the force of your point that regard should be given to the position of an existing title-holder who has spent considerable funds in exploration and proving-up. As indicated in our discussion, we would be prepared to specifically acknowledge, and give legislative recognition to, arguments based on substantial prior expenditure, perhaps by requiring that the tribunal should have specific regard to this in formulating its recommendation in the event of a dispute. Again this is a matter which might usefully be pursued in further discussions between your representatives and Mr Holding and me, or our officials. It is worth restating that the preferred model does not represent a final Government view. Rather it provides the basis for continuing discussions and consultation which are being undertaken by this Government. The comments which we have received from the Australian Mining Industry Council will continue to play an important part in our consideration of our policy objectives in relation to Aboriginal land rights. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS Senator GARETH EVANS —I conclude by saying that the Government has endorsed the principles embodied in the preferred model as a proper, reasonable and balanced basis for the implementation of Aboriginal land rights throughout Australia. The Government has stated, through Mr Holding's announcement on 13 August, that the Commonwealth Government's clearly preferred position is that land rights be implemented by State legislation, by State action, broadly consistent with the Commonwealth's principles rather than by overriding Commonwealth legislation. It has been made clear that the Government will not be taking any final decision or action on this matter until ongoing discussions with Aborginal groups, State governments and other interested parties are complete. It will be unfortunate if it proves to be the case that the AMIC campaign raises the temperature of those ongoing discussions and makes more difficult still the achievement of a balanced and just solution which is in the interests of all Australians. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a couple of comments about Question Time. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I simply ask you, in light of your request for both Opposition and the Government senators to look to the length of their questions and for Ministers to look to the length of their answers, to examine today's Question Time. I think all the questions except one or two were short but most of the answers seemed to be very long, seemed to be prepared and seemed to be more in the nature of ministerial statements. I ask you to examine that with a view to trying to get more questions into Question Time. The PRESIDENT —In response to what the Leader of the Opposition has said, I will certainly examine the matter. However, again I emphasise that it is not for the Chair to tell honourable senators how to ask questions and it is not for the Chair to tell Ministers how to answer questions. I listened intently to the answers given today and I would say that most of the answers, if not all, stuck very much to the point of the questions asked. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —by leave-I present for the information of honourable senators volume 3 of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's report for the 1985-87 triennium concerning recommendations for 1986. This volume of the report responds to the Government's supplementary guidelines which I announced on 20 August 1985, and makes recommendations on the distribution of additional funds for universities and colleges of advanced education for 1986 and 1987, and the Commonwealth's contribution to technical and further education for 1986. The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendations for the distribution of the additional funds. When this Government assumed office in 1983 tertiary education had been subject to a number of years of neglect. Higher education funding levels decreased each year between 1979 and 1982 and little effort had been made to increase the opportunities for people traditionally unrepresented in tertiary education to gain access to our colleges and universities. We came to office with a strong commitment to the tertiary education sector, determined to return funding to a level that would accommodate growth and to broaden access to tertiary education. We immediately provided additional funds for 1984 to improve participation and to achieve equity in access by disadvantaged groups. Our decisions at the beginning of the 1985-87 triennium reflected our continued commitment to tertiary education by increasing funds in 1985 by 2.8 per cent on the previous year. This was the largest funding increase since the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission was established in 1977. In the 1985-86 Budget we announced a further increase of 1.9 per cent in real terms for 1986 and the provision of an extra 5,500 student places in universities and colleges over the two-year period 1986-87. Our decisions for the 1985-87 triennium continue, and substantially build on, our participation and equity policies. Higher Education In higher education, the Government has provided substantial funding increases in support of its policies. The Government has already announced an extra $281.75m in the 1985-87 triennium over 1984 funding levels. In addition, the funds necessary to support a further increase in intakes of some 2,000 in 1987 will be determined in the 1986-87 Budget context. The Government has a record of substantial achievements: By 1987 enrolments will be some 28,000 higher than 1983. This increase in participation has been substantially in science and technology courses of direct relevance to Australia's economic requirements; Equity of access has been improved. Substantial increases in Aboriginal enrolments have been provided for and institutions have made progress in reviewing entrance requirements to promote access by the disadvantaged; The focus of enrolment growth in outer metropolitan and regional areas has served to broaden access; The capital program has been revitalised with an extra $42.9m being provided over the triennium to enable a significant increase in the number of new buildings being constructed; An extra $10.8m in equipment funds has been provided to cater for enrolment growth and to allow institutions to upgrade equipment holdings. In making recommendations on the detailed State and institutional distribution of funds for 1986, the CTEC was involved in extensive negotiations with State co-ordinating authorities and institutions, particularly in regard to the size, nature and appropriate funding levels for additional intakes at specific institutions in 1986. The difficulties experienced by institutions in regulating intakes, enrolments and student load with precision have been reported on by CTEC and the Government has agreed to the introduction of student planning ranges in colleges of advanced education. Such ranges have been used in universities for some time and provide flexibility to cope with shifts in student demand. Technical and Further Education Rapid changes have occurred in the TAFE sector over the last decade. Recognising the new challenges that lie ahead the Government decided to undertake a wide-ranging review of its role in TAFE to examine the effectiveness of existing Commonwealth grants in meeting their objectives, the appropriate role of the Commonwealth in funding and policy development, and the extent of State accountability and Commonwealth-State involvement in national development of TAFE. For 1986 the Commonwealth will be providing general recurrent grants for fees reimbursement of $89.3m, an increase of $3.7m on the 1985 provision. Designated purpose recurrent grants for curriculum development, adult literacy programs, staff development, student counselling and other purposes will be maintained in real terms at the 1985 level of $37.5m and special equipment grants, to assist the TAFE system in responding to technological developments, will be maintained at $14.8m. State governments are responsible for the planning and provision of TAFE services and facilities, and for meeting the bulk of the TAFE sector's recurrent costs. The Commonwealth Government does, however, provide significant supplementary financial support for TAFE, amounting to some $285m in 1986. In total, Commonwealth funding accounted for about a quarter of the total of TAFE services and facilities in Australia. The Government's decision to introduce the Australian traineeships system for young people will also have significant implications for TAFE which will be the main off-the-job training agency for the 75,000 traineeships to be supported by 1988-89. The traineeships will involve a Commonwealth contribution of $15.7m this financial year. A large proportion of these funds will be paid to the TAFE sector in addition to funds being provided under CTEC programs. Specific Issues The Government has accepted a number of other recommendations made by CTEC in its volume 3 report as follows: Funding support for a university in Darwin will not be provided by the Commonwealth in the short term. The CTEC advice, endorsed by the Government, is that priority must be given to the further development of the Darwin Institute of Technology. Concurrent with the proposed extension of the CTEC charter to cover cross-sectoral developments, a contribution will be made in 1986 and 1987 to the planning phase of the Western Melbourne Institute of Post-Secondary Education. This multi-sector institution will form the main element of a network of facilities to serve an area of Melbourne which has been severely disadvantaged in terms of access to tertiary education. The Government accepts CTEC advice that there would be benefits from joint planning arrangements by the university and college of advanced education in each of Armidale and Newcastle. The Commission's recommendations for a combined funding allocation for each pair of institutions will be further considered when the Government has evaluated the effectiveness of joint planning arrangements for the 1988-90 triennium. In response to a CTEC review of the system of governance for three non-government teachers colleges the Government has accepted the recommendation that the colleges be requested to develop proposals on future governance arrangements which allow for an increased level of accountability to the community. CTEC will hold further discussions with the institutions concerned. The Government's commitment to growth in education provision as an essential element of its Priority One youth policies is amply demonstrated by the decisions taken in setting the guidelines leading to this latest report of CTEC. Continued growth is being attained in all sectors with concentration in the areas of greatest need. Over half the additional places in universities and CAEs will be in the more expensive science and technology based courses, particularly engineering, science and computer science. At least 20,500 additional enrolments will be achieved in higher education over the 1985-87 triennium. Legislation to implement these decisions will be introduced shortly. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.11) —The statement just made by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) relates to a report from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and its recommendations for funding for 1986. Anyone listening to the Minister's statement would have found it hard to understand the details because tertiary education funding is complicated, but the Minister has announced some increased real funding for tertiary education and some money for an increased number of places in higher education. The Opposition welcomes this increase in funding and welcomes the initiatives which the Government has taken to increase opportunities in higher education. However, it will be clear from looking at the educational funding announced by the Government this year that the extra money has been provided for higher education at the expense of the disadvantaged, at the expense of technical and further education and at the expense of Australian schools. People have to determine whether Government priorities which favour higher education over schools, over technical and further education and over the disadvantaged in the community represent a fair set of priorities. It is my belief that they do not. The extent of the funding-rather too complicated to read to the Senate-is set out in a table on page 29 of the report. I seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 4.1 GRANTS FOR TERTIARY EDUCATION FOR 1985-87 TRIENNIUM (Estimated December 1984 cost levels) (a) Sector category 1985 1986 Guide- lines Suppl. guide- (b)...lines Total 1987 Guide- lines Suppl. guide- (b)...lines Total $m $m $m $m $m $m $m Higher Education Recurrent... 1,943.1 1,966.2 +11.35 (c)...1,977.55 1,983.0 19.6 (c)...2,002.6 Equipment... 87.4 87.4 +1.0 88.4 87.4 +2.0 89.4 Capital... 66.9 66.9 +3.5 (d)...70.4 66.9 +5.5 (d)...72.4 Total... 2,097.4 2,120.5 +15.85 2,136.35 2,137.3 +27.1 2,164.4 Technical and Further Education Recurrent... 158.6 140.85 +3.7 144.55 (e) Equipment... 14.8 14.8 - 14.8 Capital... 137.3 125.7 - 125.7 Total... 310.7 281.35 (f)...+3.7 285.05 Tertiary Education Recurrent... 2,101.7 2,107.05 +15.05 2,122.1 Equipment... 102.2 102.2 +1.0 103.2 Capital... 204.2 192.6 +3.5 196.1 Evaluation and Investigations Program (g)... 0.4 0.4 +0.4 0.8 Total... 2,408.5 2,402.25 +19.95 2,422.2 (a) Based on index values shown in Appendix 6. (b) Approved minimum levels as set out in Guidelines issued in July 1984. (c) Includes $100,000 for the teaching of Modern Greek at Flinders University and $250,000 for the Graduate School of Management at the University of Melbourne. (d) Includes $0.5 million as reimbursement to the Queensland Government for the Commonwealth Games accommodation at Griffith University. (e) Includes $17.75 million for the Participation and Equity Program; this level of funding will be maintained in real terms for 1987. (f) Reflects decisions announced in the Government's May 1985 Statement of Initial Expenditure Savings Measures (Participation and Equity Program reduced by $17.75m and capital program cut by $11.6m). (g) The Supplementary Guidelines provide $0.8 million for this program in 1987. Senator PETER BAUME —Colleges which will be taking extra students in 1986 as a result of these decisions will have rather more favourable marginal funding. We recognise this and thank the Government for it, and I know that the college sector thanks the Government for it also. The fact that there will be more opportunities in universities may mean that the 10,000 people-or maybe it was 20,000-who were turned away from the gates of universities this year will not be turned away next year. Some of them still will be. It is impossible to look at this funding statement without looking at the groups which will suffer to make the funding possible. First, this funding has been achieved at the expense of the disadvantaged in our community. We need look no further than at the Government's decisions on funding for the participation and equity program. The participation and equity program has been cut in half. The money saved by cutting that program in half for 1986 may well have been reapplied to higher education, but it represents less funding for the disadvantaged using PEP, to give more funding to universities. The Government announced PEP in this chamber. Senator Ryan announced it with great fanfare. It was laid out as `the centrepiece of the youth policy of the Hawke Government'. The Government had so much regard for the program that this year it announced that the funding was to be cut by half. The people whom this program has helped-the long term unemployed and those who have used the school-to-work transition program-are the ones who will do without in 1986. Much of the funding which has been cut will be taken away from TAFE because it was the technical and further education sector that was using the PEP funds to help disadvantaged young Australians. No matter how the Government twists and turns, it must acknowledge that in providing extra funds for its favoured groups, the universities and colleges, it has chosen to make the disadvantaged who use PEP pay for part of that expansion. Of course, PEP was for the disadvantaged and therefore the funding may have been seen to be expendable in the eyes of this Government. It seems that the priorities of this Government do not go to the disadvantaged but rather to the universities and colleges, which are to be the beneficiaries of the extra money while the disadvantaged suffer. If we look at what the new funding will provide for technical and further education we see this borne out. The table which has been incorporated in Hansard shows that, whereas TAFE funding, funding for the technical education of Australians right across the board in vocational training, was almost $311m this year, under the guidelines which the Minister has brought in today-we would not have known it from her statement-it will drop to just over $280m for 1986. The TAFE funding, of course, will suffer particularly because TAFE was the recipient of about half the participation and equity funding. The TAFE sector teaches people vocational skills. It is the largest sector of post-school education in Australia. It is the most accessible and the most used. Something like three-quarters of a million Australians use TAFE. The Commonwealth's contribution to their funding for 1986 has not been enhanced under these guidelines. It has been constricted, particularly because of the cut in the participation and equity program funds. The Government's priorities clearly do not run to TAFE and to whose who use the system. I remind honourable senators that this year alone perhaps 60,000 Australians were turned away from the gates of technical colleges when they were doing nothing more than seeking to improve themselves. Not only that, but also the Minister has announced that a review will be carried out of TAFE funding arrangements. Many of us fear that such a review will mean reduced funding in the longer term. The Minister called it a wide-ranging review of the Government's role in TAFE. I suggest to those people who are fond of TAFE, who depend on TAFE, who use TAFE and who care about TAFE that they watch this review very carefully because, in the way of government reviews, it could presage a cut in funding. It is true that the Australian traineeship system which has been announced will provide some extra training places. The Minister in her statement said that there will be 75,000 places four years from now. The Minister has announced the amount of money to be provided for this financial year. How many places will there be this financial year? Senator Ryan —Next year, 10,000. Senator PETER BAUME —The Minister says that next year there will be 10,000 places, but the Government will provide only about $1,600 per place. I suggest that those in TAFE had better determine whether that will be adequate for the task. Senator Ryan —It is only for three months. Senator PETER BAUME —I just point that out. We come to school funding. It is particularly sad that when the Minister brought in this statement of increased funding for higher education she did not remind the Senate that this exercise has been undertaken against the background of reduced funding for Australian schools. I go to the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission for 1986. The report, entitled `Response to Government Guidelines', was tabled in this place a few weeks ago. I will read parts of the report which identify just how unsatisfactory the funding arrangements of schools are. We will examine the funding arrangements for higher education against what schools have had to yield and do without. In paragraph 1.2 of that report we read the following in terms of the Government's funding: The Government has thus provided funding of some $1,474.7m for Commonwealth general resource and specific purpose programs for schools in 1986. This represents a net reduction in real terms of $18.7m or 1.3 per cent, on the 1985 level. I repeat that-a net reduction in real terms of $18.7m, or 1.3 per cent on the 1985 level. Programs for government schools-and let a socialist government be proud about this-have been reduced in real terms by $18m or 2.7 per cent. That is no reactionary group saying that; that is the Commonwealth Schools Commission. I am trying to point out where some of the funding for this improvement in tertiary education has come from. The Commonwealth Schools Commission goes on to comment in paragraph 1.5: In particular, the Government has again deferred action on comprehensive proposals for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students . . . The Commonwealth Schools Commission had occasion in its report to draw attention to deficiencies in its funding which did not permit it to take up vital programs for the most disadvantaged Australians-Aboriginal Australians-but we see extra funds poured into the tertiary sector, into the darlings of academe, which this Government has obviously chosen to prefer. We find in paragraph 1.13 this comment: The Government's decision in the May Statement to reduce funds in the English as a Second Language, Special Education, Multicultural Education and Country Areas Programs has affected areas of considerable need . . . That is because each of those areas has had- Senator Ryan —They were minute. Senator PETER BAUME —The Minister says they were minute. If that is so, why reduce them at all? Why not take some of the money that the Government has found for tertiary education in order to maintain the English as a second language program? Why not maintain special education for the physically handicapped? Why not maintain multicultural education? The Government reduced the funds and it is sending a clear signal by the low priority it gives those programs. When it increases funds in another area it is giving a clear signal as to where its relative priorities lie. The Government's relative priorities lie with the better educated high fliers who use higher education because those are the sectors which are emerging as winners in the statement which the Minister has brought down today. I return to the CSC report. I quote paragraph 1.15: The May statement also announded a $20m reduction in the Capital Grants Program for government and non-government schools. That is another expression of Government priority; more money saved to be poured back into the tertiary sector. The Commission goes on to comment that many of the school libraries that were said to be adequate were far below the Commission's standards for school library facilities. The Commission is even disagreeing with the conclusions the Government has used to justify some of its cuts. This Government's priorities, as expressed in its funding, are for higher education, universities and colleges. They do not run to the disadvantaged, technical and further education or to schoolchildren. Schools will get less funding from the Commonwealth; the CSC says so. Every teacher and every teachers' union in Australia should look at this statement today, should look at the funding decisions announced today, should go back and look at the funding decisions announced a few weeks ago and in May, then work out whether they have been given a fair go or not. There are several other matters to which I wish to draw the attention of the Senate. The first is the distribution of new places in universities. The Government's statement today contains a table which shows the projected enrolment range for each university and each college. When I look at where the new university places will be made available, I discover that it is only in the newer universities. The universities which will gain enrolment are Newcastle, Wollongong, La Trobe, Deakin, James Cook, Griffith, Murdoch and Flinders-- Senator Ryan —The University of Western Australia will get more. Senator PETER BAUME —The Minister mentions Western Australia but when I looked at the figures I did not think it would get more. If that is the case I acknowledge it, but I did not think so from the table. I would suggest that those who are interested in excellence in universities should ensure that these extra places have been given against the background that excellence in the tertiary sector will be maintained. It is interesting that La Trobe is the last choice of almost every matriculant in Victoria and that in Queensland Griffith University does not rank high among people's choices. The second matter that I wish to mention concerns places in western Sydney. I understand that the college sector is quite pleased with the recommendation in this report that there should be an institute of technology instead of a university for Sydney's western suburbs. Whatever the name of the institution is, the fact remains that Sydney's western suburbs are grossly underrepresented in the number of places. Western Sydney has a population that is greater than that of South Australia, for example. Its population is much greater than that of Adelaide and it is greater than the whole of South Australia. Looking at the report I find that the number of places available at the Cumberland College of Health Sciences, at Hawkesbury Agricultural College, at the Macarthur Institute of Higher Education and the Nepean College of Advanced Education added together still provide only some 5,500 places. If I then look at the number of places provided for South Australia, just to get a comparison for a similar population, I find that there are some 24,500 places available. It is not surprising to read on page 14 of the report in paragraph 2.23: The consequence is that higher education participation rates in New South Wales are the lowest in mainland Australia. It is against the background of participation rates in my State being the lowest-- Senator Ryan —It is very high in universities, but the participation rate is low for CAEs. Senator PETER BAUME —I am interested in the total number of places available. A young Australian going through the secondary system in my State has less opportunity to participate in higher education than one in any other State. There is still a maldistribution of places, particularly those affecting my constituents in western Sydney, and I must draw attention to this fact. My final point is that the Government has once again raised the prospect of amalgamation-amalgamation by another name, to be sure, but amalgamation nevertheless-for the University of New England at Armidale and the Armidale College of Advanced Education and also for the two equivalent institutions in Newcastle. Senator Ryan —You were going to amalgamate them four years ago. Senator PETER BAUME —Oh! The Minister says that I was going to do it. I set out openly to amalgamate these institutions. This Government made sure that there would be no amalgamation. Now let us look at what the Minister has said: The Government accepts CTEC advice that there would be benefits from joint planning arrangements by the university and college of advanced education in each of Armidale and Newcastle. That was Senator Ryan herself saying that. That is amalgamation by another name. This means that the Government recognises there will be benefits from joint planning arrangements by the university and the college of advanced education in each of Armidale and Newcastle. The Minister's statement then says: The Commission's recommendations for a combined funding allocation for each pair of institutions will be further considered when the Government has evaluated the effectiveness of joint planning arrangements for the 1988-90 triennium. I say to the authorities in Newcastle and Armidale: If they were worried about my attempt to bring about amalgamation, they should reflect that at least my attempts were open. I called it amalgamation. I went to Newcastle and Armidale and told them that there were educational advantages in amalgamation. But all this Minister talks about is `joint planning arrangements' with the prospect of only one funding allocation for each pair of institutions. We simple people would say that joint planning arrangements with one funding allocation is amalgamation by another name. I conclude by saying that we welcome the advances that have been made to higher education but we are sorry about the other groups in the Australian educational establishment who have had to pay for them. We are very sorry that the reflection of government priorities has put the disadvantaged so low and has given preference to universities and colleges. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.30) —The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's report is fairly comprehensive and deals with a very large number of items. I wish to raise what I consider to be a fundamental item with regard to tertiary institutions in Australia; that is, unmet demand. Essentially, the problem lies in attempting to estimate in a fair and reasonable way what might be the unmet demand, and what capacity Australia may have to increase participation by younger people in tertiary institutions. Last year the University of Queensland, in response to this, carried out a fairly comprehensive study into what might be the unmet demand within that institution. I am sure that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has read that report. The report came up with what the university acknowledged to be an extremely conservative figure. The figure it put in regard to unmet demand in that tertiary institution was 5,000 places. In the overall situation in Queensland-of course, this takes in Griffith University, the University of Queensland, Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education, James Cook University, Brisbane College of Advanced Education, Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education and the like-there will be 390 additional places. Of course, the situation in other States is worse. I think it is a fair judgment to make in regard to the report and the Government's response to the report that what we are seeing in Australia is a gradual but effective lessening of participation opportunities for the people who wish to take them up. We know, for example, that with regard to the numbers entering tertiary institutions as a percentage of the population, every year for the past eight years there has been a drop. Effectively, we are allowing fewer of our population to take up opportunities for further or higher education. Whether that is a good or bad thing, of course, will depend very much on the educational philosophy of the government in office. The previous Government did not seem to offer very much resistance, but Senator Ryan, when in opposition, certainly did. It has certainly not been illustrated in these documents, or the documents that appeared last year, that a reversal of the trend in Australia is under way. The numbers that have been suggested in this report and the numbers which the Government made public last year are leading Australia to a position at the bottom of the scale. Of course, we know that in terms of participation rates in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, Australia ranks very low. We are below countries such as the United States. But it may come as a surprise to many people in Australia that we rank below the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, and even Italy. We are moving down the scale, and we are moving down it more rapidly year by year. I believe that because of our type of economy it can be shown that there is a very effective link between education, educational expenditure and the type of economic structures that we have. I think it is very interesting to note that the countries around the world which have consistently put large percentages of money into education at the school and tertiary level are now reaping the benefit. The country at the top of the scale, of course, is Switzerland, which has had on average the highest expenditure on education of any country in the world in the last 30 years. It also now has the highest standard of living. Depending on the type of priorities that are placed on education, one can see this report as continuing a trend which on my estimation is unhealthy and a trend which will not provide this country with the type of people and the type of skills that it needs to maintain the type of new industries that this Government has talked about establishing in a range of areas, which it has been promoting the establishment of, and for which it has been devising legislation to assist. I would perfer our students, our people, to be the ones who will populate those new industries and that we do not forever tie ourselves into seeking skilled labour from other countries to maintain our industries, and our new industries. I wish to focus on this point because another part of the report-a part that has already been referred to by Senator Peter Baume-refers to the cut in the participation and equity program. Paragraph 1.7 of the Commission's report states: The Commission believes that, in addition to having an impact on the availability of opportunities for young people, especially those from disadvantaged groups, a reduction in funding for the Participation and Equity Program at such an early stage in its life disrupts the planning process and brings into question the extent of the Commonwealth's commitment to the Program. Honourable senators who have had an opportunity to speak to people who have operated, and are operating, in a participation and equity program will know that that quote was probably taken directly from the people who have operated in it. They say that this is about the fourth time, after they have been urged to get off their backsides, to get programs under way, that they have had the rug pulled out from underneath them. The likelihood of those people actually generating those programs in the near future, on the next occasion that a government wishes to proclaim one of these programs as being the corner-stone-- Senator Peter Baume —The centrepiece. Senator MACKLIN —It is the centrepiece of this Government's educational program, for which it has decided to cut funding by 50 per cent. Some type of centrepiece! If this Government or any future government attempts to coerce, co-opt or induce educators to spend their time, energy and effort in generating programs for disadvantaged groups, it is likely to be met with a very cynical response on behalf of the practitioners. A government cannot repeat that type of exercise and expect people to believe, having called wolf three, four or five times, that next time a wolf will not appear. I have concentrated on unmet demand because if we cut down the participation and equity program in this area a very interesting dichotomy arises. We know that more people are staying on in secondary schools. Since the program was launched I have questioned constantly whether that is necessarily participation. Certainly people are staying in schools, but whether they are participating in education is another matter. Many teachers, of course, are of the opinion that, whilst the people are there, they are not necessarily participating. But given the very dramatic growth that the Government has achieved by its policies in keeping people at school-at least retaining them-a fair percentage of those people could be considered to be participating and a reasonable percentage of those people, probably the same percentage as is normal in the rest of the group, would be looking at undertaking higher or further education of one kind or another. Senator Peter Baume —Your point is valid even if it is a smaller percentage. Senator MACKLIN —Even if it is small, but I think it is a significant percentage. We have put in place a whole series of programs that have been successful. We have said to people: `Come and stay on. Do what we are asking you to do. You can go on to further or higher education and then undertake the career of your choice'. We have held that out to them and, in terms of our tertiary funding operations, proceeded to deny them that opportunity, again building cynicism into the system. We have built in cynicism in terms of the educational practitioners who we have asked to undertake these tasks. We are now building it into the students by holding out to them something which we refuse to deliver. It seems to me that it would be far better for the Government not to engage in that type of cynical exercise but to say quite clearly: `We don't want you to go on, but we prefer you to stay out of the work force'. If that is what the Government is about there are cheaper ways of doing that than having people in educational institutions. If our aim is, in fact, to increase the educational standards of our Australian citizens and to give our young people the opportunity via our educational institutions to undertake a number of those skills for which we are currently importing people, that is fine, but if we are to do that we also have to be able to provide the funds. If the Government says that it cannot provide the funds it should not have raised the expectations. So on either hand I think the Government must stand condemned with regard to this. It should not have raised the expectations or it should have provided the funds. The disadvantaged groups have suffered along the line Senator Baume has already referred to at the schooling level. Those programs which were specifically pointed up by the Schools Commission as being in urgent need and which Senator Ryan, as Minister for Education, in a speech overseas last year pointed out as ones which were top government priorities, were the very ones which ended up being cut. I am not sure what is going on. The Government picked three programs which were mentioned overseas, the Commission picked three programs, and they were the only programs to be significantly cut. It is a most extraordinary operation. It seems that if one raises a profile suggesting that some programs need money, those programs get a cut. I think the people in Aboriginal and multicultural education would have preferred to remain with a lower profile and keep the funding they had before instead of getting mentions overseas and getting cuts. There is another area where we have not had any movement, and that is student accommodation. It is not necessarily a matter for the education budget, but one which I have mentioned on many occasions. I think it is matter for the education budget but probably also for our capital works program. Student accommodation is now reaching a crisis point, particularly in our major cities. In Sydney and Melbourne it has gone beyond a crisis point. If one looks at the recent studies that have been done in Australia with regard to people who have made use of the accommodation which is provided, one finds that they have tended to be people from rural areas. We know that on a rural-urban dichotomy the rural people are disadvantaged and that the women are disadvantaged more than men. In looking at people from private and state schools, the accommodation actually tends to be populated by people from state schools. We know on that dichotomy that people from state schools tend to be more disadvantaged, on average. On each of the levels of disadvantage the studies recently have shown that those people tend to use what student accommodation is around more than the others. Yet, in terms of what has happened in those areas we have cut the subsidies which were available to them. That happened previously. The amounts of money which are now going back there are tied in such a way that there must be no capital reduction by the institution of the money which is being provided. Let me repeat that: There must be no capital reduction. Effectively, that means that the institutions have to lend that money at current rates. They may as well go along to a bank to get that type of money. The only effective use of that money by people at a disadvantaged level would be, in fact, by having lower interest rates, not the higher interest rates. Senator Zakharov —That is up to the tertiary institutions. Senator MACKLIN —But that is the guideline that has been set down for them by the Government for the new moneys which are available. I believe that in this area more money needs to be provided through the capital works program. I will give an example in my State of Queensland. In the town of Longreach, which is in the mid-west of Queensland, a program has just been completed. Through the use of Commonwealth Government funds brick footpaths have been put down. The asphalt has been torn up and brick footpaths have been put down. They look nice and they are nice. But I believe that if anybody asks the people of Longreach whether they would prefer to have those bricks on their footpaths or stacked one on the other to build residential accommodation in Toowoomba at the Darling Downs Institute so that they could have cheap accommodation for their children, I know what the people of Longreach would opt for. They would obviously opt to have that reasonable accommodation provided in Toowoomba where many of the younger people from Longreach go for any further or higher education. I am saying that when we provide expenditure and create work programs around Australia I believe that it would be better to look not so much at simply creating those programs but at what long term benefits there will be for the country in the expenditure of those moneys. I believe that it is far better to spend money in providing student accommodation than in putting down bricks to make nicer looking footpaths. The country would be better served, our younger people would be better served and it would be an asset for the country not just for this year, next year or the year after but for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years-well beyond the year 2000-if we provided that cheaper accommodation for our young people to be able to undertake tertiary studies. The last point I want to raise briefly is privatisation. We see that the Government is attempting to move the load of funding of tertiary education onto the private sector. I believe that the co-operation between the tertiary institutions and industry, as envisaged by the proposed standing committee on tertiary education and industry, is a useful development. It is one which the Australian Democrats have supported in the past and which we will continue to support. I believe many useful developments have taken place in Australia in recent times. However, disturbing reports are emerging. I refer, for example, to the report appearing in the Age today about the Melbourne University Council making a decision last night about the appointment of a professor. That professor is to be paid for totally by an institution. That is fine, but the fact that the professor is being nominated by that outside institution I think raises very disturbing questions indeed. I think that matter has to be looked at. We must be concerned that what is going on is not simply a co-operative venture but privatising professors and lecturers as well. That movement, I believe, ought not to continue without considerable investigation as to what the long term effects will be of that operation which we saw happening for the first time last night at Melbourne University. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.49) —The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has tabled in the Parliament the annual statement on financial provision for the next calendar year for higher education and technical and further education. Universities, colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology expect at this time of the year the Minister to put down in the Parliament a report. It happens to be about 250 pages of detailed advice from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission as to how the $2.5 billion involved in tertiary education in Australia should be allocated between institutions throughout the 1986 calendar year. The statement put down by the Minister today contains nothing of significance. It is entirely a machinery measure with no shifts of real moment, except some relatively minor matters which amount to cuts in TAFE funding of some $30m for next year. The area to which my colleague Senator Peter Baume has already drawn attention, the area to which we gave greatest attention in the period of office of the Fraser Government, resulted in real increases in financial provision year by year throughout that period much wider than for universities and colleges because we sought to provide technical education and skills that we believed were of the greatest importance to Australia. In today's statement we see a $30m cut in TAFE funding across Australia in the next year. The reason that I am not getting more excited in complaining about that cut is that we already knew it was coming. The guidelines were put down in August and the TAFE provision is part of the Commonwealth tertiary education triennial review which we had more than a year ago. This Government was committed more than a year ago to giving decreased amounts of support to this important area of education, that is, technical and further education. One sees in this report the detailed allocation of funds for the middle year of a triennium, for which we already had the guidelines. The supplementary amounts which have been added by the Government relate to only one per cent of the moneys that are being distributed. For all the song and dance and inflated rhetoric that came from the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) a few moments ago, it is a one per cent additional allocation of moneys for our universities, colleges of advanced education and technical colleges. In that sense it is business as usual. There are some small advances in sensible areas. For example the planning process that has now begun for a tertiary college in the western suburbs of Melbourne is a correct priority. I believe that it is right to make sure that higher education and technical education are available for students living in outer metropolitan areas. As I have said every year for the last three or four years, even in the period the Liberals were in government, there is still a need to apply that same diligence to the western suburbs of Sydney. The needs of Milperra college down in Campbelltown, the Nepean college and the Hawkes- bury college should be receiving the same urgency as are western suburbs of Melbourne. For all the inflated rhetoric of the Minister about access or participation, there is no mention of this important area of unmet need anywhere in anything she said today or has said for a considerable period. She has talked in general terms about participation and equity and, as we all know, the Government has cut that program in half. It amounts to less than the moneys that were available in earlier years for a program that has been renamed by this Government as the participation and equity program. There has been some growth in new enrolments; there is scope for universities and colleges of advanced education to enrol in 1986 and 1987 about 2,500 students a year extra-that is an increase of one per cent in students in Australia in higher education. All those families in Australia who are seeing their children in high schools, looking foward to their going on to a college of advanced education, an institute of technology or a university, should take note that for all the words this Government puts forward about increased participation, it amounts in this 1986-87 year to a one per cent increase in the capacity of universities and colleges to respond. That is not good enough. That lack of room for growth, for new enrolment, does not provide for the tens of thousands of young people in Australia, let alone mature aged would-be entrants to education, who will not be able to be enrolled in universities and colleges. So this insignificant statement put down by the Minister today, this business-as-usual statement, this machinery item, is not coping with the major question before us-namely, how we from this Parliament can free up universities, and colleges and institutes of technology to make room responsibly for very substantially increased enrolments to meet the needs of Australia's young people and indeed of adults generally. I believe that this calls for a new approach. The first reports or statements by one of my colleagues looking toward some new horizons were in Question Time today castigated by the Minister for Education. She chose her own rhetoric to imply that Opposition members want to treat education as a consumer item, as soap or as a cool drink, and to apply some purely market force to items such as can be purchased in a grocer's shop. We do not have that simplistic approach to education. In view of the complexity of the whole range of tertiary education-universities, institutes and colleges-we want to see a quite new approach that will give the freedom to institutions to enrol increased numbers of students. For example, I refer to one practical proposition, and that is the present unused hours of the day in our great universities and colleges. Although there are evening lectures and tutorials, and indeed even some weekend activities in our universities, by and large they operate for about 10 hours a day, yet in evening hours there are many students, even 18- and 19-year-old students, as well as adults, who could combine higher education studies with work during the day time-part-time work or even full-time work-to achieve an educational goal that they would set for themselves. Given there is that capacity in our already established institutions, why cannot we allow the universities and colleges of Australia to apply a little flexibility and to have some incentive in which they can see some financial rewards to enrol students in this more flexible way? Why can they not use the capacity of their institutions to achieve a greater goal for Australia? It is goals of this kind that we are addressing in the Opposition and which, rather belatedly, the Government is turning its attention to. I remind the Senate that early last year the Liberal Party, aware of the huge unmet demand in the would-be students who are failing to be enrolled in our universities and colleges, called for a comprehensive review of higher education, encompassing universities, colleges and institutes of technology. This was announced in the centrepiece of our education policy in this area prior to the last election. We have held seminars, published papers, evoked considerable participation and called for expert views from students, staff and community representatives. I am glad that the Government has followed our lead and appointed a review committee to be chaired by Mr Hugh Hudson, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, that is currently reviewing higher education, its effectiveness and efficiency. I believe that the Government is on the right pathway. It has followed the request of the Opposition. It has taken some pages out of our book in carrying out such a review. I hope that the matter of urgency and the practical ideas that I have referred to even today will be taken up by the Government. I hope that the Government will not be misled by its own caricaturing of some ideas on the Opposition benches that it has chosen with such apparent delight to describe as the Opposition's tendency to treat education as a consumer item in any grocer's shop, and I hope that it will not treat our references to the market-place in those terms. I note with enormous surprise the remarks of the Minister for Education about Armidale and Newcastle-two important education centres in New South Wales. For years we sought, with Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission advice, to gain a more rational use of resource for the betterment of Australian students, not least in those two cities, with full discussion and consultation with the University of New England, the University of Newcastle and, alongside these two universities, two other institutions, the former teachers' colleges and the colleges of advanced education. While for years we sought consultation as to how we should use those resources more effectively Senator Ryan castigated us month after month, saying that she would never go down the pathway of seeing these great independent institutions amalgamated. In Senator Ryan's announcement this afternoon we are seeing a complete reversal and capital `A' amalgamation is the tune that the Minister is now playing. I can only note that the Government has again followed the lead from the Liberal Party of Australia to look sensibly at how best to use resources. In referring to the review of higher education that will be chaired by Mr Hudson, which will also involve, very wisely, the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Professor Karmel, and a number of other very experienced and talented people, I make two brief references. Firstly, I request the Government to keep Opposition members informed as to how that review proceeds from week to week and month to month. I understand that the review is due to report by April next year. I ask the Minister for Education to distribute in a regular way to interested senators and members of the House of Representatives the submissions that are put to that review that ought to be publicly available. Secondly, one of the reasons that the statement put down today is of such little significance is that the Government is now back in the situation of waiting not for the Williams report but for the Hudson report. To see changes that may make for greater effectiveness in tertiary education we will all be waiting over the coming months for the Hudson report for the completion of the effectiveness and efficiency review. Finally, I refer to the TAFE inquiry. It is natural that, at this stage, the Government takes the cue from the Liberal Party in assessing from a foundation base, what will be, in the next 10 years, the appropriate roles for the States and the Commonwealth, in providing for technical and further education. While the Government is waiting for that report, which goes back to that foundation, the provision for TAFE is not standing still but is drastically going backwards because of the cuts that I have mentioned. It should be noted from the major guidelines that TAFE triennial expectations in 1986 had a $30m cut. But with the supplementary funding of $3.7m, which was discussed by the Minister today as if it were a brave new advantage for TAFE, that $30m cut has become a $26m cut. I am entirely critical of the Government, not only for bringing such a cut in to a vital area of education provision in Australia, but also for having the gall to say, as the Minister did in the last paragraph of her statement: Continued growth is being attained in all sectors with concentration in the areas of greatest need. Both statements in that sentence are false. There is not growth in all sectors. As is demonstrated on page 29 of the report that the Minister tabled, there are real cuts of $26m in the TAFE area. I contest also the statement that this is an area of great need. Clearly, it is not an area that has been concentrated upon. This is an insignificant statement by the Minister in tabling a report from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-a report which is commendable, businesslike, rational, well argued and put together in a careful way. My only plea is that the Government gives attention to the several requests I have made in my speech today and that we in Australia look to a new dimension of freedom for our universities and colleges so that they can responsibly leap a whole year ahead towards solving the unmet demand for new enrolments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present a report from the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs entitled `A Bill of Rights for Australia-An Exposure Report' for the consideration of honourable senators. I thank the Senate for allowing me to present this report out of sequence and indicate that I will make a tabling statement after the suspension of the sitting for dinner. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Hamer) —I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 5 November, from Senator Messner: 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 of the Hawke Labor Government to abandon its proposed capital gains tax because of the destructive effects on incentive.' Yours sincerely, A. J. MESSNER Senator for the State of South Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.08) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need of the Hawke Labor Government to abandon its proposed capital gains tax because of the destructive effects on incentive. Let me say at the outset on this debate, which has been long in coming, that the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia stand for the abolition of any capital gains tax introduced by the Australian Labor Party. Not only will we oppose and vote against the legislation when it is finally brought before this chamber but also, upon re-election to government, we will repeal it. That is an unequivocal commitment on the part of the Liberal and National parties in respect of the Labor Government's capital gains tax. One could ask: Why have the Liberal and National parties taken such a strong position in opposition to this tax? The key word in the letter that has just been read to the Senate by the Deputy President is `incentive'. The Labor Party stands in opposition to incentive. It is not prepared to commit itself to encourage ordinary Australians to build up assets and wealth, to create jobs by doing so and so continue the development of wealth and the economic development of this country. The Government's commitment is the reverse. It is committed to stopping development, discouraging investment and ensuring that jobs are not created by Australians putting money into their own country to ensure that these things go forward. It is probably appropriate on a day such as the first Tuesday in November, which has some great connotations for many Australians, to remind ourselves of some words of Alan Jones, who is the most successful rugby union coach in Australia's history. Regarding incentive he said that in Australia, in the pursuit of excellence, we clearly have problems in understanding what it is that creates that get up and go that gets jobs created and gets the country moving. The reason is obvious when we look at the Melbourne Cup. Twenty-six or 27 of the best horses in Australia race in one race and we make sure that the one that has the best chance of winning is weighed down with lead. That is the kind of approach adopted by this Government. It wants to weigh down the best opportunities with lead so that people cannot get up, so that they are weighed down with a capital gains tax and so that incentive is destroyed. I think that many of the points which Alan Jones has made many times on radio and in other places bear repeating. The one which I quoted is a key point as far as the attitude of the Liberal and National parties regarding the Government's horrendous capital gains tax is concerned. Let us look at some of the reasons, both long term and short term, why this Government is trying to destroy incentive and how it is achieving this through the introduction of a capital gains tax. We are reminded constantly of the need to be more competitive overseas so that we can create jobs by being able to sell our goods on world markets, in order to promote opportunities overseas and, of course, to bring new products to bear from Australian developments through Australian industries. Yet, when we set out to do this, we find that the clappers will be put on such a proposal by ensuring that if people do build up their businesses and build up new technologies which they can sell either in Australia or overseas, they will be taxed at the maximum marginal rate of income tax. We know this because the Government will not make any allowance for inflation as the tax will be applied to goodwill, whether it applies to corporate goodwill development through technological development or to a corner store. The corner store buys goods to put on its shelves to sell to its customers and it creates jobs, in just the same way as larger companies invest in machinery, trading stock and raw materials in order to generate new products. The analogy for development lies in the very simple concept that starting with nothing and building it up to something will be taxed by this Government's capital gains tax because it will not take into account any indexation from zero, applying indexation only to those assets which already have values. The first major development that we would see encouraged by other things that the Government might have in mind will be destroyed by that very simple proposition. We should be encouraging more people in this country to work for themselves. We should be seeking opportunities whereby they can develop their own businesses so that they can go out and find their way in the world, thereby establishing more security for their families and improving their living standards which, under this Government, they are feeling are slipping away. The only way in which they can ensure that their living standards are maintained and can be developed is by becoming independent financially, by paying off their debts, which is becoming increasingly more difficult because of higher interest rates-the highest real interest rates in this country's history are being perpetrated by deliberate government policy-and in that way ensuring that they become totally independent of government. It is a basic ethic of this country that we should encourage people to be self-reliant, to build up capital in their own names, so that they can retire in some degree of comfort and so that they can ensure that they will not be a burden upon the social security system. Yet this Government, which is confused in its normal contradictory fashion, is quite keen, by the introduction of a capital gains tax, to make people even more dependent upon the social security system, by ensuring that their assets are taxed very heavily, thereby reducing incentive for people to build up those things in their own names. As most people realise, we still have a very large unemployment problem in this country. The number of unemployed people is still in the order of 550,000-plus. Yet this Government is eschewing every chance and opportunity that it has to encourage people to get stuck into it to create jobs. As I mentioned, the small businessman, by putting stock on his shelves, by buying plant, shop fittings or whatever, is giving people an opportunity to buy his goods, thus creating jobs for other Australians. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is at the table, is fully aware of the multiplier effect of such things. In his position he should be encouraging rather than discouraging investment which is job creating. I think it is probably wise to acknowledge, even though I am not given to Latin derivations, that the word `incentive' comes from the Latin word which means `setting the tune'; in other words, giving the general overall impression that this Government is interested in encouraging people to do their own thing. Yet this Government has set its face, by the introduction of a capital gains tax, totally in the opposite direction. By the introduction of the capital gains tax it will destroy jobs rather than create them. Why is it necessary to abandon the current capital gains tax? That is the major thrust of the urgency motion that is before the Senate at present. There is absolutely no doubt that there is vast confusion in the community, especially in the business community, about the impact of the capital gains tax. There is doubt everywhere. This is having its effect, indirectly, through the falling dollar and the United States of America exchange rate. Consequently we can see developing a strike of capital across the country that no doubt will accelerate as time goes by and as people come to understand more and more the problems with this capital gains tax. The overseas situation is quite clear. It is having a big impact upon activity within this country. It is true to observe that not only the Government but also private companies are borrowing overseas because they are being encouraged by very high interest rates set by the Government in order to attract foreign capital into the country. The reason for that is to offset the very large deficit that is occurring on our overseas account each year and in the last financial year reached $10.3 billion. If we need to rely more and more on that kind of capital inflow from overseas, the introduction of a capital gains tax, which decreases the opportunities and the encouragement for people to invest in equity as opposed to debt, will put us in a position of being more and more reliant upon creating more debt; and that means higher and higher interest rates. It is plainly amazing to us on this side of the chamber that the Government does not perceive that its actions in introducing a capital gains tax at this time will only exacerbate the very real and difficult problems that arise from the present overseas situation. Senator Walsh —How? Senator MESSNER —I have just explained it to the Senate. The problem quite simply is that we will create a change in the way in which companies borrow overseas and in that way create more and more dependence upon debt. If we are putting forward the case that this tax should be abandoned now so as to clear the worries and concerns in the community, so that the business community can get on and develop job opportunities in this country, we have to ask ourselves: Who supports the introduction of a capital gains tax? If the gallup polls are any guide-they appear to be a great guide to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-63 per cent of Australians are opposed to a capital gains tax. Presumably the other 37 per cent, which must include most of the Australian Democrats in this country, because apparently the Democrats support a capital gains tax, as does this Government, means that there is a very great minority of people who support the introduction of this tax. Where is the pressure from within the community? It is clear that the community does not want a capital gains tax, that Australians want to see the opportunities before them so that they can go forward and develop their own industries and businesses and create jobs for other Australians. That is basically what this whole matter is about. The Government is flying in the face of the Australian people by introducing a measure which is not wanted and which is not perceived as being valuable. That is the reason why a capital gains tax will be a major disincentive to Australian investment and Australian job creation. It simply flies in the face of what Australians perceive to be good for the country and good for improving the standard of living of individual Australians. Senator Cook —By how much? Senator MESSNER —Senator Cook interjects. He is about to tell us what the Prime Minister said in his famous Opera House speech in March 1983 before an election. I recall his famous words when the Liberal Party was challenging him on the basis of his threat to introduce a capital gains tax. He said `Let me say it in words of one syllable' or words to that effect `so that even the Opposition will be able to understand: We will not introduce any capital gains tax'. We know why. It is because the gallup polls show us that 63 per cent of the people oppose a capital gains tax. The Prime Minister threw this away at the time as electoral bait. That is all he had in mind. He did not mind how many lies he told. The fact is that he was elected on the basis of not introducing a capital gains tax. Of course that goes into the same category as the lump sum superannuation tax and the assets test, which he also promised he would not introduce but which, of course, he has. This Government will have to face the lash of the people at the next election on that issue because we will be campaigning on the abolition of the capital gains tax. The other point about this matter which is most significant is that this tax is totally illogical when one takes into account what the Government has done in other areas of taxation. I have mentioned the lump sum superannuation tax and the assets test. I have also mentioned the actions of the Government to abolish for tax purposes the negative gearing principles. That affects property development right across Australia by small business people. It is interesting to note that the Government apparently will allow large business people off the hook but not small individuals who might be seeking to do their own thing. Oh no, the Government must hit them in the neck in the same way as it has introduced a capital gains tax which will hit the little corner store in such a way that the Government will get its goodwill in one lump upon the selling of the business rather than allowing it to be spread over the 20 or 30 years that it perhaps took to build up that goodwill. This Government is seeking to destroy that incentive as well. One might say that speculative gains are very much an item that ought to be caught by a capital gains tax. The fact is that they are caught by the present income tax legislation. This Government, by introducing section 25A of the Income Tax Assessment Act, legislated to ensure that that was so. It wiped out the old section 26A, the application of which was doubtful. Consequently, speculative gains will be caught by this legislation. The Government now says: `If there are any problems with that legislation and there are things that will slip through the net, they can always be brought to the Parliament and amendment of that legislation can be sought. What is the problem with that?' In order to crack that nut the Government must bring out its sledgehammer and bash everybody to pieces with an all-encompassing capital gains tax. Another point I would like to make-it is absolutely critical-is that this tax will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The situation is that assets that were in existence on 19 September will not be taxed at all but those which are accumulated after 19 September will be taxed. The little people who try to acquire assets after 19 September are the ones who will be hit by this tax later down the track, whereas all of those who now have millions of dollars tied up in assets will not suffer that tax. The point, of course, is simple. This Government is absolutely confused about its objectives. It already has in place taxes which can take account of speculative gains and it already has in place taxes which can take account of windfall profits in other ways, but it seeks to justify the introduction of such a destructive tax as this by that kind of confused argument. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, is constantly referring to accounting for speculative gains as being the purpose of this legislation but, of course, it is not. This legislation will hit productive assets; it will hit the people who want to build up businesses and create jobs. The lack of roll-over facilities will hit small businesses in the neck. They will be wiped out if they want to buy new plant because of the tax they will have to pay on the trade-in price of those assets. That figure will not be indexed and it will be made subject to tax. Any discounted shares going to employees under share bonus schemes-something which is very close, I would imagine, to the heart of the Democrats and Senator Siddons-will be taxed under a capital gains tax. Because people will invest in their only remaining tax shelter-that is, their own homes-the price of homes will rise. As a result young people seeking to buy homes in the future will find the price inflated and they will not be able to acquire their own home. These kinds of anomalies and problems which remain to be resolved surely go to the core of the legislation because they demonstrate that this Government has no idea of what it is on about in the first place and, secondly, that it is ideologically driven to ensure that incentive is destroyed in this country. That is basically what the Government is on about. It wants everybody to be brought down to the same level and there is no encouragement for people to improve their standard of living. At the moment people are feeling the pinch. They want to make sure that they have opportunities to be independent but this Government is ensuring that they do not have those opportunities, that they are forced into a mould by virtue of this capital gains tax. There can be no clearer example of the intentions of this Government than the introduction of a capital gains tax and that is why the Liberal and National parties oppose the legislation, why we will vote against it and why we will repeal it when we are re-elected to government. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance (4.29) —Humbug and hypocrisy are, of course, not unknown in politics but rarely have humbug and hypocrisy been practised to the extent they have here this afternoon. Senator Messner raised a matter of urgency deploring a capital gains tax. The same Senator Messner, on 19 September, signed a minute on behalf of the coalition's tax committee which stated, among other things: There is considerable concern amongst Liberal Senators that the Coalition may oppose the capital gains tax and defeat the Government. Senator Cook —Who was that? Senator WALSH —That is an Opposition tax committee minute which was signed by Senator Messner on 19 September. The same Senator Messner has just raised a matter of urgency stating that a capital gains tax would destroy the economy. On 19 September he stated: There is considerable concern amongst Liberal Senators that the Coalition may oppose the capital gains tax and defeat the Government. This would provide an issue from which a double dissolution may ensue. This is perceived to benefit the Democrats. Some-- and he is talking about some Liberal senators- will vote to support capital gains tax if the Bill appears to be in danger. `Some Liberal senators', said Senator Messner six weeks ago, `will support and vote for the capital gains tax if the Bill appears to be in danger'. There are inconsistencies within parties but rarely-and certainly not within my memory-can I recall one individual politician so blatantly contradicting himself and so blatantly repudiating what he himself had written only six weeks before as Senator Messner has repudiated this afternoon what he wrote and signed six weeks ago. On the tax package in general in the same minute he said: Either way we may lose Coalition Senators in the vote, at least on the capital gains tax. He also said-and this is plumbing the depths of cynicism: . . . it is important to present a face of consistency and responsibility. As long as the face of consistency and responsibility is presented, Senator Messner has no other problems. The reality of consistency and responsibility is, of course, not there. Knowing full well, and having put on the written record, that some Liberal Party senators would vote for the Bill if they thought it was in danger, the Opposition has resorted to the subterfuge of moving an urgency motion for which all Liberal senators can line up and vote, knowing that there is not the slightest risk that the Bill to which the urgency motion is directed will be defeated, so that the appearance of unity, like the appearance of consistency and responsibility, can be maintained. I caution Senator Messner, though, just in case he ever delivers an effective speech on this issue-something which he has conspicuously failed to do this afternoon-and manages to convince some of the Australian Democrats that they should join him in his assessment of the Bill. Of course, if any of the Democrats decide to change their minds on the issue, having been persuaded by the sort of brilliant advocacy that we have yet to see from Senator Messner, he would then be back in the position where some of the Liberal senators would vote for the Bill, would break ranks with the Party just as he forecast six weeks ago they would do. It is, of course, known by a number of Liberals-the better class Liberals, I would call them-that a capital gains tax is essential. Foremost among those is Senator Hill, who in his maiden speech in the Senate on 9 September 1981-and a very good speech it was too-said: Thus those whose wealth is increased by capital gains rather than by income do not share in the taxation burden. No other highly developed country has our almost complete absence from some form of taxation of capital gains. . . In the same speech Senator Hill continued: Options abound within the more moderate package. We cannot forever remain the only highly developed nation without some form of capital or equivalent taxation at the Federal level. He also said in the same speech: . . . it is plausible to argue that the taxation system has become a major instrument for redistributing incomes and wealth in favour of the rich. He was right. It could have been plausibly argued at that time that that was the case. Indeed, to some extent possibly it still could. It is at that condition which the Government's taxation package, an integral part of which is the capital gains tax, is directed. The plain fact is that a capital gains tax at the personal rate is essential if we are to close off the conversion of income into capital which has been at the heart of most tax avoidance schemes. The Government's proposed Bill removes incentives all right; it absolutely removes the incentive to avoid tax through converting income into capital. The Liberal Party knows that and that is the reason why the Liberal Party is opposed to it. It is opposed to it because the Liberal Party is and always has been the party which protects tax dodgers largely, of course, because there are so many tax dodgers in it. Foremost among that group-- Senator Jessop —I take a point of order. I take exception to that typical comment put forward by Senator Walsh. I ask him to retract it. He suggests that there are tax evaders on this side of the Senate, that we support tax evaders. That is quite wrong. It is quite unethical and unprincipled for him to say that. I suggest that he should withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —There was an inference. I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —If it was so interpreted, Madam Acting Deputy President, I certainly withdraw. For the record, though, I point out that I did not at any stage say that there were tax dodgers, tax avoiders or evaders in the Liberal Party in the Senate. I said there are tax evaders in the Liberal Party, and there are. As a matter of history-- Senator Jessop —I rise again because-- Senator WALSH —Their names are Corser and, among others, Horgan, Wass, Hughes and Delpiano-all members of the Liberal Party's Western Australian finance committee. Senator Jessop —I take a point of order. I object to what the Minister has said. By inference and by outright direct insinuation the Minister has said that Liberal Party members, who include people on this side of the House, are tax evaders. I think that is quite unfair and quite uncalled for. I ask the Minister to withdraw unreservedly. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order on this matter. Senator Walsh withdrew the specific reference to members of this chamber. I do not uphold the point of order. Senator WALSH —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The Western Australian Liberal Party had a finance committee in 1979. I suppose it still does. However, by mistake that committee sent a letter around in 1979 appealing for funds. That letter, which finished up in my hands or was made available to me, listed the members of the finance committee on the letterhead. Senator Teague —How many years ago was that? Senator WALSH —It was 1979. It had 15 members who included Sid Corser, Denis Horgan, Ronald Wass, J. J. Hughes and J. J. Delpiano, all of whom flogged off companies to the Maher organisation, all of whom were bottom of the harbour tax evaders, all of whom publicly and irrefutably were exposed as bottom of the harbour tax evaders. I am talking about five members of the Western Australian Liberal Party finance committee. Senator Messner —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I ask you to rule on the question of relevance. The Minister is going entirely off track and I believe it is about time that he started to address the real question before us, and that is the effect of capital gains tax on incentive. If he has no way of answering that question he might at least stop boring us with the kind of nonsense he is going on with now. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have been listening carefully to the Minister. I would agree that he is straying somewhat from the specific matters outlined in the urgency motion. I ask him to return to the motion as soon as possible. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Madam Acting Deputy President. I will deal directly with the matter of incentive. The capital gains tax proposed by the Bill will absolutely destroy the incentive to do what those five members of the Liberal Party Western Australian finance committee did in the 1970s, or anybody else who did the same thing. It will destroy the incentive fraudulently to flog off companies to the Maher organisation, Maher now having been convicted, of course of conspiracy to defraud. It will destroy the incentive to flog off companies to evade income tax because the gains which were recorded as capital at that time would be taxed at the same rate as the income would be. It will destroy that incentive. When Mr Fraser personally was forced for political reasons to move against the bottom of the harbour operators-the Brian Mahers and others-he encountered intense opposition from within his own Party. Spurious claims, similar to those which are made about the effect of the Government's proposed capital gains tax on the economy, were made then. For example, Senator Martyr, on 19 November 1982, a Western Australian Liberal Party senator, had incorporated into Hansard the text of a motion carried by the Liberal Party State Council in Western Australia in August 1982. It said that the Council: . . . strongly warns the Federal Government that there is mounting evidence that the retrospective proposals it has been considering could destabilise the financial affairs of individuals and companies, leading to thousands of bankruptices and a substantial increase in unemployment. On the same day, Senator MacGibbon said that perhaps only $200m to $300m would be recovered-as against the estimate by the then Government of, I think, about $450m. On the first point, $460m has been collected to date, so Senator MacGibbon was unequivocally wrong on that point of fact. But, more importantly, it was claimed by the Western Australian Liberal Party, and repeated by Senator Martyr in the Senate at the time, that the legislation then being proposed by the Fraser Government would destabilise the financial affairs of individuals and companies, leading to thousands of bankruptcies and to a substantial increase in unemployment. One of the supreme ironies of history is that, just as the collection of the money pursuant to that legislation commenced, the economy turned around and entered a period of sustained growth at a rate which had not happened in Australia since the 1950s. Not only was that propaganda on behalf of the tax evaders shown to be false; what actually happened was the direct reversal of what those sections of the Liberal Party had at that time claimed would happen. Senator Messner —Madam Acting Deputy President, I again ask you to rule on the point of relevance. The Minister still will not address the urgency motion and argue the case in favour of his Government's objectives of introducing a capital gains tax. I believe that he is again straying far and wide from the argument that is before the Chair. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —I repeat the comment that I made earlier: It would help the debate if the Minister really did approach the matter before us today. Senator WALSH —With respect, Madam Acting Deputy President, I believe that I am doing precisely that, or precisely what Senator Messner sought. I am putting the Government's case for a capital gains tax, because it is essential to have a capital gains tax of this nature to close off for all time the tax avoidance and evasion industry. Knowing that this proposed Bill will close off the tax avoidance and evasion industry, the Liberal Party opposes it. The Liberal Party opposes it because it knows that that would be its effect. The people who opposed Mr Fraser when he introduced his tax recoupment legislation-they were not necessarily the same people who voted against it, of course, because one of those who opposed it was Mr Howard, who was bound by Cabinet solidarity and, therefore, voted for it-are the same people who oppose the capital gains tax now, and they do it for precisely the same reasons: They believe that people in certain positions, mainly the rich and the privileged, should be able to avoid paying taxation, thereby thrusting the entire burden of income tax payments on to the pay as you earn taxpayer. The difference between the Liberal Party in Mr Fraser's time and the Liberal Party today on this issue is that those who hold the view that the entire tax burden should be thrust on to PAYE taxpayers, ordinary wage and salary earners, those who believe that wage and salary earners should pay all of the tax bill, did not have the numbers in Mr Fraser's time and they do now-and they have a leader who is on their side. We ought to remember the increasingly frantic letters from the Commissioner of Taxation in the late 1970s and early 1980s to the then Treasurer telling him that the taxation base was being destroyed. The then Treasurer, who is now Leader of the Liberal Party, did absolutely nothing-until the massive scandals exposed in the McCabe-Lafranchi and Costigan reports became public. Then, and only then, was action taken. Senator Messner dealt with section 25A and said that section 25A was all that was required in the area of capital gains taxation. For transactions which take place after 19 September this year, section 25A will, of course, no longer be applicable. It will be replaced by the capital gains tax proposed by the Government. Senator Messner said that that takes care of speculative gains. That goes right to the heart of the deficiency of section 25A. What is a speculative gain? It is a question that is determined subjectively, and necessarily subjectively, by the Commissioner, because it hinges on the question of intent. What was the intent of a person who purchased an asset? Did that person purchase an asset with the intent of earning income or the intent of collecting a capital gain? That is a judgment which section 25A requires the Commissioner of Taxation to make, and it is not fair to impose on anyone the burden of trying to make that sort of judgment, of prying into another person's mind and becoming a mind-reader. I am glad that Senator Messner mentioned that, because he went right to the heart of the fundamental defectiveness of section 25A: That it hinges on the question of intent, which can only be subjectively and arbitrarily determined. As for the scenario of horror presented by Senator Messner as to what would happen in Australia if we had a capital gains tax, and the way that the economy would be destroyed and so on, of course, Liberal Party members are experts about destroying the economy. The last Liberal Government, including the last Liberal Treasurer who is now Leader of the Opposition, had the distinction of being the only government in our history, including the then Treasurer, which simultaneously presided over double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, and it was the Government which produced the worst and deepest recession for more than 50 years. But more importantly, if we look at those countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with which we normally compare ourselves and which, over the long term, since World War II, or at least since the early 1950s, have had vastly superior growth rates to those which Australia has recorded, what do we find? We find that they all have a capital gains tax, and most of them have other capital taxes as well. Bear in mind that the proposed tax is a very gentle capital gains tax, fully indexed, and no other country in the world provides a fully indexed base. The proposition that that sort of capital gains tax will destroy the economy and investment and the incentive to do anything other than evade income tax, of course, is patently absurd and flatly contradicted by the empirical evidence from all around the world. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(4.48) —The Liberal Party of Australia has adopted a flat-footed opposition to capital gains tax. It is opposing it outright. It has not attempted to come up with any constructive or innovative suggestions as to how the worst aspects of capital gains tax could be ameliorated. It is under considerable difficulty in this particular tactic. It is opposing capital gains taxation outright in the face of the fact that all Western countries have a capital gains tax. We are debating an urgency motion which says that a capital gains tax will destroy incentive. A capital gains tax has not destroyed incentive in the United States of America or in the United Kingdom, so the Opposition has the task ahead of it to establish its case. I do not believe that it has done so yet. The concern of the Australian Democrats has always been to ensure that if there were to be a capital gains tax, it would not be punitive, it would not discourage investment and enterprise, and it would not fall unfairly on any one section of taxpayers or any one section of the economy. In this respect, I believe we have had considerable success. However, is it possible for this economy to progress without some attention being drawn to the very great burden that is being placed on the pay as you earn taxpayer? The fact of the matter is that in 1982, 80 per cent of the Government's tax revenue was gathered from the PAYE taxpayer. Honourable senators should compare that with 1965, when it was only 65 per cent. The burden on the PAYE taxpayer has reached crippling proportions and something has to be done about it. Why has this burden on the ordinary individual wage and salary earner become so great? There are two reasons. The first is that income tax has not been indexed and therefore marginal rates of tax on the average Australian-the tradesman, the nurse and the school teacher-have reached the incredible level of 46 per cent. That marginal rate of tax, designed 20 years ago to catch the millionaire, is now being applied to the average Australian. That is one reason why 80 per cent of the government revenue burden is on the backs of the PAYE taxpayer. The other reason is that the non-PAYE taxpayer has been able to avoid paying tax through a variety of ways of converting income to capital gains. As a percentage of tax, revenue from the non-PAYE taxpayer has fallen progressively. So the strategy that the Australian Democrats have adopted has been borne out as being the right one. Because of our activity the capital gains tax we are looking at now is indexed for inflation-a very innovative strategy. Very few capital gains taxes in the Western world are indexed for inflation. Without the Democrats that would not be the case. It has been claimed by the Opposition that a flat rate capital gains tax would be preferable. The fact of the matter is that a capital gains tax at the marginal rate of taxation but indexed for inflation is a milder tax than a flat rate capital gains tax as applies in the United States. So to that extent we are better off. It is at the insistence of the Democrats that the family home will not be included in a capital gains tax. That means that the average Australian, whose capital is in his home, will now not be affected by this capital gains tax. Surely that has been a worthwhile initiative and one for which the Democrats can be thanked. The Democrats insisted that the death provision of the proposed capital gains tax should not apply. This provision would have impacted very badly on the family farm and on the family business, but it has now been eliminated. We have insisted that no retrospectivity should apply to any tax, particularly a capital gains tax. That view has been taken notice of by the Government. We believe it is indefensible to say that there should be no capital gains tax in this country. It is a very unimaginative approach, an approach that gets us nowhere and an approach that flies in the face of all the evidence in the Western world. In spite of the notice that the Government has taken about many aspects of the capital gains tax, which the Democrats have been advocating for many years, we are still unhappy about many aspects of the proposed tax. We are particularly unhappy with the impact of a capital gains tax on small business. There is no doubt that small business is the productive sector of the economy and should receive special consideration by the Government. Small business is built up by blood, sweat and tears over a long time. Right now the Government is proposing that the profits from the sale of a small business, in which a lifetime's work has been invested, be taxed at the marginal rate of capital gains tax that applies in that particular year. There are no averaging provisions at present for the capital gains tax, and for that reason it will impact very heavily on small business. There is another problem area, and again it will impact particularly on small business. I refer to the fact that the present capital gains tax package gives no consideration to goodwill. Goodwill is an intangible asset and it is built up by the owner of a business being constantly efficient, reliable and helpful. It is the personal element of a business. Many small businessmen are content to work very long hours and they are flexible in their approach to clients. This contrasts markedly with big business, which is rigid and set about by all kinds of strictures on wage rates and so forth. So, because no goodwill will be taken notice of, this great effort that small business people are prepared to put into building up their business is not to be recognised when the sale of the business takes place. We suggest that goodwill is an asset shown in the balance sheet and it is a factor that could readily be taken notice of by the Government. A percentage of the sale price of a business could reasonably be considered as a goodwill element and allowed as a deduction. The last aspect of the capital gains tax about which the Democrats are particularly concerned is its effect on employee share ownership. Senator Messner briefly commented that perhaps I was concerned about that. I am very concerned about it. I have long advocated in this chamber that if we really want to get incentive back into industry, if we want to get employees participating in the success of the enterprise of which they are a part, the way to do that is to give those employees a slice of the action, a stake in the enterprise in which they work. The best way to do that is through employee share ownership. The unfortunate facts of the matter are that, as this legislation applies at the moment, the employee shareholder will be very seriously disadvantaged. I want to spend a minute outlining how serious this is. It is normal practice for companies to issue shares to employees at a discount on the market or assessed value of those shares. The Government, I think rightly, says that if an employee is issued shares below the market value, this is in effect a remuneration to the employee and as such should be taxed. We agree with that. It should be taxed, as a remuneration, at the marginal rate of tax applying to the individual at the time the shares are issued. But the Government has gone further than that. It has said that it will not consider that the employee owns the shares at the time that they are issued to him, even though the employee is receiving the dividends and in effect has ownership of the shares; it will wait until he has paid off those shares, which may be in five years or ten years time, and then it will tax him on the difference between the issued price and the market price in five or ten years time. Those shares could well appreciate quite considerably in that time and the employee will be asked by the Government to pay tax at the marginal rate on the appreciated value of the shares over a five year period. This is a very punitive tax. It means that the employee is paying a capital gains tax and also a personal tax on those shares. We will be taking up this matter with the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-in fact, we have already done so-to see whether section 26AAC of the Income Tax Assessment Act can be changed so that employees who receive shares at a discount pay for that discounted price at the marginal rate of tax but the capital appreciation on the shares applies as any other capital gain would. We are not happy about other aspects of the capital gains tax. There is a problem with retained earnings and there is certainly a problem for farmers in that the family home is to be exempt-there is to be no upper limit on that-but the family farm is to be taxed at the full capital gains rate. We believe that there is unfair differentiation between the metropolitan home and the family farm in this respect, and that is an area to which the Government should give attention. In conclusion, let me summarise in this way: A capital gains tax is vital if resources are to be invested in productive areas of the economy and if we are to get away from this tendency to chase paper profits, which has been so much a factor of the Australian economy over recent years. We believe that the capital gains tax is now in a form that will not be unduly destructive to the economy by and large. We are pleased that the Government has taken note of the Democrats initiatives that have been advocated for many years, some of them since the Democrats were first formed. That particularly applies to taking inflation into account in a capital gains tax. But if the Government is to get complete community support and if it is not to make a rod for its own back once the capital gains tax is applied, it must take note of the very serious anomalies that exist, particularly the anomalies that apply to business, and to the goodwill aspect of business in particular. Unless we can come up with initiatives that encourage small business this country will not solve its unemployment problems and its balance of payments problems. It is up to the Government in drafting the legislation to take note of real concerns about a capital gains tax. I think that if it does it will have made a great contribution to the reform of the tax system in this country. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.02) —I join this debate on the matter of urgency put forward by Senator Messner, namely: The need of the Hawke Labor Government to abandon its proposed capital gains tax because of the destrutive effects on incentive. Today in Australia we have to face the fact that incentives have not been applied in industry, commerce and generally throughout the community, which is evidenced by the tremendous problems we have with respect to our export trade. I think anything we can do to create incentives for people to work harder, to generate income, to provide employment opportunities, to increase export income and so on should be done. It is a way that the Government and Australia ought to be going. It is evidenced in the Budget with which we are dealing at the moment that we have to find of the order of $6.7 billion from the taxpayer to service the public debt. That tends to amplify the problem. I have always thought that the present capital gains tax in Australia was reasonable. However, the introduction of further capital gains taxes certainly is not the right way to go. Certainly, it does not provide incentives for people to look after themselves. When we talk about a capital gains tax the left wing of the Australian Labort Party always looks at the rich people of the community. I am reminded in that respect of the days when death duties applied in South Australia under the Dunstan Government and federally. At that time the revenue derived from death duties came largely-97 per cent-from estates of $50,000 or less. We are not hitting the rich people with these taxation measures but are damaging the people about whom we are supposed to be most concerned; that is, average, frugal employees who want to put aside something for their retirement. It is not beyond the capacity of many of these people-I know plenty of them who are doing so-to save money so that they can provide themselves with one or two home units with the objective that when they retire that will bring in additional income and tend to get them off the taxpayer's back as far as social welfare commitments are concerned. They not only do that but also provide themselves with beach houses that can be upgraded in time to provide for retirement, at which time they will wish to sell their original family home. Those sorts of things happen time and again amongst the ranks of the average small businessman and the average frugal employee who wish to look after themselves upon retirement. I suppose it is appropriate at this stage to quote from the Government's own White Paper on tax reform: Australia and Canada are now the only two OECD countries which do not impose a general tax on wealth. However, Australia does raise a significant proportion of total revenue from State land taxes and local government rates and in that form raises a higher proportion from wealth than do most OECD countries. I think that that, coming as it does from the Government's own White Paper, is worthy of note. It has been stated by members of the housing and real estate industries that a capital gains tax will act as a disincentive for investment and especially combined with the-- Senator Townley —It really will, yes. Senator JESSOP —I am glad that Senator Townley agrees with that. He, as an astute Tasmanian senator, recognises the damage that that can do to the building industry and the real estate industry in his State. That is the attitude that we on this side of the chamber adopt-apart from the Australian Democrats, I might say, who seem to be intent on disregarding the importance of encouraging the average Australian employee to put something aside for his retirement. The average small business owner, farmer and frugal Australian employee work very hard to obtain a capital gain at the end of their careers to assist them in their retirement and, as I suggested before, to ease government expenditure in social welfare payments. Senator Siddons talked about the United States of America. I have used this example before. It seems to me to be dramatic in its historical importance that when President Johnson, I think it was, wanted to have some additional funds to finance the Vietnam war he decided to increase the capital gains tax to 48 per cent. At that time the number of new companies floated on the stock market slumped from about 900 in 1969 to none in 1971. Not only that; it also had a dramatic effect on the encouragement of overseas capital inflow. History again shows that when President Johnson increased the capital gains tax to that degree to pour money into the Vietnam war the inflow of new capital dropped from $171m in 1969 to $97m in 1970 and eventually went down to $17m in 1976. That seems to me to be a very significant historical example of what happens when we increase capital gains taxes. That is what the Government is contemplating in Australia today. When the tax rate in America was cut back-I think it is about 27 per cent now-new venture capital increased from $39m in 1977 to more than $4,000m in 1983. In my opinion and that of other Opposition members Australia cannot afford any fall in investment and still hope to support the biggest spending government since World War II. That is the reason why we strenuously oppose this measure and suggest that there is an urgent need for the Hawke Government, if it is interested in reducing the social welfare bill and encouraging the average employee, the average frugal trade unionist in Australia, to review its decision on a capital gains tax and to abandon it in the context of this Budget. There are many disadvantages in capital gains taxes apart from those that I have already mentioned. There is the lack of roll over provisions for plant and machinery for businesses and industry and there are adverse effects on employee participation schemes. There is the question of the increase in value of private houses. This is already happening. People are upgrading their homes to avoid capital gains taxes and this will adversely affect prospective first home buyers. The capital gains tax discourages the issue of ordinary shares in favour of preference shares and that distorts the pattern of company financing. For example, branch holdings will delay their issue of bonus shares. The tax will increase the trade in options rather than shares and it will affect retirement packages based on investment in shares or property. Also, there is no relief for the bunching effects of capital gains tax when an investor, who normally pays tax at a lower marginal rate, is suddenly taxed at the highest rate due to the sale of the investment property. This measure is relatively insignificant in revenue raising terms. Capital gains tax applies only to assets purchased from September this year and although the estimated yield is a modest $25m, it falls far short of the expected revenue yield of $450m which was outlined in the draft White Paper. There are a number of disturbing effects which require further comment. The basic problem with such a universal tax is that it fails to draw any distinction between productive investment and speculative investment. In the Treasurer's statement this failure is reflected in the comment: The current system of taxing capital gains violates horizontal equity . . . and undermines the progressivity of the tax system since the distribution of the ownership of capital is skewed in favour of higher income groups. Interestingly this did not stop the Government from skewing the income tax scale changes in favour of higher income groups. It is abundantly clear to me that the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the election campaign, which was referred to by Senator Messner, that he would not introduce a capital gains tax has been broken because of the pressure exerted upon him by his left wing. I think he realised during the election campaign that the public was very concerned about the possibility of a capital gains tax being introduced, so after he was elected he abandoned his promise, his undertaking and the good faith which was professed to the electorate during the campaign. Having satisfied himself that the election was conveniently out of the road, he and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) acceded to the wishes of the left wing, ignored the pre-election promise and decided to introduce this quite unfair tax as it applies to the majority of small business people and smaller people in the community. I can understand the attitude of any Government to big business deals on the share market when tremendous capital profits are made. I am opposed to that. There must be a way to deal with such people. They are in a position to get around this tax, but the small people whom Senator Cook and others are supposed to represent cannot do that. Small people must be encouraged to look after themselves. They must be provided with an incentive to look after their retirement. They must be encouraged to get off the backs of the taxpayers in relation to social security and the tremendous amount that that costs us at present. The Government must deal with the big boys in a far more effective way. It could do that in other respects. I have already told honourable senators what happened about death duties and how 90 per cent of the revenue from those came from estates of $50,000 or less. Small people are being hit all the time. I support Senator Messner's motion requesting the Government to abandon this tax and when we return to government in two years' time I will strongly support the repudiation of any capital gains tax if this Government is stupid enough to proceed with it. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.17) —In moving this motion today the Opposition has demonstrated great confusion. When one looks at the records of this chamber one sees that on 16 September the Opposition moved a motion on capital gains tax. Quite clearly Opposition senators have shifted ground enormously since that time, and have shown no consistency in debating this topic today. On 16 September Senator Chaney moved a motion, as Senator Robertson would recall, claiming that a capital gains tax would have `devastating effects on small business and on employment prospects'. Today Senator Messner came into the chamber and moved a motion about `the destructive effects on incentive'. He made absolutely no reference to the effects on employment or on small business. He simply talked about incentive. Opposition members have changed ground completely. Quite clearly, Senator Messner and Senator Chaney are not terribly well co-ordinated in the way they present these motions to the Senate. Senator Robertson —That is not news to us. Senator MAGUIRE —As Senator Robertson says, that is not news to us. For example, we know that Senator Messner is not very well co-ordinated with his leader, Mr Howard. They seem to have quite different and polarised views on the role of an indirect tax in our community. They have both said different things about the appropriate role and policy of the Opposition on indirect taxation. I presume that in moving this motion today Senator Messner does not believe, as Senator Chaney did on 16 September, that this tax will affect employment. I think that the argument of Senator Chaney's that a capital gains tax will affect employment has been truly consigned to the dustbin of history. Senator Messner, in talking about incentive, did not really define `incentive'. I have asked him repeatedly in this chamber what he means by incentive, but he does not seem to have much of an idea. Does he mean the incentive to work, to save, to take leisure? I will be interested to hear about this because I believe that `incentive' is one of those response words that the Liberals use from time to time. As Senator Cook is well aware, it is just a slogan. The word `incentive' is part of the Opposition's rhetoric and to it is a key response word. For whom is this incentive designed? Is it for the rich in our community? Is it for the poor? I would be very interested to find out the particular group to whom Senator Messner is referring when he talks about the effects of incentives. There is certainly very little documentary evidence in economic reviews of any effect of taxation on incentive to work. There is no clear evidence within the great bulk of the community about the effects of taxation on the incentive to work in particular. There may be some linkage between taxation and the incentives to work for low-income Australians but certainly not for middle and higher income earning Australians. Let us get this particular tax package into perspective yet again. The tax package is a redistributive measure; it does not provide for any taxation increases across the board. Quite clearly, the nine principles of taxation reform put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), which were announced 12 months ago, provided for tax reform in 1985 and not taxation increases. It is very important also to see that the Government's taxation package has been consistent with the so-called trilogy commitments, one of the elements of which provides that taxation is not to rise as a proportion of Australia's gross domestic product. Because there is to be no rise in taxation levels in the community in relation to gross domestic product, it is very hard to sustain the view that there will be harmful effects across the board. Certainly, there will be no harmful effects on employment levels in our country when the tax package is considered as a whole, because it is essentially a taxation package which redistributes. Only a small amount of revenue will come from capital gains tax, but that amount of revenue will go towards financing tax reductions elsewhere in our community. It will be one of the means by which this Government will finance reductions in marginal tax rates. For example, the 46c in the dollar rate will be reduced to 40c in the dollar. There will be large tax cuts for some members of the community, but there will be no-- Senator Messner —The capital gains tax will not do that at all. Senator MAGUIRE —As Senator Messner is well aware, there will be no overall effect on incentive in our community. The important thing about taxation under this Government, as distinct from the previous Government, is that under the Labor Government no one in the future will pay more than half of their extra income in taxation because the highest marginal tax rate under this Government will be reduced to 49c in the dollar. The taxation package was very strongly endorsed at the July Taxation Summit. There was widespread support at that Summit for the various items in the package. Of course, as you are aware, Mr Deputy President, the National Taxation Summit in July was a very representative body. It urged the Government to introduce a capital gains tax. I think it is also very important to bear in mind that, with the introduction of a capital gains tax Australia, in the taxation sphere, has at last joined other countries in the twentieth century. We will now be in line with all the other members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the world's developed industrialised countries, which have capital gains taxes. Before this Government announced that it would introduce the capital gains tax, of all the wealthy industrialised countries of the world, only the Netherlands and Australia did not tax capital gains. The United States of America-- Senator Puplick —You will not be happy until you have got us in line with Swedish taxation. Senator MAGUIRE —With a maximum rate of 49c in the dollar, Senator, we are doing very well. The United States of America, the home of free enterprise, has taxed capital gains for many years and small business apparently prospers in that country. I believe capital gains should be taxed. After all, capital gains add to economic welfare. They add to a household's well being and they certainly add to a household's ability to consume. They are another form of income. It is very important, I believe, that incomes from all sources be treated similarly for taxation purposes. Therefore, I believe that the tax base should include not only a person's income, but also increases in asset values which enable people to consume more. We certainly do not want the situation which developed under the Howard-Fraser regime to continue, whereby the direct tax system essentially involved taxation of wages and salaries. It was a tax on the wage and salary earners of our community. In recent years, I regret to say, in our country income had become effectively the only measure of capacity to pay taxation. That important principle, I believe, should be endorsed and the introduction of a capital gains tax corrects that inequity which had developed in our country. Those whose economic welfare is derived from increases in asset values will now pay tax at an appropriate rate-and they should too, because they have a capacity to pay taxation. The absence of a capital gains tax in our country provided a key avenue for tax avoidance practices. Millions of dollars, probably hundreds of millions of dollars, were lost as a result of tax avoidance practices which were enabled to occur by an absence of a capital gains tax. As Senator Walsh pointed out earlier this afternoon, one of the key devices which developed was the practice of coverting income which was taxable into gains which were untaxable. Various artificial schemes and devices were created to generate capital appreciation and so escape the income tax net. Therefore, the capital gains tax, I believe, will cut the leakage of revenue from the Australian income tax system and it will certainly reduce the wasteful encouragement to look for untaxed areas for investment. That was what was happening in our community. In key investment areas so much time and effort was spent in looking for untaxed areas, and I am sure the efficiency of the economy was reduced as a result of those devices and practices. I think a number of problems have been caused in our economy by the absence of a capital gains tax. I believe there has been over-investment in property in Australia. Certainly, there was a very great incentive to invest in assets in limited supply. Those assets which were more likely to rise in price than others were favoured because of the absence of a capital gains tax. I think there was probably far too little investment in plant and equipment in our country. I am sure that that hit manufacturing business in my State, South Australia, and the other major manufacturing States of Victoria and New South Wales. No wonder we have to take stock of our balance of payments position because of this under- investment in manufacturing and over-investment in property. One thing about economics that I am sure the Opposition can understand is that one cannot export property. As a result of the introduction of a capital gains tax investment decisions will be based more on income flows, the flows likely to occur from assets, and less on speculative activities. I think that the introduction of a capital gains tax should help to boost productive employment. It is no wonder that at the National Taxation Summit-a fact conveniently ignored by Senator Messner this afternoon-the Business Council of Australia and the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures both supported the concept of a capital gains tax. Both said that it was time that such a tax be introduced in Australia. Clearly, they did not think it would affect incentives and jobs in our community. The capital gains tax to be introduced by this Government will not have the disastrous effects that have been claimed by the Opposition. In fact, the tax will be somewhat milder than the proposal that was discussed at the Summit. Only $25m per annum will be collected from the tax after a period of five years. That is a very tiny sum. It represents about half of the price these days of a helicopter purchased by the Royal Australian Navy. That is the sort of sum we are talking about. It excludes assets owned before 20 September. They are completely outside the tax net. Farms and small businesses owned before that date will be completely exempt from taxation. It is a totally prospective tax. The family home will be completely exempt. Of course, for most Australian families the major investment that they will undertake in their lifetime is the purchase of the family home. Any losses that are incurred as a result of investments will be completely allowed for taxation purposes as an off-set against any capital gains that have been made. The tax will be levied on a realisation basis. Therefore, it will be levied when the person, the household, has cash with which to pay the tax. There will not be any liquidity problems caused by the tax. Most importantly, the capital gains tax will be adjusted for rises in the consumer price index. Mr Deputy President, as you will understand, any increases in the value of assets which result from the general rise in prices in the community will first be deducted from the gain before the tax is applied. I think that is an incredibly generous proposal. Not only is it true-this point was made earlier this afternoon-that very few countries, if any, allow adjustment for rises in consumer prices before the tax is payable; it is even more generous than the provisions that apply in regard to wage and salary earners. As Senator Robertson well knows, there is no indexation of tax brackets for income tax purposes to take inflation into account. Yet favoured treatment is available for those whose economic welfare comes from increases in asset values, from capital gains. So that is a very generous provision and one which is of enormous benefit, I think, to persons who derive their economic welfare from increases in asset values. There has been no effect on incentive as a result of the proposal for a capital gains tax. The Opposition has conveniently ignored the tremendous surge in the buying of Australian shares on stock exchanges since this tax was announced. The big boost to the stock exchange in this country has occurred since the proposed introduction of the capital gains tax. There has been record buying and record prices day after day. Share prices have reached new heights. The all ordinaries index went over 1,000 for the first time after the capital gains tax was announced. That cannot be put down to the freeing of share dividends from so-called double taxation because that does not come into effect until July 1987. Certainly there has been no reduction in incentive for share investors. A capital gains tax has been long overdue in Australia. Capital gains are incomes, just like wages and salaries, and so they should be taxed. The capital gains tax will make the Australian economy more efficient and generate more investment for productive areas and less for speculative areas. Overall, the tax system will become fairer as a result of the introduction of the capital gains tax. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(5.31) —This afternoon we are debating the following matter of urgency: The need of the Hawke Labor Government to abandon its proposed capital gains tax because of the destructive effects on incentive. I believe that this is an urgent matter of importance to all Australians. Because of the imposition of this tax all sections of the community will lose the incentive to invest in property and business. The small investor who buys shares in companies with the thought of making some profit will certainly have no incentive. I have always been against a capital gains tax. I made that commitment to the people of Queensland. Most certainly it is good to know that if this tax is passed, because of the support of the Australian Democrats for the Government, we intend to repeal it when we get back to office in two years time. One thing I can recall-it was brought to our notice earlier this afternoon by Senator Messner-is one of the many broken promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which was put on record in the March 1983 election campaign. He said: `Let me make this clear so that even the Opposition will understand: There will not be a capital gains tax'. The Opposition understood it. We on this side of the Senate are very bright. But, unfortunately, the Australian Labor Party did not catch on. On 19 September, Mr Keating said: `The Government has decided to introduce a capital gains tax'. Mr Keating's statement that liability for tax in the case of death will be rolled over to successors simply means that there will be, in effect, a deferred death duty. That means that not only will people have to pay taxes all their life but their poor relations also will have to pay taxes after they are gone. That seems to me to be a very sad state of affairs. I was very interested in the fact that 63 per cent of Australians have said that they do not want a capital gains tax, so I do not know where the pressure came from. I suggest that the pressure for this tax came from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which wants to make everybody equal. It does not like anybody to have more than anybody else. It seems to forget that the people who have a bit of money provide the jobs and job opportunities for people. The ACTU's idea is to tax everybody as much as possible. The capital gains tax is a good place to start, with death duties attached to it. All I can say is that anybody who wants to support the present Government must like being taxed. We have already had the assets test. We have also had the lump sum superannuation tax. So there are plenty of signs that this Government is indeed a high taxing government. The wealth of Australia, both today and in the future, is dependent upon individual creativity and incentive. It is dependent upon our creating a political, economic and social climate within which the average Australian is motivated and stimulated to enjoy his own life, to be industrious and to create wealth and opportunities for others. I do not feel that the changes the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is introducing in this taxation legislation will do anything to bring about that. Today in particular we are thinking about the capital gains tax and its destructive effects on incentive. The Government is introducing a capital gains tax on the pretext that it will create a more equitable Australia. I say that the reverse will be the case. I feel that enterprise will be stifled, if not destroyed, because of the destructive effects on incentive that this tax will have. We have heard quite a bit about that from Senator Messner and Senator Jessop this afternoon. We will have a situation where businesses could be forced to the wall with the resultant loss of jobs for thousands of Australians. I would have thought that that would be of paramount importance to the Labor Party. At present 550,000-plus are unemployed. Senator Puplick —Senator Cook is shaking his head. It is not of paramount importance. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I think, from hearing what members of the Labor Party have been saying this afternoon, they certainly do not seem to be concerned about this. They should be encouraging people to make jobs. They cannot encourage people to make jobs if they are going to introduce a capital gains tax and myriads of other taxes as well. Most certainly a capital gains tax does not create jobs. Rather, it destroys them. The capital gains tax will also inhibit less well-off Australians from acquiring assets in order to improve their personal situations. If the Government thinks it is going to penalise well-off Australians I believe that it is sadly mistaken. This sector of the population is already protected because those people acquired their assets before this tax was proposed. But the same will not apply for the people who are trying to accumulate assets. This capital gains tax is not good for them. This Government has often been praised for being the Government to bring all Australians together, but it has done more to divide Australians and to create gross inequality than any government I can remember. I can remember lots of them because I have been around for quite a while. The actual practical effects of a capital gains tax will show the shallowness of the Labor Government's rhetoric. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, promised Australians that he would simplify the tax system in this country. In my opinion and in the opinion of small businessmen, rural producers and the average family, he has well and truly blown it. When Senator Siddons was speaking in the Senate this afternoon he indicated that the Australian Democrats had done a deal with Labor to remove a capital gains tax on the family home. I am sure that many people who are in family homes will be delighted that the Democrats have connived with the Labor Party to do this. I want to know what will happen to the family homes on properties. Nothing has been said about them. I think that is very wrong indeed. I want everybody to know that the Democrats are in cahoots with the Labor Party to bring in this obnoxious tax package. I think everybody wants to know about that. The capital gains tax, the company income imputation system and the attack on fringe benefits are nothing more than further impositions on the productive sector of our community. Indeed, the biggest losers will be the hard-working executives and Australia's small businessmen. In other words, the biggest losers will be the presently employed who are now facing the risk of joining the unemployment queues because of the attack of this Government on small business. I want to draw honourable senators' attention to the fact that small business employs 60 per cent of the Australian work force. Also, rural industry over the years has been responsible for vast amounts of overseas credits. I feel very sorry that these people are being attacked in this way. In the longer term the costs would almost certainly be borne by the whole community as a result of eliminated job opportunities and higher costs of living. The capital gains tax which the Treasurer has introduced does seem to have a mild appearance, and it is certainly not retrospective-and one agrees with that-but the sting comes on individual enterprise and effort. The Government has put blatant tax avoiders and small businessmen into one barrel and pushed them over the cliff together. Where is the encouragement for entrepreneurs and their capital to invest in this country? Mr Keating's capital gains tax will hit hard those operators of small businesses who are able to afford new plant or equipment only through leasing arrangements. That is another problem, as I see it. The rural sector, as I said before, will certainly be hard hit by a capital gains tax. I asked a question about another tax this afternoon, namely the fuel tax, and how the poor people who live on the land have had their freight equalisation arrangements taken away. That is another matter, but one can see time and again how these taxes are affecting the man on the land. The capital gains tax is a high-cost, low-return tax. In the past decade Britain's capital gains tax has rarely raised more than one per cent of tax revenue. I heard Senator Maguire this afternoon say that the Government would get only $25m out of this tax after five years. It seems to me that the cost of implementing such a tax will be more than the Government will make out of it. So why bring it in at all? It will not be good for business in any way. As far as America is concerned, I found some information just recently in one of the papers. The United States experience has shown that there is a clear correlation between decreasing capital gains tax and increasing employment. It is said that the United States has been progressively cutting back its capital gains tax because it recognises that the aggressive venture capital industry provides job-creating economic growth. That is something we should remember. A new captal gains tax even on its own would be very bad news for farmers and small businesses but if it were coupled with death duties or any form of assets tax many existing operations would go under. What is it about Australians that we have to knock achievers? I refer to those people who are prepared to get up and have a go and make a success of their life. We want entrepreneurs. The work force needs them to create jobs and job opportunities; governments need them for that reason and many more. Yet `wealth' and `profit' are words which are condemned in this country by this Government, and I suppose by all socialist governments in Australia. Likewise, self-reliance and a fair go are fair game for the bureaucrats who devise all these Alice in Wonderland tax schemes, but I guess they are told to do this by Government Ministers. In its efforts to cut down anyone who shows a bit of initiative, who might aspire to rise above mediocrity, this Government is condemning all Australians to a lower standard of living. It has certainly taken away the incentive to expand businesses and therefore to create critically needed new jobs. There is no doubt in my mind, as I am sure there is no doubt in the minds of small businessmen and rural producers throughout Australia, that there is a need for this Labor Government to abandon its proposed capital gains tax because we all realise, particularly on our side of the chamber, that has destructive effects on incentive. I support the urgency motion that is before the Senate. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.44) —From time to time we have debates in this chamber which seem to lack some substance. They are peculiar debates because the Opposition launches motions but Opposition members do not seem to have their hearts in them or, if they have their hearts in them, seem to lack the capacity to argue their own case. Today it is not peculiar, I suppose, that on the one day of the year on which Australia stops, Melbourne Cup day, they are launching such a debate. What this motion by Senator Messner has relied upon is empty assertion backed up by argument that is specious. In the end, it amounts to a claim by the Opposition that the capital gains tax envisaged by this Government is somehow negative. One of the most gross exaggerations made by the previous speaker, Senator Bjelke-Petersen, was that captial gains tax destroys jobs. But she failed to prove that assertion, and the assertion cannot be proved because it is untrue. In any case, it would depend utterly on a government imposing a capital gains tax that this Government is not going to impose. The empty assertion approach has only pointed up the fact that this has been a limp debate launched by the Opposition-a debate in which, seemingly, Opposition members do not have their hearts. They do not even believe their own story, and the most outstanding feature is that it has lacked any substance at all. There has been empty talk of incentive as if incentive of itself would change the face of the Australian economy and as if a capital gains tax which will rise to $25m net gain to revenue over five years would be a massive disincentive to Australian industry. In terms of the economies of Australian industry, that is a ridiculous assertion and the Opposition knows it. The Opposition has also relied on the assertion that the tax is not necessary. If I ever saw an argument demolished, that was done this afternoon by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, with his eyes closed. The third strut of the Opposition's line of argument, if it can be in any way blessed by the term `argument', is that it is to generate and crank up a fear campaign forecasting horrendous rates of inflation and horrendous levels of unemployment. About the only thing the Opposition said would not happen if a capital gains tax was introduced was massive fratricide around the country. The fear campaign has simply been a disgusting exercise to make pretend to occur something that obviously and palpably will not. Perhaps the real nerve in the Opposition's argument was touched when Senator Messner, in introducing a fairly limp, washed out and weak argument by the Opposition, said that he had discovered a poll in which 67 per cent of Australians were opposed to a capital gains tax. What Senator Messner failed to say was that Opposition senators were not opposed to the proposal that this Government was putting forward. They were opposed to the general concept that he and his Party have been hawking around the country in order to confuse people as to the precise procedures that this Government is intending to introduce. What he did not also say was that most Australians are not opposed to the tax package of which capital gains is a small part, because most Australians are advantaged considerably by the tax package. They know that and appreciate it. If one looks at the polls as to how the tax package as an overall proposition has been received, one sees the evidence with one's own eyes. As Senator Maguire pointed out this afternoon, the evidence on which the Opposition would often wish to rely is how the stock market is performing. If that is the evidence one wishes to cite in this debate, I would point out that the stock market has given an outstanding vote of confidence to the tax package because the all ordinaries index went through the 1,000 mark for the first time in a record performance on the stock market. So even in the area on which Opposition senators often rely as being the key indicator, the tax package as a whole has been saluted by those who trade in stocks and shares. The package is popular because most Australian wage and salary earners, over 6 1/2 million Australians-the majority of adults in this country-will benefit, and as typical workers will benefit next year by between $10 and $12 a week as they receive tax cuts, and they will benefit in 1987 by between $14 and $22 as they receive further tax cuts. It may irk the Opposition to know that we are redistributing the tax burden to those who have escaped the burden in the past. We are giving tax cuts to workers who deserve them in order to improve their purchasing power. It may also irk the Opposition to know that we are at last reaching for justice and equity in taxation. I can understand how that hurts the Opposition; nonetheless it is the reason why most Australians support the package and it is a reason with which Opposition senators may have to grapple in the future. Unless the Opposition comes to terms with the fundamental dissymmetry in the Australian tax system and addresses that in a comprehensive way, as we have done, there is no hope for the Opposition to be anything other than incredible, because it will not be credible to anyone. This Government has bitten on the bullet of one of the toughest political questions that any government can face. It has recognised that over the decades of Liberal-National Party Government in this country the tax system has gone to rack and ruin. The burden has been shifted on to the shoulders of ordinary wage and salary earners who pay every cent of their tax through the pay as you earn system. At the same time, celebrated tax consultants and economists have remarked often enough for it to be more than obvious that for the rich and wealthy in this country tax has become a strictly voluntary contribution. Those remarks are well known. We saw a massive tax avoidance industry grow under the former Government. We have seen too that billions of dollars have been lost to the public purse by avoidance, which means that ordinary taxpayers have had to shoulder an increasing burden to make up the difference. But it is not for these people-most Australians-that we hear any bleat of compassion or argument for justice or equity from the Opposition. The Opposition has argued on behalf of a small group of people who will be brought at last into the tax net-people who earn income not through wages and salaries but by investment, although income it is-and who will, therefore, be taxed according to the receipt of income. It is on behalf of that small group that this argument has been launched this afternoon-an argument which, as I have said, is without substance. The public, the media and the financial Press of Australia have congratulated this Government for approaching reform in taxation directly, honestly, openly; for the way in which it has supplied information for public debate and consulted widely with the various interest groups in the community; and for the way in which it has moved, after consideration of the response by the community, to what is an ideal tax package. Of course, in any tax package of the Government in response to community interest there will be winners and losers. But the package as a whole stands on the basis that it is a package best worked out to meet the overall needs of equity, fairness, efficiency and the stamping out of tax avoidance that are necessary features of tax reform in this country. This afternoon we have had a debate in which the Opposition has plucked at one aspect of an overall symmetrical package aimed at addressing all the dissymmetries in taxation. The Opposition has plucked at that one feature as if it were a major aspect and it maintains, therefore, that the tax package itself cannot pass. Of course, that is a situation in which an opposition, which has not declared its own tax proposals publicly, can and does languish. That is the advantage of an opposition without the responsibility of government and without the responsibility of framing a Budget. It can sit back and carp, criticise and nitpick; in fact, it can border on being dishonest. Until there is a comprehensive package of proposals from the Opposition on tax reform in this country it cannot be judged. Not that that worries this Government. We are proud of being judged on the record of reform that we have introduced in this country in all areas of the economy. It irks members of the Opposition to know that many of the people on whom they rely for opinions and leadership in the private sector economy praise this Government for its achievements. I turn now to some of the aspects of the debate that has been raised by the Opposition. One of the interesting phrases in the letter sent to the President to start this debate was `because of the destructive effects on incentive'. At first blush, when I saw the words `because of the destructive effects on incentive' I thought that the Opposition might be taking a positive view. It is possible to take a positive view that it is destructive of incentive if widespread tax avoidance and evasion is not curbed. But the Opposition is not taking that view; it is taking a view that defends widespread evasion and avoidance; it has argued to protect it. There is another aspect of incentive. What about the disincentive to those 6 1/2 million Australian wage and salary earners who pay every cent of their tax to know that there is a small, select band of people who evade their tax payments simply because they can? Any system of taxation which exists on the foundations of fairness and equity is complied with. Any system that is palpably unfair is not complied with. That is a fundamental precept of taxation law. It is a major disincentive for those who honestly pay their tax dollar to know that a select group is being protected from having to pay tax. This disincentive aspect for honest taxpayers ought to be addressed. The Opposition just cannot have it both ways. It cannot plead incentive for the select and impose a major disincentive for the majority, which is what the incentive concept in this urgency motion proposes to do. I asked Senator Messner, in his substantive address, to quantify what he saw as being the incentive loss due to the imposition of a capital gains tax. He paused and then went on with his address simply because the incentive loss that he asserts in his motion is not a figure that he can quantify. He has no way of knowing what it is. If we refer to the economies of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with similar economies and with which we compare ourselves, we see that there is no loss of incentive, for example, in West Germany or in Japan. We could hardly say that the Canadians lacked incentive. It could not be argued necessarily that business in the United States of America had a massive disincentive because of the imposition of a capital gains tax. We might be able to argue that about Britain but I doubt whether those on the Opposition benches could argue that this was the result of a capital gains tax because they favour the sort of dry or arid government that Maggie Thatcher runs in that country. We could not argue in relation to France either that a capital gains tax is a massive disincentive to reinvestment in industry. If we go to the record-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator COOK —The interjections begin to flow as soon as I start to introduce facts in this chamber. Opposition senators get restive and uptight and start to fight back because they know that in the international community to which Australia aspires and of which it feels a part there are integral capital gains taxes. The notable thing in comparing the tax regimes of all those countries is that until now Australia has not had a capital gains tax. Under this Government we are going to join the international community to ensure that the basic precepts of fairness, efficiency and both horizontal and vertical equity in taxation are introduced. In the few minutes left to me I wish to deal with the capital gains tax. In all fairness to Senator Jessop, he pointed out in quoting from a document from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that a capital gains tax addresses those two central issues of horizontal and vertical equity: One should be fairly treated at all stages according to one's income level, or one should be fairly treated across the board according to what type of income one enjoys. It is this Government's intention to construct a tax system that is fair. A capital gains tax is an integral part of that system. Capital gains are income. As long as they go untaxed and other income is taxed the situation is unfair. If Senator Bjelke-Petersen reads the Treasurer's statement she will see that many of the qualms she has expressed are not valid. The capital gains tax is indexed. It taxes only real capital gains. It exempts the family home and it also makes other exemptions consistent with the owner use of property. In that sense it is a very soft capital gains tax, one that ought to be in the tax regime of Australia-and it will be under this Government. Motion (by Senator Sheil) agreed to: That the question be now put. Question put: That the motion (Senator Messner's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. 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)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. McIntosh, G. D. Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. FDevlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Siddons, J. R. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Vigor, D. B. Jones, G. N. Walsh, P. A. McClelland, Douglas Zakharov, A. O. Reid, M. E. Coleman, R. N. Chaney, F. M. Grimes, D. J. Durack, P. D. Gietzelt, A. T. Withers, R. G. Childs, B. K. Kilgariff, B. F. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.07) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Prices Surveillance Authority represents a rather odd part of the Government's armoury of economic management. The Authority's annual report for 1984-85 is before us. The report indicates that, whilst during that year the Government has been extremely vocal in talking about the need for deregulation, whilst the Government has been setting in place in the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce mechanisms for reducing the regulatory burdens on business and whilst the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been going along to meetings of businessmen and making splendid announcements about the need to reduce regulation on business, in fact, during that year the Government has extended further the scope of the Prices Surveillance Authority. At page 8 of the report we find reference to the fact that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has extended the Authority's surveillance to beer, cigarettes, concrete roofing tiles, float glass, packet tea and tea bags and instant coffee. The Authority has already been supervising or perusing the cost of such things as petroleum. The difficulty that the Opposition has with the Government's approach to this matter is that the Government seems to be saying totally inconsistent things. On the one hand, the Government is saying that it believes it was necessary to increase the profit share in the economy, and indeed the Government has been pointing with some pride to the recovery of the profit shares which has occurred over the last couple of years. Whilst there has been a degree of recovery of the profit share and whilst that is in the view of the Opposition a very important element in getting the fundamentals in the Australian economy into the right shape, it needs to be noted that the grown operating surplus share of corporations is still below the level that applied in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although it is above the levels of more recent years it cannot be said that the profit share is in any way excessive. Indeed, it seems likely that, if we are to get the economic growth which we require, if we are to reduce unemployment in this country and increase employment at a fast rate the profit share should rise further. That can be regarded as an unpoplular thing to say because the spectre of profits is sometimes put forward as being something which is the evil side of capitalism but it is, in fact, the incentive for investment and for new activity and it is an extremely important element in the present degree of economic recovery that we have. The situation is that in a number of respects the Government is ignoring its own advice. The tax changes which have been the subject of some debate in this place today and which will be debated again tomorrow have been clearly demonstrated by the Business Council of Australia and by various other observers to amount to a quite massive attack on the profitability of businesses in Australia. That is a matter of concern. When one adds in the economic illogicality which is contained in the Government's approaches to the Prices Surveillance Authority, it is a matter of some seriousness. If the Australian economy is to benefit from devaluation, for example, price changes caused by the devaluation have to be allowed to flow through into the economy; indeed, price rises which are necessary to restore profitability have to be allowed to flow through into the economy. What the Government seems to be trying to do by using this instrument is to put a squeeze on profit margins, and that is an approach which the Opposition does not believe is sound; it is one which we believe will rebound upon the Government. I have made the point before that the whole of the Government's Budget strategy is based on the proposition that there will be an increase in private sector investment in the coming year. The Government seems to be doing little to encourage that increased investment with its taxation approach and its approach to prices surveillance. It is the Opposition's view that this is an area of regulation which is, in fact, over- regulation and the Government should be true to its rhetoric and see that there is some reduction rather than an increase in the degree of supervision. It would appear-many commentators have made the point-that the Prices Surveillance Authority is something of a sop to the unions, something of a piece of negotiating coin for the Government. In the view of the Opposition it is a very unwise piece of negotiating coin to be adopting. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(6.12) —I am pleased to comment on what Senator Chaney has said. He suggested that in some way the Prices Surveillance Authority is inconsistent with the Government's approach to things. It is not. The first point is that this organisation uses moral persuasion for whatever it does in terms of the companies it takes action against. No compulsory measures are available to the Authority: As I have said before, it is an authority which acts on persuasion. That is not a regulatory authority in the sense that it has a statutory right to impose its will upon those companies it acts against. The second point to make is this: Senator Chaney talked about profitability. He implied that this Government is against profit. That is clearly not so. Section 17 (3) (a) of the Prices Surveillance Act makes it quite clear that the profitability of an investment is to be taken into account in the actions of the Prices Surveillance Authority. The Government says: `Of course profitability is important but that is only one side of the equation'. Senator Chaney took one side of the equation and gave it all the weight. What is wrong with that? This is what is wrong with it. Of course profitability should be restored and made available to companies, but in doing that the social cost to the people of Australia should be kept in mind. When we are talking about wages and returns to workers, the effect on their ability to pay off their mortgages, the effect on their ability to pay the bills that come into the house each week, are essential factors to take into the equation which must always be kept in mind-the equation between profitability on the one hand and a fair return to people who produce the wealth on the other hand. To simply say that the only element in the equation that should be taken into account is profitability is a statement which is likely to lead very much to social problems because people will not have the wherewithal to live if that is the only part of the equation to be considered when we look at the economic problems of this country. Of course profitability must be restored. That is taken for granted. However, one cannot, as it were, restore profitability in one fell swoop by cutting wages, by cutting the remuneration that people deserve as a result of their labour. I point out that the Government takes into account not only the profitability of companies, which of course is essential, but also a fair return for a fair day's work so that people can maintain their living standards. It ought to be pointed out in that context that the living standards of too many people in Australia have been reduced by much too much. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.15) —The Prices Surveillance Authority was established after the passage of the Prices Surveillance Bill in the Senate in December 1983. We live in a mixed economy and the Prices Surveillance Authority deals with both quangos and private enterprise. The Australian Democrats supported the legislation and wanted to strengthen it by allowing consumers to refer matters to the Authority and have investigations where warranted. However, the Government was not prepared to have this happen. The basic guidelines as they are now require the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to notify industries and companies whose applications for a price rise will automatically have public scrutiny. The Treasurer may call for a specific inquiry, as has happened with Australia Post and with the recent Telecom Australia charge increases. When analysing pricing principles the Prices Surveillance Authority has three statutory guidelines. The first is the need to maintain investment and employment, including the influence of profitability on investment and employment. That is quite important. A balance between good profits and fair prices can be struck in this way. The Authority has rejected proposed price increases on the grounds of imputed interest payments and increased royalty payments. It has the power to deal with artificial pricing devices. This is extremely important. The second statutory guideline is the need to discourage a person who is in a position to influence substantially a market for goods or services from taking advantage of a monopoly situation. This is another important area that the PSA can handle. With increased takeover activity, often going under the name of rationalisation, competition on prices can effectively be removed and the Authority is a very good balancing factor for the control of the very large corporations. The Authority also acts to deal with transfer pricing mechanisms, which are one of the main rorts used to defraud consumers and, in a number of cases, the Government. The third statutory guideline is the need to discourage cost increases arising from increases in wages and changes in conditions of employment inconsistent with principles established by relevant industrial tribunals. If a company makes a sweetheart deal it is not possible for the financial brunt of this to be passed on to the paying public. I must point out that the Surveillance Authority has no coercive powers. It can endorse proposed charges; it can recommend modifications and it can recommend public inquiries. It has been thorough in doing its job and this leads to an atmosphere in which companies and government authorities find it hard to go ahead regardless of its approval. I wish to mention a few matters concerning postal charges. At page 47 of the Prices Surveillance Authority 1984-85 annual report it is stated; . . . the Authority observed that the postal service was not performing adequately in New South Wales and that the current costs of postage were inflated by approximately one cent in the standard articles postal rate as a result. The Authority has some problems with staffing because it has set a few standards of which I approve. The Authority is trying to achieve a smoke-free work environment for its staff and I commend this. The Authority attributes one month of staff time to freedom of information. However, only two requests were processed. This means that the price of freedom of information has been inflated. I believe that the Authority should look at its own figures in this area and try to get a reasonable cost price for freedom of information. It should look at the highly artificial way in which it has presented its figures. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.21) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Department of Communications' annual report for 1984-85 contains a great deal of information in terms of matters currently under review by the Department and in terms of a number of policy initiatives taken by this Government since it came to office. However, a careful reading of the Department's annual report will indicate the degree of confusion which exists within the Government as far as broadcasting policy is concerned at the moment in respect of the number of different broadcasting initiatives which the Government is running, some of which, in fact, are quite incompatible with each other. For instance, the report dealing with the question of localism in Australian broadcasting notes that the Department is reviewing the recommendations of the Oswin inquiry, that 800-odd submissions were received by that inquiry and that it has an ongoing and continuing commitment to the policy of localism in broadcasting. At the same time, Mr Duffy, the Minister for Communications, has announced that the primary objective now in Australian communications policy is to move to a situation of equalisation. This will mean that all persons who receive television programs in Australia will eventually be able to receive three television station transmissions, the same number that is currently available to most consumers in Sydney, Melbourne and other major cities. The inevitable consequence of a policy of equalisation is increased dominance by the metropolitan networks. The consequence of equalisation is networking and networking means the death of localism. It is therefore impossible to pursue both policies, localism and equalisation, at the same time. That is one of the indications of confusion in Government policy. The report on page 40 refers to the system of supplementary licences. Supplementary licence hearings were intitiated. Only one of those hearings-the supplementary television broadcasting licence for CTC-7 in Canberra-has substantially proceeded. Nevertheless, the Minister has attempted on two separate occasions to abort that supplementary licence inquiry by trying to apply pressure to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to defer the inquiry until a review of legislation is made. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has continued to pursue that matter. The whole process of supplementary licences is incompatible with the process of equalisation because supplementary licences were designed initially to provide an additional part service rather than a second or third service in the same broadcasting market. So there is confusion as far as that is concerned. The report draws our attention to the on-going debate between the Minister and his Department and various forces within the community and the Government Party on the question of the future of the Special Broadcasting Service-whether in fact its long term future is guaranteed independently in accordance with some of the recommendations, whether all of the Connor report recommendations will be taken up and whether, in fact, the Service will be merged within the operation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The report also draws our attention to the report previously presented by the Forward Development Unit on the future directions for broadcasting in Australia. There are a number of recommendations in that, which, if adopted, would be contrary to those currently laid down within the Government's own framework. There is the question of the two-station rule which is referred to on page 37 of the Department's annual report. If in fact changes are to be made in the two-station rule, again the protection of localism and the position of regional television operators will be severely disadvantaged. There is within this report one absolutely monumental understatement. It occurs on page 59 and reads: Disappointing mail service standards, particularly by Australia Post in New South Wales, have been a matter of concern for some time. We have here a statement of high import thrown away in one and a half lines that there is something crook with the mail service in New South Wales and that it is a matter of concern-not that the Department, the Minister or anybody else is prepared to suggest anything that can be done about it or anybody is prepared to take any positive steps to do anything about it. The Department has confirmed what all of us would have previously recognised on the basis of our own experience-that is, that the New South Wales mail system is a matter of concern. This is something that ought to be drawn particularly to the attention of the Senate. The report makes it perfectly clear that a major rewriting of the Broadcasting and Television Act is now long overdue. The Government must clearly indicate what its priorities are in the future of broadcasting in Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. We are dealing with a report entitled `Rainforest Conservation in Australia' which was presented to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) by a working group on rainforest conservation. Most of the States which have major rainforest areas were represented on that committee. That representation included people from the department that are responsible for these significant areas as well as people from conservation groups. I think it is worth noting that this was a unanimous report. All of those involved agreed with the general recommendations and the findings of the report. I must say that the Queensland Government is a signatory to the report. I think a few things should be put in context. First of all, 91 per cent of rainforests in Queensland are on crown land and only 9 per cent are on private land. The figures for Australia are very similar-92 per cent of rainforests are on crown land and 8 per cent are on private land. I would like to home in on Queensland which has 55 per cent of the Australian total area of rainforests. As I said, 9 per cent of that area is on private land. I should also point out that 21 per cent of that rainforest area is in national parks and will not be touched and 45 per cent is in timber reserves or on other crown land and is not available for logging. So in Queensland we are actually looking at a total of 66 per cent of rainforests which will never be logged. The area involved is 750,000 hectares-three quarters of a million hectares-or 7,500 square kilometres. I think that this point should be made quite clear. Senator Sanders —You say it has never been logged? Senator COLLARD —It has never been logged and it is not available for logging. I wish that the honourable senator and his group would remember that. Sixty-six per cent of rainforests in Queensland is not available for logging. Only 25 per cent is available for logging and that logging is selective. It is not clear felling-it is selective logging of timber that is suitable. Senator Sanders —Have you seen what happens to the canopy once they have taken the trees out of there? Senator COLLARD —If the honourable senator understood that area he would know that the canopy soon grows. It has grown over roads. This has caused far more damage than the practice of taking out selected timber. Unfortunately, as has been indicated already, there are people in this world who do not know or do not want to know the true situation about the rainforests of Australia. Senator Sanders —Have you been to Downey Creek? You haven't been to Downey Creek. Senator COLLARD —Indeed, some of them are imports. This has been brought out not only by the ignorant interjections that we have just heard but also by some of the reports. I refer to a report which appeared as late as 1 November in the Age which reported Senator Chipp, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, as saying: . . . Australia's rainforests are in danger of complete destruction. The article quotes Mr Bill Hare, the Australian Conservation Foundation campaign director, as saying: Areas such as Downey Creek will all be gone next year, unless the Federal Government acts quickly . . . However, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the Forestry Minister, Glasson, are determined to log these forests to extinction and will keep stalling and talking while the chainsaws work. Another guy by the name of Dr Joe Baker said that unless urgent action was taken the last of the accessible virgin rainforests south of the Daintree River would be logged out in two years. What absolute rot! We even had a report in the Age today under the byline of John Larkin and Gregg Borschmann which was headed `Email agrees to meet Cohen on Daintree logging'. Email, or its subsidiary, Foxwood Limited, does not log within 100 kilometres of the Daintree forest. It should be noted that 75,050 hectares of the Daintree forest is situated in both the Daintree and Cape Tribulation national parks. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator COLLARD —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I was explaining that at least 66 per cent of the rainforest in Queensland has not been logged and will never be logged. It is either in national parks or in timber reserves. They are the facts, and they are half contained in the rainforest conservation paper about which we are talking. There is plenty of other documentary evidence on that. Concerning the Daintree, that is also an area that is not being logged except by one small operator in one small part, of 760 hectares, out of a total of 190,000 hectares. Senator Sanders —What about the real estate brokers? Senator COLLARD —The real estate is only on private land. That is nothing to do with the crown land. There is a lot of talk about the road. The road is built in a high stress area. It runs for one and a quarter-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.01) —I should like to set the record straight. Senator Collard has been pushing the Joh Bjelke-Peanuts line up there in Queensland. He must think that we are absolutely stupid down here. Senator Collard —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: That was a completely uncalled-for remark about the Premier of the sovereign State of Queensland. I ask that it be withdrawn. Senator SANDERS —I will withdraw the remark if it offends my colleague. But I think he must admit there is a different view of the world from north of the Mason-Dixon Line up there. They seem to feel that they can generate numbers and statistics. To listen to Senator Collard, one would believe that there is actually no problem with the rainforests in Queensland. As Mark Twain once said, there's lies, damned lies and statistics. What we have got from Senator Collard is a whole bunch of statistics saying that 66 per cent of the rainforest either is never logged or never will be logged. What a bunch of rubbish! This whole report shows its concern for the rainforests in Queensland and in New South Wales. These rainforests, of course, are very precious around the world. There are not a lot of them left. That is what this report recognises. I am afraid, however, that this report is just another example of a government taking what appears to be action-namely, getting a report under way-and then burying the results in inaction. This report, on page 97, states: The Working Group recommends that the Commonwealth Government formally adopt the following as a statement of Commonwealth Rainforest Conservation Policy: The Commonwealth Government recognise . . . as a party to the World Heritage Convention, with respect to rainforests, `the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation, preservation and transmission to future generations of cultural and natural heritage' as defined in the Convention. In other words, this report calls for the Federal Government to take action in declaring this a world heritage area. Will the Federal Government do so? No, unfortunately it will not do so. An editorial in the Age-a paper scathed by the honourable senator from Queensland-a fine newspaper in the south of the country, says of Mr Cohen: . . . he has apparently given up all hope of persuading his Labor Party colleagues that the wet tropics region should be nominated for World Heritage Commission listing. That would involve the Federal Government in a head-on, Franklin River-type confrontation with the Queensland Government: a battle which the Federal Government fears it could well lose. It goes on to say: The Labor Party fought hard to ensure such protection for the Great Barrier Reef and for the wilderness area of south-west Tasmania. It is a sad commentary on the party's present spinelessness that it is not prepared to show the same vigor now in defending north Queensland's priceless rainforest. Priceless rainforest it is. It is disappearing quite rapidly around the world. Downey Creek, an area of prime grade A rainforest which has somehow survived the rapacious nature of the Queensland exploiters, is still in prime quality timber. It is being cut down now. I have been there-as the honourable senator has not-and I have watched the canopy being destroyed by the logging. I have watched the destruction. It must be stopped. It could be stopped by this Federal Government, but the Federal Government is spineless. Furthermore, the Federal Government is ignoring one basic fact: Minister Cohen has said that the conservationists are not relevant, that they do not have any importance in the political system and that they were not important in getting the Hawke Government elected in the first place and have no importance now. I tell him that he had better take another look at what support there is in the conservation movement for saving rainforests. There is a bumper sticker which reads `Rainforests-Cohen, going gone'. The rain forests are not the only endangered things around Australia; Mr Cohen had better look to his own endangered status. Debate interrupted. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill 1985. Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill 1985. Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill 1985. Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985. Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985. Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill 1985. Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill 1985. States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1985. Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill 1985. Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1985. Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill 1985. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1985. Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1985. Medicare Levy Bill 1985. Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 1985. Loan Bill 1985. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Colston, I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee D and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard report of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales) —I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee A and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on a Bill of Rights for Australia, tabled earlier this day, be printed. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(8.03) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The title of the report that I tabled earlier this day is `An Exposure Report for the Consideration of Senators, dealing with the Question of a Bill of Rights for Australia'. The title itself well indicates the nature of the task which the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has undertaken. It will be for the Parliament as a whole to determine whether a Bill of Rights, either constitutionally entrenched or introduced by way of ordinary statute, is to be a feature of our legal political arrangements. It will also be for the Parliament to determine whether the improvement of existing human rights protections would be sufficient without the introduction of a Bill of Rights. In fact quite early, under `Executive Enforcement', the Committee acknowledges and canvasses that possibility. As Australians we are fortunate to live in a democratic and pluralist society which by any standards accords a high respect to the dignity of the individual and which recognises many rights and freedoms consequent on that dignity. Many submissions referred to the comment attributed to the Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs: If society is tolerant and rational, it does not need a Bill of Rights; if it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it. But that neat aphorism is not in itself sufficient to deny the desirability of a Bill of Rights for our society. It may be argued, for example, that a Bill of Rights for Australia could be simply justified as a national affirmation, an assertion of firmly held and firmly prized values of the Australian community. Furthermore, some consider it desirable to take advantage of the current relatively stable position of Australian society to introduce a Bill which could aid in the defence of fundamental rights and freedoms if threatened during any future societal turmoil or crisis. The Committee examined the existing framework of protections of fundamental rights and freedoms and found it to be uneven in the protection it affords. Some of the protections are not formally institutionalised. There are, for example, inherent cultural traditions and values, such as the general community acceptance of the natural justice principle that individuals should get a fair hearing before being adversely treated. The media also play an important role in their scrutiny of public affairs and, in particular, in bringing to the attention of the populace information about and independent critical analysis of action impinging on fundamental rights and freedoms. But there are some distinct formal elements in our constitutional and political arrangements which relate to human rights. These include constitutionally entrenched protections, the courts and the common law, the Human Rights Commission and the parliaments. The Committee outlined the strengths and weaknesses of each of these institutions and the contribution each made to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. For example, the Committee examined and evaluated the few constitutionally entrenched provisions in our national Constitution. We described as dispassionately as possible the work of the Human Rights Commission. A knowledge of the way it actually works may help dispel many misgivings about that organisation. Perhaps our most useful analysis was of the sometimes mythical eminence attached to the common law. Whilst acknowledging achievements of the common law judges in developing legal process rights, the Committee is aware of the inadequacies of the common law in the area of substantive rights. Many Australians, for example, think that the common law protects their fundamental rights. However, fundamental rights such as the right to vote, the right to practise religion freely and the right to seek employment without being discriminated against on account of race or sex are not recognised at common law. It needs to be emphasised that all common law rights and freedoms are vulnerable. They are all subject to the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. Finally, the Committee dealt with the role of parliaments, in which, as it will become apparent, it places great faith. The Committee considered that if a Bill of Rights adapted to Australia's circumstances is contemplated, it should be drafted in a way which vitalises parliaments by keeping them aware of fundamental rights and freedoms and sensitive to the effect of their activities on such rights and freedoms. It should also require elected parliaments to take public responsibility for their adherence to or departure from any of the provisions of such a Bill of Rights. The question arises: What criteria, checklist or guidelines concerning fundamental rights and freedoms should the parliaments use or be conscious of when engaged in law making or in calling to account those holding executive power? In the Australian constitutional context the content of a national Bill of Rights and its constitutional status are inextricably entwined issues. There is only unfettered freedom in determining the content of a Bill of Rights if the Bill is to be made part of the constitutional structure through the amendment processes of section 128 of the Constitution. There is no prospect in the foreseeable future of any such proposal passing section 128's onerous requirements. At the very least, there should be a trial period with a statutory Bill. Even if the trial were a success, the question of constitutional entrenchment would still need to be resolved. The danger is that to constitutionally entrench Bill of Rights provisions is to entrench judicial interpretation of Bill of Rights provisions. Entrenchment would give to the judiciary the final word on many social issues and could, according to some submissions, encourage members of the judiciary to take an active role, imposing their own values and policies on governments and society and overriding policy decisions of elected parliaments. The process of judicial interpretation could result in provisions of the Bill being given effects not foreseen or intended by the framers of the Bill. Constitutional entrenchment would transfer a great deal of power to the judiciary in areas where parliaments have not only a right but also a duty to determine major social policies. A bench of non-elected judges, politically answerable to no one, should have no conclusive dominance over the elected representatives, certainly during the trial period envisaged. These kinds of concerns led the Committee to the view that if there is to be a Bill of Rights it should, at least for the trial period, be contained in an ordinary Commonwealth statute. Politicians should remain electorally responsible for the shape of Australian society; that is, vis-a-vis the judiciary. Later I will describe how that underlying principle of the Committee's exposure report might work in a federal system. I turn immediately to the content of any Bill of Rights. The Committee is of the view that if a Bill of Rights is to have maximum impact, it should be simple and clear. An available head of power, which will enable the enactment of a broad statement of fundamental rights and freedoms, is the external affairs power found in section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution. Of course the mere fact that constitutional power is available does not mean that it should be used. Using the external affairs power to implement international treaty obligations is politically a highly sensitive and controversial matter. It must be emphasised, however, that Australian support for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights over the years has been largely bipartisan. Australia became involved in the drafting process in the late 1940s under an Australian Labor Party Government. Under a Liberal-Country Party Government Australia voted in 1966 that the ICCPR be adopted by the United Nations and opened for signature. It was signed in December 1972 by an ALP Government and ratified in August 1980 by an LCP Government. Some of the declarations and reservations lodged at the time of ratification were removed late in 1984. The ICCPR already has some operations in Australia as part of the charters guiding the activities of the Human Rights Commission and the Law Reform Commission. Indeed, the Committee concluded that the rights and freedoms declared in the international covenant are such that any liberal democracy would wish to see most of them incorporated in its social arrangements. These considerations support the view that should the idea of a national Bill of Rights commend itself to the national Parliament, it should be based on and operate as an implementation of the rights and freedoms declared in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is important that any Bill of Rights, whether based on the ICCPR or not, should make it plain that it is a minimum statement and that it does not intend to reduce any existing common law, Commonwealth or State legislative recognition or protection of rights. Any Bill should make clear that courts and State parliaments are free to supplement the Bill of Rights by giving recognition to rights and freedoms not recognised in the Bill and by protecting rights and freedoms to an extent or in ways not included in the Bill. It is not in any sense exhaustive of the rights and freedoms that we might enjoy. I note the presence of Senator Elstob in the chamber and I am sure he will be interested in that comment, given his submission to the Committee. I turn next to the matter of federalism and to the inherent tensions of federalism. On the one hand, the pressure for fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed across the nation is intense; on the other hand, the pressure for State autonomy and diversity must be acknowledged. Two other federal democracies, the United States of America and Canada, have wrestled with these problems and have developed quite different responses. The Canadian response has been developed recently in a country with a legal tradition similar to that of Australia. The Committee considers that many elements of the Canadian response could be adapted to Australia's circumstances as a possible way of reconciling for Australia the tensions and pressures mentioned above. The Committee envisages a possible application of a Bill of Rights to the various parts of the federation in the following way and I shall deal with the Commonwealth itself first. If there is to be a Bill of Rights it should provide that all Commonwealth laws existing at the time of proclamation of the Bill which are inconsistent with the rights and freedoms of the Bill are, to the extent of the inconsistency, to cease to operate. Of course, there are many Commonwealth laws already on the books and some period should be allowed so that such legislation can be reviewed. A sunrise clause should be incorporated so that the Bill would not cause inconsistent pre-existing Commonwealth laws to cease to operate until the expiration of a prescribed period after the date of proclamation of the Bill. Three years would seem to be a more than appropriate period of grace. Concerning future Commonwealth laws, it would be desirable that future parliaments observe the Bill of Rights when undertaking legislative activity and it should be the case that, without more, future Commonwealth Acts be taken to accept the governing character of the Bill of Rights. As an ordinary statute of the Commonwealth Parliament, a Bill of Rights itself would be subject to being displaced by future Commonwealth Acts. It would be desirable if future Commonwealth parliaments could only displace Bill of Rights provisions by express declarations in legislation of intention so to do. As far as the Commonwealth Executive is concerned, powers and discretions created by statute should be bound by the Bill of Rights to the same extent that the parent statute is bound, as should inherent Executive capacity and the exercise of prerogative powers, which should also be subject to the Bill. As far as Cabinet decisions themselves are concerned, the Canadian court made Cabinet decisions subject to judicial review under the charter in Canada. This Committee doubts that it would be appropriate for Cabinet decisions as such to be subject to judicial review for compliance with a Bill of Rights. I turn to the States. The Commonwealth, as the national government has a right, indeed a responsibility, to protect the rights and freedoms of all Australians. The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressly apply to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions. Furthermore, as Mr Herlihy and Mr Lance argued in their joint submission before the Committee in Brisbane: The level of protection of fundamental rights in Australia should not be determined on a State to State basis. All Australian citizens, regardless of which State they reside in are equally entitled to the same measure of protection. The Committee did not consider it practicable to suggest that a national Bill of Rights override all inconsistent State laws as a brute exercise of paramount power without prospect of redress by the State legislature concerned. Nor did the Committee believe that the Commonwealth should simply retreat from the field and not put the States under any, even initial, obligation to comply with a Bill of Rights. The Committee believes that the presumption should be legislatively expressed that the rights and freedoms of the Bill apply to State legislation and executive activity. But in recognition of the federal system, that presumption should be subject to being displaced by sufficiently clear State legislation. The Committee thereby suggests a model for the application of the Bill which, whilst initially making its provisions available to all Australians, does permit State parliaments to take political responsibility for suspending the operation of certain provisions of this Bill. We saw no reason why the Commonwealth should assume this on behalf of the States, thus letting them off the political hook. I turn to the effect of the Bill of Rights on pre-existing State laws. As at the Commonwealth level, State laws existing at the time of proclamation of a Bill of Rights should be subject to the Bill and would to the extent of any inconsistency be overidden by the Bill pursuant to section 109 of the Constitution. A sunrise clause similar to that applying at the Commonwealth level should delay the commencement of the overriding effect of the Bill of Rights. As to future State laws, if there is to be a Bill of Rights it should apply to future State laws. Pursuant to section 109 future State laws would be overridden to the extent that they were inconsistent with the Bill. With the crucial exception of electoral rights, which are discussed below, a State legislature should be able to displace certain operations of a Bill of Rights by express declaration in an Act of Parliament that a provision or provisions of a Bill of Rights not apply to a particular State Act. In essence this framework would leave to State parliaments primary responsibility for decisions affecting their communities and would allow them even to override Bill of Rights rights and freedoms so long as they were willing to do so openly and to take political responsibility for their actions. But-and this is crucial-the displacement framework is an acknowledgment of the necessities of federalism and of the democratic legitimacy of State parliaments seeking to pursue policies which are supported by the communities which they represent. The Committee is of the view that a State government or parliament can only legitimately claim to be entitled to suspend the operation of Bill of Rights provisions protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of Australians if the government is truly representative of the Australians who live in the State. State governments which rely on or are assisted by gerrymanders or the exclusion of an arbitrarily designated group of residents-for example, women or racial groups, as has happened in Australia at various times in our history-cannot claim legitimately to represent the Australians who live in their States. The electoral rights provisions of the Bill of Rights should be beyond reach of the displacement framework. It is to be noted that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom does not allow displacement of democratic rights provisions. The aspect of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerned with electoral rights is article 25 (b) which provides: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: . . . (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; . . . The Committee regards this article as so fundamental that it should not be subject to displacement by any State parliament. I move to the effect of a Bill of Rights on State executive power. The application of a Bill of Rights to exercises of State executive power should parallel the application of the Bill to exercises of Commonwealth executive power. The Committee has put forward quite a novel model for the consideration and interest of honourable senators to enhance the debate to take place in this chamber. The model suggested by the Committee does permit a partial implementation of the International Covenant. Under the displacement framework either the Commonwealth or a State parliament could cause particular aspects of the Bill to cease operating and could to that extent reduce the Bill's implementation of the International Covenant. The constitutional issues associated with the displacement framework are novel and difficult. The Committee is divided in its view as to whether the displacement framework would be constitutionally valid. But it puts forward the framework and the preceding discussion of the constitutional issues as a contribution to the consideration of what are for Australia not only difficult but also extremely important issues. The Committee considered, if there were a Bill of Rights, how compliance with it might be pursued through a combination of judicial and Executive remedies. The Committee sees a crucial role for a body in the nature of the Human Rights Commission in any framework. Australia has an international obligation to ensure that those whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the International Covenant are violated have an effective remedy. Article 2 (3) of the Covenant provides: Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. The question arises: What consequenses should flow from legislation or Executive activity being found to be inconsistent with a Bill of Rights? As to judicial remedies, any person or entity with sufficient standing should be able to obtain the traditional judicial remedies available when legislation is found to be invalid or when Executive activity is found to be unauthorised or invalid. Injunctions and declarations are amongst such remedies. Traditional judicial remedies also include the full range of tort remedies which can give rise to damages. Thus, for example, the seizure of magazines by a government official purporting to enforce censorship laws found to be inconsistent with a Bill of Rights guarantee of freedom of speech could result in the owner of the magazine succeeding in a trespass to goods, conversion or detinue action. Where a person is arrested under a law or in a manner that is inconsistent with a Bill of Rights provision release can be obtained through habeas corpus and, if appropriate, damages obtained in a suit for false imprisonment. A special question which arises if there is to be a Bill of Rights is whether courts need specific direction in relation to the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of Bill of Rights provisions. Such a Bill should provide that evidence obtained in a way that infringes rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Bill is excluded unless the exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The onus of demonstrating that exclusion would produce this result should lie on the party seeking to have the evidence admitted. This rule would allow evidence to be admitted where the breach of the Bill of Rights was clearly trivial-for example, a failure to meet by a matter of minutes the deadline for performing some step in criminal procedure. The role of the Human Rights Commission and Executive remedies is also canvassed in the report. If there is to be a judicially enforceable Bill of Rights, and hence the Human Rights Commission is no longer to be the primary Commonwealth means of securing human rights in Australia, the issue arises of the role of the Commission, or any successor to the Commission, under a Bill of Rights. The Committee considers that a body like the Human Rights Commission could have a significant role in the total arrangement for the operation of any Bill of Rights for Australia. But even if the Parliament were to decide against a judicially enforceable Bill of Rights the Committee sees merit in more closely confining a Human Rights Commission-type body to a conciliating role rather than a role more nearly akin to the judicial. However, the breadth of that remaining jurisdiction should more clearly extend to all components of the Federation. As to the educational functions of the Commission, the Committee regards it as appropriate that a commission have educational functions which should include all matters relating to the Bill. The Committee regards the inquiry and reporting functions of the present Human Rights Commission as deserving of expansion if there is to be a body like the Commission under a wider Bill of Rights framework. In particular, inquiry and reporting could extend to laws, proposed laws, practices and actions of State, Northern Territory and local governments which are subject to the Bill of Rights. Consideration could also be given to allowing relevant State and Territory Ministers, in addition to the Federal Minister, to initiate inquiries. Many people who made submissions were concerned with what is widely perceived to be litigiousness and confrontationism associated with the United States Bill of Rights. Conciliation performed in a manner similar to that performed by the current Human Rights Commission could be used to prevent a judicially enforceable Bill of Rights from contributing to the emergence or exacerbation of any such characteristics in Australian society. There has been much criticism of the present Human Rights Commission having a quasi-judicial determining role in addition to its educational and conciliatory roles. The Committee is of the view that if there is to be a commission as part of a wider Bill of Rights framework, the commission could be more effective in its educational and conciliatory roles and could contribute most to the overall arragements under a Bill of Rights if it had no determinative role. Finally, the Committee looked at the question of international adjudication, but thought that that was more proper for discussion under a foreign affairs term of reference rather than in relation to changes in our municipal law. The Committee is of the view that the incorporation of international covenant rights and freedoms in a national Bill of Rights would have important international effects and would send a clear message to other nations of Australia's regard for such values and of Australia's regard for its international treaty obligations. The Committee has, as directed by the Senate, scrupulously avoided consideration of any proposed Bill or Bills which have been mooted or actually introduced into the Parliament. This has had the advantage of freeing the senators who were members of the Committee from many of the constraints which come from party positions adopted in relation to specific pieces of proposed legislation. I believe the Committee has produced an exposure report which will help the Senate, not only in its careful description of the existing state of affairs but also in its imaginative proposals as to a possible model for parliamentary consideration. Insofar as it emphasises the dominance of elected representatives over the judiciary on the one hand, and a politically responsible relationship between the national and State parliaments on the other, I believe our federal democracy will be advantaged by the considerable effort put in by my honourable colleagues, as aided by members of the secretariat who are very properly acknowledged in the report. I emphasise once again the title `An Exposure Report for the Consideration of Senators', and it is in that spirit that I commend the report to the chamber. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(8.31) —I generally support Senator Tate's remarks on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. It is important to emphasise, as he emphasised in his statement, that this document does not have recommendations but assesses the arguments which have been raised before the Committee and which, I hope, will lead to a more rational and reasonable debate on the whole subject of whether one has a national Bill of Rights or whether one does not. I remind members of the Senate that the Committee was instructed to inquire into and report as soon as possible on the desirability, feasibility and possible content of a national Bill of Rights for Australia. The Committee was then given instructions that it was not to look at any particular Bill unless it was referred to it, and it has not done so. It has set out its report as a general idea of the argument. The Committee had before it about 168 written submissions, often in very considerable detail. Those submissions set out a wide collection of views on the need for a Bill of Rights or for some other institution, and how such would be formulated. We have not endeavoured to summarise all the conclusions in those submissions, but the submissions are now available to members of the Senate to examine. In general, the statement read to the Senate by Senator Tate is a good summary of the main issues put before the Senate by the Committee. We believe that this whole subject has been the result of many myths and illusions in the course of its discussions. It is important that before we embark on any debate as to some particular model we look at possible models and the necessity of having such an institution. A Bill of Rights is a difficult proposition and it is not easy to put together. It might be called a minefield for the public and, perhaps, for judges who have to interpret it and, possibly, a gold mine for lawyers. It could well require a great deal of implementation and decision as to what it means. Frankly, this frightens me a little because, having regard to the narrow backgrounds of lawyers and judges, I am not too sure what we will get finally as the meaning of expressions that we may put into a Bill of Rights. To deal with one or two issues in the report, it seems to me that one valuable aspect is the analysis in the report, particularly in chapter 2, of various other possibilities that people have said exist. For example, they are detailed in chapter 2.3 as other possible arrangements. That chapter refers to the constitutionally entrenched provisions. The Committee examines those constitutionally entrenched provisions which might be called `Bill of Rights' provisions, practically all of which apply to the Commonwealth but do not apply at all to the States, except for section 92. As to the courts and the common law, there is great misunderstanding by laymen that the common law in some magical way provides a Bill of Rights. We know, and we see from the report, that this is very sporadic. In fact, today I was reading a submission which did not come in time to be included in this report, which was made by the Law Institute of Victoria, an institute of lawyers, and which states: The individual has little or no ability to ensure the privacy of his or her affairs. The common law has not been able to give continued guarantees of individual rights. Honourable senators will find that this is so. At one stage, of course, the common law promoted slavery and had to be changed by legislation in Britain and in the United States of America. So the common law does not have a very clean record. It has provided some useful provisions that are akin to Bill of Rights legislation, but in other instances it has not moved much at all. It is very sporadic. Thirdly, the Human Rights Commission has been dealt with. It is an existing body which many feel could provide the proper remedy with some updating and upgrading. Maybe we do not need a Bill of Rights; a Human Rights Commission with representatives from the States on it may be sufficient, without the litigiousness involved in a Bill of Rights. It is a matter for discussion by this Parliament as to whether or not it can do this adequately. Fourthly, the parliaments, which people often think are protectors of human rights, protect some human rights but also ride roughshod over others, as those of us who have been concerned with privilege in this Parliament have noticed recently. In fact the Parliament deals only in a very indirect way with the question of human rights and does not constantly monitor it. It is very useful to examine in this report the way in which existing remedies and institutions may or may not cover the situation. A model Bill of Rights is set out in the report which suggests that that investigation of State branches is necessary. I think that members of the Committee are rather strongly of the view, although we do not make a recommendation, that a Bill of Rights implying international covenants must be applicable to the whole of Australia and must have some reference not only to Commonwealth laws but also to the vast number of other laws, particularly State laws, which perhaps impinge more directly on human beings, which are more likely to lead to interference with human rights and which we know in some cases have done so. How we do that without provoking some tremendous fights with the States, I think, is a matter for serious consideration by this Parliament. I have grave doubts about the idea of a State `displacing' the law, which is the model put forward in the Committee's report. It is an idea, but it is also doubtful whether it will constitutionally meet the mark. We may take an international convenant and apply it under the external affairs powers, but that need not be done entirely. If we change the language or try to implement something different, or if we try to implement other conditions-and people very often have suggested in submissions to this Committee, for example, that this should be done in relation to the rights of the States to take property without any just terms, which, as we know, does not apply to the Commonwealth-we have to find some other constitutional means of endorsing that and entitling it to be done. Therefore, some risks are involved in any provision which enables States to walk-- Senator Bolkus —You wouldn't want to take a risk, would you? Senator MISSEN —You may take a risk. After we have had blood on the floor and Premiers screaming blue murder and saying that the Bill of Rights will do certain things, I think the currently suggested Bill of Rights is a rather meek and poor model. Other people think it is very strong. If we had an enormous fight over this and found that it was knocked out by the High Court of Australia, we would wonder whether `it was worth the candle'. I do not say that a Bill of Rights is not necessary. If we do not have a proper and effective Human Rights Commission, or something like that, I think we may have to have a Bill of Rights to set out the rules. Senator Bolkus —An effective Human Rights Commission. Senator MISSEN —The Human Rights Commission may be the instrument if given additional powers. I am not saying that it necessarily is. Senator Bolkus —What sorts of powers? Senator MISSEN —Unfortunately, the honourable senator interrupts so quietly that I cannot hear him properly. Whether that is the remedy of whether we need to have a formal statement which sets out the rights and which may be of very good educational benefit for the people of Australia as it would draw our attention to these things-- Senator Bolkus —You wouldn't want to enforce it, though. Senator MISSEN —We may have to enforce it. If there were no other method, I would take it as second best; but I hope that we will not need to do that. Senator Bolkus —We are not here for that, are we? Senator MISSEN —We will have to see as the debate unfolds. This Committee of the Senate has rehearsed the arguments and given us all a chance to put aside some of the prejudices which are held in this community. One sees extraordinary things in the Press from day to day. It is claimed that the Bill of Rights will do so and so and something else. Very often I say: `I wish it would, but I am sure it would not'. On the contrary, we must put aside some of the illusions and prejudices in respect of this matter and look at it as rational and sensible Australian legislators. The Committee has done something which will be valuable from this point of view. One will not find any recommendations anywhere in the Committee's report, but I think that one will find good arguments which help in the general debate that will take place on this subject over the next few years. Therefore, I very much commend the report to the Senate. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(8.42) —I rise to speak to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. In doing so I wish initially to congratulate all of those who were involved in working with the Committee, especially the Secretariat-Dr Gary Rumble and his staff-for the amount of work which they put into the Committee's inquiry. It was a very important inquiry because, as we now know, the Government has come up with a proposed Bill of Rights which is under consideration by the Parliament. As we also know, the inquiry was embarked upon before the Government decided upon the proposal of a Bill of Rights. In speaking, obviously, as one of the unanimous endorsers of the report, I wish to say a couple of things about the report and some aspects of it which I think are of importance. The whole idea of a Bill of Rights arose in the Australian parliamentary context early in the days of the Whitlam Government. I think it is important to note, in the context of the debate which is taking place at the moment, that this is one other item of the agenda set by the Whitlam Government between 1972 and 1975. It is one of those items which were proposed by the then Attorney-General, Senator Lionel Murphy, and one of those which are still being developed 10 years later, like many other proposals of that time. It took quite some time-in fact, five years; 13 November 1980-for Australia to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In doing so, we have an obligation in international law not only to respect the covenant but also to ensure that all persons within this country have the rights set down in the covenant. It meant that people in this country would have rights without distinction such as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status; the rights would be equal. Since that day we have committed ourselves to adopting some sort of enforcement procedures necessary to give effect to the rights recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The first point I want to make regarding the Bill is that even though the report recommends that, in the first instance, we do not change the Constitution to entrench a Bill of Rights and that, in fact, what we should do is legislate to have operating within our country a Bill of Rights situation, I think that this legislation should continue for a trial period. If one were to read the report one would find that this question is left open. I would like to see a period of five years or so in order to test the legislation in this country. It is the sort of operation which took place in Canada. It is one that I think is important in Australia so that we can, at the end of the five or six-year period, move towards entrenching within our Constitution a Bill of Rights which will overcome all law, both State and Federal. As I have said, this is a long term goal and it needs to take place after a period of ordinary legislation, after a period during which people will understand not only what their rights are but also the obligations they have to other people within the community. The second point about which my feelings are extremely strong-it was left for debate in this Senate and discussion within the Parliament-is to what extent a Bill of Rights should operate on the States. I do not think that we can have an effective mechanism to protect rights in this country unless that mechanism binds all Australians and all Australian governments. It need apply not only to the Commonwealth but also to the States and the Northern Territory. Today we have seen an instance of why that should happen. The Queensland Government's intention of once again gerrymandering the law in that country is a stark example of what this sort of Bill of Rights provision could combat. When we look at the inquiry that the Senate Committee has conducted we find that many of the laws that have been inconsistent with the rights in the ICCPR are State laws. Most of the laws that infringe upon freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the criminal process rights are State laws. Questions dealing with cruel or inhumane treatment of prisoners, punishment of them, or improper segregation of prisoners and hospital patients are State laws. On the whole, submissions put to the Committee suggested that if we were to look at an effective Bill of Rights the States should not be exempt from it. State laws are more likely to be barriers to ethnic, religious, or lingusitic minorities enjoying their group rights under the covenants. If a Bill of Rights does not apply to the States or the Northern Territory, and I believe this after this inquiry has been conducted-once again we have had a stark example of what the Northern Territory economic cowboys can do-it will fail to reach out into the areas of most need in the Australian community. Why do we need a Bill of Rights? There are quite a number of reasons. I have mentioned the fact that rights in this community are most affected by State legislatures. Essentially there are four reasons why a national Bill of Rights should apply across the board. Firstly, there is an assumption in our community that under the common law rights are protected. My contention is that under the common law this assumption has been proven baseless. The common law has failed to develop and enforce a comprehensive range of civil and political rights and it has failed to protect individuals from discrimination on many grounds. It is possible-I accept this-to say that the common law has given some support to some rights but usually this has been very difficult to enforce. Under the common law we have a situation where delving through a mass of precedents we have as rights what is left after the exceptions and limitations have all been dealt with. Let us look, as one example, at the right of freedom of speech at common law. What that stands for is the freedom which is left after the censorship laws, defamation laws, contempt of court laws, contempt of parliament laws, sedition, criminal libel, blasphemy, radio and television program standards and many other limitations have been imposed. Recent court cases have supported the view that judges have failed to develop a common law and common law rights. For example, the assumed right to assistance of counsel for persons on trial was found not to be guaranteed. Even in the most recent South Australian case of the Grace Bible Church v. Reedman, it was found that the common law has never guaranteed an inalienable right to freedom of religious worship. When one looks at the common law one finds that under the law and the application of precedents civil liberties are not protected. What we need to do is set up a charter under which the judiciary should operate. The second compelling argument for a national Bill of Rights can be found in the fact that governments of Australia have the power to legislate on civil rights. Supposedly, rights of individuals are protected by the political pressure applied to parliamentarians in the democratic system which, it is contended, stops them from legislating away rights. One only has to look at what happened in the Queensland Parliament in recent days and what in fact happened in the New South Wales Parliament two or three years ago to see that this does not stand up. This year the Queensland Parliament has ignored pressures from all sorts of interests concerned with the protection of civil liberties and has enacted legislation which has detracted most immensely from civil liberties. Senator Boswell —Which one? Senator BOLKUS —Senator Boswell has awoken from his Queensland stupor and asks which one. I am referring to the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985. If the honourable senator could bother to read and understand it he would see that it was so broadly drawn that the restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly have the potential to apply not only to the electricity industry workers but to workers throughout Queensland. Senator Boswell in fact epitomises the short term political gain that motivates politicians in that State. There is no concern for civil liberties and no concern for the rights of the individual. Even though he sits on the other side of the chamber, ignorantly he asks which one. He participates in a party with absolutely no respect for civil liberties in this country. We have an example in Queensland of a government implementing legislation which involves gross infringement of civil liberties. Senator Boswell, in his stupor and ignorance, sits in his place and asks which one. Senator Lewis —I take a point of order. Senator BOLKUS —I am being totally kind to him, Senator Lewis. Senator Lewis —Mr Acting Deputy President, I observe that you noticed what was said. I would have thought that you would have called the honourable senator to order. It was a disgraceful remark by the fellow over there-Roy Rene over there. Is the honourable senator going to withdraw it or not? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Bolkus, I believe that you have transgressed Standing Orders by using that remark. Senator BOLKUS —I withdraw. I contend that a Bill of Rights could go a fair part of the way towards remedying these sorts of defects. Obviously it would not save us from the Senator Boswells of this Senate. However, it would save us from the sort of legislation that we now have in Queensland. So we do have that other compelling argument for a Bill of Rights. The educative value of a Bill of Rights is also important in alerting people not only of their rights, as I said earlier, but also of the rights of others-the rights that can be balanced in a democracy such as ours. But most importantly, a Bill of Rights could limit the power of parliament to enact laws inconsistent with it and could, of course, set the parameters for the judiciary to operate within principles set down internationally for adherence and for the recognition of rights in countries throughout the world. The fourth critical point which I believe could be addressed by a Bill of Rights which has an all-encompassing application is that we in Australia have undertaken obligations internationally. We have undertaken obligations to ensure that everyone in Australia has the rights set down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We in this country have established a Human Rights Commission and, though Senator Lewis may not agree with the retention and implementation of it, the reality is that we have one. But the problem with that Commission is that it does not have power to grant redress. Senator Lewis —It was established by our Government, so what are you talking about? Senator BOLKUS —It may have been a step brought forward by the honourable senator's Government but many of his colleagues disagree with much of what his Government did and much of what his former Prime Minister now stands for. The Human Rights Commission basically operates without the power to grant redress to individuals whose rights under the covenant have been infringed not only by the States but also by agents of the Commonwealth. What is important and what is recommended by the Senate Committee report is the establishment of a system of judicial enforcement, which I believe is important if we are to pay adequate recognition to our international obligations. In essence, we are saying that we as a country have not gone far enough in addressing our obligations internationally. A Bill of Rights based on the ICCPR and on the recommendations of this Committee would go a fair way towards fulfilling those sorts of obligations. The fifth important reason why I believe we need a Bill of Rights to apply throughout the States and the Commonwealth is that at the moment we have a major disparity within this country from State to State. One has only to look at the anti-discrimination provisions to see that. We in the Federal Parliament in 1984 enacted sex discrimination legislation. It operates federally. Senator Missen —There is no displacement provision there. Senator BOLKUS —I will talk about the displacement provision later, if Senator Missen would like that. New South Wales, since 1977, has had anti-discrimination legislation. South Australia had it as well, and the Victorian Government had it as well by way of its Equal Opportunity Act. Unfortunately, the advances stopped there. Western Australia has passed an Equal Opportunity Act, but it has major shortcomings. But at the same time as that, Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory do not have and do not even plan to have anti-discrimination legislation. Senator Ryan —Shame! Senator BOLKUS —When it comes to sexual discrimination legislation, as Senator Ryan says, it is a great shame that these States have proven themselves to be positively medieval. Senator Missen raises the question of displacement. I think that it is an important question. As I have said in the last 15 minutes, I believe that to be effective any legislation must have some sort of application on the States. It is not adequate enough for us to say, as Senator Missen might say in a very general way, `yes, well, let's beef up the Human Rights Commission', without saying how we need to beef it up. The only effective way that we can beef it up is to give it powers to apply rights throughout the country and to enforce those rights, whether it is the Human Rights Commission, another mechanism of government, or both. But there needs to be that sort of enforceability. The only way that we can get that, without the major political brawl about which Senator Missen is concerned, is to propose the system that has been operating in Canada. Let us recommend legislation of a Bill of Rights in this country which will have total application, across-the-board with the Commonwealth and across-the-board with the States, after a certain period, as we recommend, after a sunrise provision which will enable all State and Federal laws to apply for three years, up until the time when they will have to conform with the legislation. Senator Missen would contend that the battle with the States is too great to take on, to make them apply and be obliged to follow civil and human rights legislation. What we are proposing for this committee, if there is to be a Bill of Rights, is a situation in which the international covenant would apply, when Federal legislation would apply unless and until the States, by legislation, could be seen to be standing up and saying to their electorates: `We do not think that you should have the rights that the rest of Australia should have'. That puts them to the test. It puts to the test not only Liberal governments and National Party governments but also Labor governments. That is the most effective way that we can proceed at this stage. We do not bind the States. We give them the right to opt out. But if they want to opt out, they must stand up for that and stand up in their own States and communities. I believe that this report, as Senator Tate and Senator Missen have said, will be a valuable contribution to the continuing debate about what sort of Bill of Rights we should have in this country and how it should apply. Senator Missen —If at all. Senator BOLKUS —Senator Missen says `if at all', and that is his prerogative. However, in closing, I believe that we should have a Bill of Rights. I have some reservations and I see some shortcomings in the Bill of Rights that has been proposed by the Government, and one which is not the subject of this debate. However, what I see is that this inquiry and this report give this Senate and this Parliament a number of avenues that we can pursue in order to beef up the Bill of Rights which is floating around this Parliament. If some of the ideas were to be followed, rights in this country would be much enhanced and much more protected. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(9.00) —I wish to address a few remarks to the report on a Bill of Rights for Australia by the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. It is a good report and the senators who prepared it deserve some proper congratulations. I am one of them. Senator Tate —Especially the Chairman. Senator COONEY —Yes, especially the Chairman. In addition to the senators, thanks are due to Dr Gary Rumble, the Secretary, and the research officers, Steve Curran and Sarah O'Brien, who are presently in this chamber. They worked very hard. Whether or not one considers that a Bill of Rights ought to be brought into operation, the concepts that underlie this report are fundamental to the culture in which we live, to the civilisation which we enjoy and to the concepts by which we live. I look forward to the debates about those issues when the Bill of Rights that the Government is putting forward comes into this chamber. Senator Puplick —Are you really looking forward to the debate, Senator? Senator COONEY —I look forward particularly to debate from Senator Puplick, which will be put forward with the usual aplomb and style of which he is capable. Senator Ryan —And brevity. Senator COONEY —Yes, and brevity. We might even get a comment from somebody such as Senator Parer, who usually sits there taking a quite cynical view about matters like this. Being a miner in the past, he is more interested in the economics of this nation. I want to say just a few things. There has been much discussion in the community about the concepts of common law, as if common law were some doctrine that overcomes all the problems we face. As an illustration that that is not so, I refer to the terrible trio of doctrines developed by the common law in the nineteenth century-common employment, contributory negligence and volenti. That has denied to many a person the compensation that would otherwise rightfully be due to him. One must understand the great lack that common law has and the oppression at times that is allowed to continue in the community. It was the legislation passed in reference to that which cured it. Common law is not a doctrine or an institution which does guarantee those rights, those freedoms and those liberties that I think we are so anxious to maintain and develop. Sadly I think, parliament itself is lacking in that regard too. That has come about, unfortunately, because of the growth of the powers of the Executive, and that executive power being taken from the Parliament. The Executive has too great an influence on the parliamentary processes, so unfortunately parliament is not that keeper of the rights and liberties of the community that it might otherwise be. Given the problem of the common law and given, too, the fact that the media, which certainly sees itself in large measure as also a protector of the rights and liberties of the people of this nation, also have great defects-I will not go into that at the moment-there is raised a very serious question of whether or not a Bill of Rights should be brought in to give protection to those liberties. The problems that that involves have been raised already, and they include questions involving the judiciary. I have the highest respect for the judges of this country and for the profession that practises in the courts. Nevertheless, the fact does remain that judges are not elected by the people and they do tend at times, perhaps with the passing of time, not to appreciate as much as they might the questions of liberty and freedoms that do arise. In those circumstances ought there be a Bill of Rights? That is the question that we have to face from now on. It is a question which, as I say, is a fundamental question for the parliamentary process to look at. The document produced certainly forms a proper and detailed analysis of the sorts of concepts that should be brought forward in that debate. I hope that the concepts brought forward in this document are the ones debated. Unfortunately, certain propositions are being put forward which seem to me to be quite wrong and which lead to an emotional discussion of the issues that are raised. I have nothing against emotional arguments so long as in the end they produce something that is correct. It will be unfortunate if the whole debate about a Bill of Rights becomes full of acrimony rather than full of light and logic. I simply recommend not only to honourable senators but also to people in the community who are interested in this question that they read this excellent report. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(9.06) —The report being debated tonight is the exposure report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the question of a Bill of Rights for Australia. The report opens up the issue of human rights in Australia and whether Australia really needs a Bill of Rights at all. Some of the options that the Committee puts down are hard for me to accept. I realise that they are only options, but I have some difficulty with them. From the founding of the Commonwealth in 1901 to the present day we have lived in the freest society in the world. We have been the envy of every nation in the world because of our freedoms. We have done this without having a Bill of Rights and without listing our rights. Under our system of law our rights are open ended. They are contained only by legal restraints. Conversely, under a Bill of Rights, our rights will be limited. In a Westminster style of democracy such as Australia has, our rights are acquired at birth. The problem with listing our rights is that they become open to manipulation through the interpretation of words. The Bill of Rights, if it gets the assent of Parliament, will depend on an international covenant to dictate the rights of every Australian. We will be introducing an international covenant as an Australian law. We have only to look at the signatories to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that have Bills of Rights to see what little a Bill of Rights does to protect human rights. Does the Bill of Rights in the Soviet Union ensure human rights for the Baltic people? What do the Estonians, the Lithuanians and the Latvians think of the human rights afforded by the Russian Bill? Russia has what is the equivalent of a human rights Bill. I wonder what the Afghans think of the Russian human rights Bill. I wonder whether they find any comfort in it. I am sure that they do not. My point is that if Australia wishes human rights to be entrenched in the workings of the Australian people, no legislation will help it. A major concern with the proposed Bill of Rights is that it is an attack on State rights. Senator Bolkus tonight openly attacked State rights. State rights are enshrined in our Constitution. They are the basis of this nation's federalism policy. Federalism is what every member of this Senate is here to protect. All senators are here to protect the rights of their States. Senator Walsh —Rubbish! Senator BOSWELL —That is what we are here for. That is provided under the Constitution. Perhaps Senator Walsh wants to rip up the Constitution. It is to stop the encroachment of the Commonwealth over State governments, whether they be Liberal, Labor or National Party. Senator Walsh —Who wrote that for you? Senator BOSWELL —I wrote it myself. The Bill proposes the very opposite of what the Constitution meant for the role of the States. This Bill, if it is passed by this Parliament in its present form, will control State laws, State Cabinet decisions and even local council decisions. The Human Rights Commission, under the proposed Bill of Rights, is given increased powers. It will be a quasi-political body. It is not elected, it is not independent like the judicial system; it is given wide powers of inquiry into State laws and local government Acts. It has the power to demand attendance of people and the disclosure of documents, even if they are self-incriminating. It does not provide protection by means of the rules of evidence and it does not allow legal representation. If this is not an infringement of human rights, I do not know what is. Where are the human rights when an articulate person is able to put his or her case clearly and a battler with little education cannot do so and is at a distinct disadvantage? Where are the human rights in that? The report of the Committee gives options on how a Bill of Rights should work. I note that the report refers to States being able to opt out of the Bill of Rights. Every State government concerned with State rights should use this opportunity. This will probably saddle Canberra with a Bill of Rights-it will be the only government with one because all the States will opt out. The States must show that they have sovereign powers and are not subservient to Canberra. Every State in Australia will feel justified in opting out because of the wrongful encroachment by the Commonwealth into State government responsibilities. For 84 years States have been allowed to exercise control over State matters because of their constitutional rights. Now this Government is using the loophole of the external affairs section of the Constitution to override the elected State governments. If this Government wants a Bill of Rights, I suggest that it put the question to the people in the form of a referendum because this Constitution does not belong to the Australian Labor Party, it belongs to the people of Australia. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.13) —It was not my intention to participate in the debate this evening but four points were made by Senator Boswell in his contribution to which I wish to reply because they either misstate the facts or they misrepresent the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I do not think that his remarks should be allowed to pass without comment. The four points that he made were as follows: First, he said that the proposed Bill of Rights-whatever he means by that-would override State laws. The Committee did not discuss and has not reported upon the Bill which is in the House of Representatives. As a simple matter of fact the Bill which is in the House of Representatives specifically excludes the Bill of Rights having reference to State laws. That is the first misstatement of fact. He misstates the fact as far as the Bill that is in the House of Representatives is concerned and he misrepresents the position of the Committee which did not discuss and does not report upon the Bill which is in the House of Representatives and simply canvasses arguments about the validity of the Bill of Rights which might or might not impinge upon State laws. Secondly, he asks what is the good of having some adherence to an international covenant when rogues and villains are adherents to the same covenant. The Committee specifically addresses this matter. In paragraph 3.56 we draw attention to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in 1979 on `Human Rights in the Soviet Union'. This deals specifically with the fact that the Soviet Union being a signatory to some covenant means in itself absolutely nothing about the protection of human rights in that country. Senator Boswell's argument fails to acknowledge the criticism which the Committee itself directs to those people whose adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is purely a token gesture to the international community and is not something meaningful. The third point that Senator Boswell makes touches upon the opting out provisions. He advises and proclaims that all the States of the Commonwealth should take the opportunity to opt out because not to opt out is to admit to an extension of Federal power which is undesirable in a federation. The provinces of Canada are no less jealous of their status as members of the Canadian Federation and those provinces were provided under the Canadian charter of rights with a means by which they could opt out eventually of the Canadian bill of rights proposals. Only one province in Canada decided to opt out, and that was Quebec. It opted out for reasons which are obvious, which are historical and which do not need elaboration this evening. I note that Senator Bolkus in his remarks referred on three occasions to Queensland as `that country' as distinct from `that State'. Perhaps there is some lesson in that freudian slip on his part, as indeed there may be some lesson in the Canadian situation in which Quebec really feels that it has so little in common with the rest of Canada or so much to fear from the rest of Canada that it must opt out of the system. Nevertheless, let it be said that there are provisions in the Canadian system which prevent Canada from derogating from the electoral rights which are provided or the guarantees on the linguistic integrity of the Canadian federation which need to be borne in mind. The fourth point Senator Boswell made was in regard to the use of the external affairs power. May I say that the Committee in its report deals at length with heads of power questions. It acknowledges fairly and squarely that the use of the external affairs power is a partisan, political, sensitive issue and it seeks to draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that that is the case and to put squarely to the Senate that to embark upon that road would involve a degree of political animosity within the federation which is undesirable. It is for that reason that the Committee's preferred model is not to use the external affairs powers; rather, to enact some form of domestic legislation and to establish, without going down the whole of the sorry track-- Senator Boswell —How are you going to do that? Senator PUPLICK —Senator Boswell asks how are we going to do that. May I say with the greatest of respect to Senator Boswell that those of us who have spent several months on this inquiry, who have read the 168 submissions, who have sat for hours, who have listened to witnesses, who have gone through innumerable drafts, are entitled to respond to Senator Boswell by saying: `Senator, read the report'. It is not for me to answer the question tonight when a document which answers the questions has been presented to the Senate. I do not intend to go through the length of that argument when the honourable senator has been presented with the arguments cogently put, I hope, and argued in such a way that those of us-and let me make my own position clear-who do not believe in the use of a Bill of Rights are nevertheless able to come to the Senate with a unanimous report which is an exposure report, bringing the issues before the Senate; attempting to present them, to present the arguments, and to bring about a situation in which the Committee report does not make recommendations on the threshold question of whether we should have a Bill. That is left as an open question because that was not the purpose of the report. The purpose of the report was to answer, for those who are prepared to read it, the questions which Senator Boswell raised in tonight's debate. I think therefore that one needs to see this report for what it is. It is an attempt to put the issues squarely on the table. It is an attempt to say to honourable senators that this is a most difficult and complex question. The way in which one goes about the fundamental protection of human rights is an open question. My own preference happens to be for specific legislation. I believe there ought to be specific legislation on questions such as the protection of privacy. I happen to believe that as matters are identified as being under threat or under challenge-to find from the courts, for instance, something of which I was not aware until we got into this debate, that there is absolutely no common law protection for the free exercise of religious freedom in Australia-we have to try to expose what the weaknesses of the common law are and at the same time to acknowledge the very real strengths of the common law, which have been built on a tradition dating back beyond Magna Carta. There are the questions of the relationship between parliament and the Crown and parliament and the Executive. There are the questions of whether parliament is properly to be regarded as an absolute sovereign in terms of the definition of rights, the relationship between parliament and the judiciary and between elected and non-elected officials in the protection of human rights. All this exposure report attempts to do is to leave those questions open to the judgment of honourable senators and to people in the wider community who are interested in this debate. As Senator Cooney said in his remarks, the debate on this matter will be lengthy. I hope it will be a debate which will stretch beyond simply the involvement of honourable senators within this chamber. If, after all, we are talking about the rights of ordinary Australian citizens, they cannot be represented simply by the 168 people who put submissions to us. There will be wider views in the community to be considered when specific legislation comes before us. This report seeks simply to present issues, arguments and, above all, facts. To that extent I believe that the Committee has discharged the responsibilities which the Senate imposed upon it. It has confined itself properly to the terms of reference. It has not strayed beyond those. It has not considered what it was prevented from considering by Senator Durack's amendment-namely, any specific legislative proposals. I hope, therefore, that when the debate comes on, in whatever fashion and on whatever piece of legislation it comes on, this report will have served a useful purpose in presenting facts and arguments to honourable senators. If honourable senators are going to criticise either the legislation of the Committee report I hope that they will do their colleagues the elementary courtesy of reading it first. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.24) —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was speaking on the Interstate Road Transport Bill. At that stage I was suggesting how ill-advised the Government was to press ahead with this legislation. I was indicating that I believe that there are very many reasons why the Government should not do so now. First of all, as I have said before, there is the Inter-State Commission inquiry into the cost recovery of road and rail services. This inquiry will not be completed until something like 30 April. As part of the package of Federal-State uniform legislation we have to consider the various State legislation. Having listened to the various speakers in this debate today, I would say that this legislation is hardly yet the light at the end of the tunnel. It will be many months, perhaps a year, before the States are ready. The vagueness of the legislation means that many Federal regulations will have to be drafted to bring some strength and basis to it. It has been said that this is a Federal-State package, but here we see the Federal Government bringing in its legislation at least six months, probably 12 months, prior to the States' legislation, and one wonders the reason for this. Is it to be regarded as guidelines for the States, or merely as an indication to the States that they have to fall into line? It seems to me that if this legislation adds substantially to the cost of transportation it will mean a passing on of increased costs to the consumers of goods transported by road, and perhaps also by rail. There is an interesting side to this. Senator Archer quoted a Government speaker as suggesting that for the State governments there would be improvements in rail cost recovery to match any improvement in cost recovery in the road freight section, and that this would apply also to the Australian National Railways Commission. It appears as a rather ominous warning that we shall see increases not only in road freight but in rail charges too. The people of the Northern Territory in outback remote areas-and this of course applies to Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland-are already suffering under the burden of high prices for the necessities of life. We have seen the cost of fuel and other necessities increasing dramatically in this last year. A submission by the Department of Transport and Works in the Northern Territory to the inquiry that is taking place at the moment points out that an increase of 5c per litre of fuel from 50c to 55c means an extra freight cost of $2 per tonne from Brisbane to Darwin. Another item of considerable interest is that the Australian Bureau of Statistics released a report in September showing that the cost of goods and services in Darwin rose more in the three months up to September last than in any State capital city. The consumer price index, which measures the inflation rate, showed that Darwin's costs rose by 3.5 per cent in the three months to September. That was Darwin, but there are many other places in the outback and remote areas which are also suffering these extreme costs. Frankly, I do not think it right that these people who are prepared to live in remote areas-admittedly they have made the choice-should have such costs passed on to them, as it appears will happen under the present legislation. As I have said, I support the approach of my coalition colleagues, which is to defer consideration of this legislation until such time as the Inter-State Commission reports to the Minister and we have some indication from him as to what tax will be imposed. This will give everyone time to look at the legislation properly and, given the Government's professed commitment to consultation and consensus, I am sure it would agree that the industry deserves at least that courtesy. I refer not only to the industry, particularly to independent truck owners who apparently are not being heard, but also to the States and the Northern Territory. In closing I point out that, while I wish to see consideration of the legislation deferred, as I have indicated before, I am not opposed to those aspects of the legislation which deal with the need to improve safety standards and a more uniform approach to safety in the road transport industry. I know that those in the industry welcome measures designed to ensure their safety and the safety of other road users. Once again I make the point that, even though this legislation might be passed now by the Government, it will not be enacted for some six to 12 months, so it will have no effect on road safety measures until that time. We will have to rely on those safety measures at present enshrined in State legislation. In closing his speech, Senator Archer, the shadow Minister for the coalition in regard to this legislation, moved the following amendment on behalf of the Opposition: Leave out all words after `That', insert `these Bills be withdrawn and redrafted to remove the current excessive reliance on regulation, for presentation in redrafted form at the commencement of the 1986 Autumn sittings'. I think this is a very real and necessary request and I support Senator Archer wholeheartedly. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.32) —The Senate is debating the Interstate Road Transport Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill. I want to raise a few matters in connection with this legislation. Every year I drive tens of thousands of kilometres around Victoria, mainly on country roads but a great deal on major highways and, in particular, the Hume Highway. Some aspects of that driving have caused me concern over the years. The first thing is the very extensive use of backroads by very large motor vehicles, even the 26-wheeler vehicles. Those back roads are being maintained by shires around the State of Victoria. The damage which is done to those roads by such enormous vehicles causes the shire engineers much concern. A lot of damage is done by motorists, such as myself, just driving ordinary motor cars around those back roads trying to seek some quicker way to our destinations. I raised that matter only to draw the Government's attention to the fact that our State shires are not receiving adequate funds to maintain the road services that they are providing. Mr Deputy President, you will recall that, when we were in government, you had a considerable amount to say about road funding. A shire engineer put it succinctly to me by saying: `Senator, you are providing funds for us as if the roads will last 80 years when the truth of the matter is that they will last only 20 years'. All around Australia shire engineers are struggling to maintain our roads in some sort of condition. I congratulate them on their efforts. I say to the Federal and State governments that these are matters of infrastructure and basic matters of national importance that governments ought to be looking at. Both Federal and State governments ought to be looking at ways of providing adequate funds of the proper maintenance of all our roads. I turn now to deal with the truckies, many of whom would now be out on the Hume Highway between Melbourne and Sydney. Believe me, during the course of the night there is an enormous volume of traffic on that road. I might say to motorists who are thinking of driving along that road that the best time to do so is during the day when the truckies are not on the road. I want to thank most of those truckies for the courtesy which they offer car drivers. Most of them drive sensibly. They indicate with their blinkers when it is safe or unsafe to pass them. However, there are many truckies on the roads who drive, especially at night, at enormous, frightening speeds. They drive along at 120 kilometres an hour. I have been passed by a 26-wheeled truck carrying probably 40 tonnes and, believe me, it is a frightening experience. I can recall one wet evening at around 10.30 when I was driving near Wangaratta on the Hume Highway. I was in a smallish car. It was pouring with rain and there was mud and slush on the roads. I was driving at 110 kilometres an hour. I was passed by a convoy of eight 26-wheeled trucks. Clearly, the trucks were in convoy and were travelling at a speed in excess of 120 kilometres an hour. The distance between each would not have been more than a truck's length. I presume that by way of their radios they were signalling to each other or speaking to each other about whether they could overtake or not at a certain point, but I can assure you, Mr Deputy President, that it was so frightening that I stopped at the next motel and decided that I would not continue my journey. It is that sort of thing which, unfortunately demonstrates the need for the sort of legislation which is before the Senate tonight. I do not know how such behaviour is to be controlled, except by the truck drivers themselves. If they are being pushed by their contractors, their employers and so on, clearly they have to take some action which will enable them to drive at more modest speeds. I acknowledge that they are excellent drivers. I acknowledge that, considering the volume of traffic and the speed at which these vehicles travel on the highways, the number of accidents is fairly small. Nevertheless, the few accidents that occur are terrible accidents. Members of the Senate would know that I have always been a good supporter of the police forces. I stick up for the police as much as I can, but I must say that my experience has been that the traffic police, especially on the roads of New South Wales, are being used as tax gatherers. I do not say that it is necessarily their fault. I believe that it started with the Wran Government, which became so desperately short of money a few years back that it sold off the State. When it finished selling off the State it took every other opportunity to find any money that was hidden anywhere and then took other steps to recover funds from whichever source it could recover them. Clearly, it saw that motorists could be raped not only by way of registration fees, licence fees, petrol fees and all the other fees that are paid but also by way of policemen fining them for speeding offences on the spot. It has been my experience that in New South Wales especially-I know it occurs in some places in Victoria but it is certainly not as bad there as it is in New South Wales-traffic officers, in order to raise the revenue which clearly they have to raise, hide on long straight stretches of the roadway and with their radar guns pick off anyone who is passing. That is certainly a way of raising revenue. I do not believe that the Government has given them some written direction that they have to raise revenue in this way. In some way or other the senior officers must reward the constables by telling them that they have been very good this week; they have raised x thousands of dollars whereas someone else has not raised much and he had better get out and do his job. Of course it is possible to raise revenue by hiding on a long straight stretch of road and using the radar gun, or by hiding around a corner immediately following a long straight stretch of road using a radar gun, to pick up motorists who are exceeding 100 kilometres an hour, especially on a two-lane freeway. To be fined for exceeding 100 kilometres an hour in a modern motor vehicle on a two-lane divided freeway seems to be the height of nonsense. That is not a way of keeping our roads safe. The police know how to keep the roads safe. They need to patrol openly the dangerous sections. They need to drive slowly and carefully around the dangerous sections with their blue lights flashing and the motorists will all slow down. That would provide the police with less revenue and the people of Australia with fewer accidents. I have referred to truckies who drive at speeds in excess of 120 kilometres an hour in a 26-wheeler which weighs many tonnes. It is appal- ling to think about it. However, I have never managed to see such a truck stopped by a policeman who writes out a ticket for a speeding fine. I presume that it must happen but truck drivers are so well co-ordinated with their citizen band radios and they tick tack to one another so much that the location of the police is clearly identified and the truckies slow down as they pass a police trap. The result is that the truckies are able to maintain extraordinary high speeds on open highways. It is a matter of major concern. Clearly, something has to be done in order to bring about some safety on our roads. Having said that, I turn to the legislation which has been introduced by this Government. Although I understand what might be behind it, I have to say that it is not properly thought out. As the Opposition will disclose at the Committee stage of the Bill, the legislation enables the Government to introduce regulation after regulation in more than 50 clauses which provide facilities to enable self-incrimination by way of those regulations. The Bill is far too open to abuse through those regulatory powers conferred on the Minister and the Government has not allowed the States to develop their own programs and legislation. We understand that three States have indicated that they will not support the legislation. In those circumstances and given the fact that this Bill will not commence operation until 1 July 1986, I put it to the Senate that the course proposed by the Opposition, that is, that the Bill be deferred pending consultations with the States and the trucking organisations, is the right and proper course to adopt. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.45) —in reply-Of course, I have not heard a great deal of the debate. However, what I have heard has not been particularly relevant in my view to the substance of the legislation-marginally relevant anyway. I am advised that, strickly speaking, four amendments will be moved at the Committee stage either by Senator Vigor or someone else from the Australian Democrats. The Government will accept those amendments. The Opposition has moved a second reading amendment to have the Bills withdrawn. The Government, of course, will not agree to that amendment. It is necessary that some order be brought to the chaos which has existed in the industry for too long. It is the Government's wish that the Bills be passed as soon as possible. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Archer's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Missen, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G. Boswell, R. L. D. Rae, PeterBrownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Sheil, GCollard, S. J. Short, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Conney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob,R. C. Sanders, N. K. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Georges, G Tate, M. C. Giles P. J. Vigor, D. B. Jones, G. N. Walsh, P. A. McClelland, Douglas Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller) Chaney, F. M. Coleman, R. N. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Grimes, D. J. Parer, W. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Childs, B. K. Durack, P. D Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. Referral To Standing Committee Senator HAMER(Victoria)(9.53) —Under standing order 196A, I move: That the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985 be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in February 1986. The Opposition members of the Committee are confident that this is reasonable for the Committee. These Bills are a perfect example of the sort of Bill that should be referred to a Senate committee for public examination. There is no urgency about the Bills. Even the so-called fast track provision of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) cannot be proclaimed before 1 July next year. There have been claims of insufficient consultation with large sections of the industry. There are problems with the regulations, which it is claimed are too general and too broad. The agreements with the States are not yet finalised. The Inter-State Commission is in the process of producing a report on cost recovery for interstate road and rail services. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that were used in the second reading debate, but I merely reiterate that the weight of them is such that it would be irresponsible of this Senate to pass the Bills without having the implications thoroughly and publicly investigated by a Senate committee, and I have moved accordingly. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.55) —The Australian Democrats will not be supporting the referral of the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. The Democrats have received a number of submissions from organisations representing truckies. I have here a telegram from the Federal Conference of the Federated Long Distance Transport Association of Australia, held in Victoria on 6 October 1985. The telegram reads: At the Association's Federal Conference held in Victoria on 6th October 1985 the Executive and members fully endorsed the proposed Inter-State Road Transport Bill 1985. We believe the expedition of this Bill to be paramount to the well-being of operators within the road transport industry. Any delay to the passage of this Bill will only lead to a situation of confusion and unrest within the industry. We seek your support in this matter. W. F. Brennan Secretary Federated Long Distance Transport Association of Australia. We have also received a number of submissions from Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria concerning the expedition of this Bill. Senator Vanstone —What does South Australia say? Senator VIGOR —I attended in South Australia a meeting of some 200 people who had been totally misinformed by Barry Lewis about matters associated with the Bill. He had misinterpreted the Bill. In fact, a dodger was distributed in South Australia and I seek leave to incorporate this dodger in Hansard as an example of the type of information being put out on the Bill in my State. Leave not granted. Senator VIGOR —The dodger was distributed by the Professional Transport Drivers Association of South Australia and authorised by Barry Lewis. It makes the accusation that the Bill introduces a road tax. It is headed, in large letters, `Road Tax', and states: The Federal Government has introduced legislation to impose a road transport tax. (It could be approximately 5 cents per kilometre!) The Federal Government intends to license your business. The Federal Government will force you to fit a ``charge monitoring device'' on your truck and trailer to record the kilometres travelled. If this ``monitoring device'' falls off your truck or trailer on rough roads and you keep operating you have committed an offence. If you break the law the Federal Government has the power to expel you from the transport industry for life. Please contact the Democrat and Liberal Senators URGENTLY. The ``Interstate Road Transport Bill'' must be adjourned until the Interstate Commission reports to the Minister in April, 1986 so that further consideration and consultation with the industry is achieved. Every paragraph of the dodger, apart from the very useful one asking the truckies to contact Democrat and Liberal senators, which in fact they have done, is filled with misunderstandings concerning the Bill. We have talked to those truckies and they have formed a seven-member committee, which met on Monday night. A spokesman for that committee talked with me and gave me a set of amendments that would be acceptable to the committee. I have taken those amendments to the Government and the Government has accepted them. I have since talked to Mr Barry Lewis, who wrote the dodger, and he has told me that he is happy with the proposals that have been put forward. I believe that this is a success for consensus within the industry and a success for the Democrats, who have been able to act as honest brokers in this business and to bring together all of the associations instead of simply sitting back, as the Opposition has done in this case, and saying: `Delay, delay, delay'. The motion before us to refer the matter to a committee is yet another delaying tactic. I am disgusted with the proposal to delay. I was quite happy to look at delaying the Bill if all the perceived problems had not been resolved but in my mind and in the minds of my fellow Democrats all of the worries put forward by the independent truckies and the people from each of the State organisations who contacted us will be satisfied by the amendments that we will be moving in the Committee stage and that the Government says it accepts. We need this legislation. I heard Senator Lewis talking about being scared on the highway. That has happened to me as well. We need the safety regulations and we need them quickly. We need a bat to make the State governments introduce their complementary legislation. We need a way of introducing order into an industry. Yet members of the Opposition are sitting back howling about the subject and trying to delay the legislation. People are being killed on the roads. That is what the issue is. We want to get this legislation through. I hope that we will manage to do so tonight and that nobody will hold it up. I am quite happy that we have effectively managed to satisfy all the many organisations and people who have rung my office-10 to 20 a day. I have taken notes and we have ticked off the things that they have asked us. I am happy about it. The Democrats will not support the referral to a committee because we believe that the referral is just another delaying tactic. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.02) —I had not expected the Australian Democrats to support the common sense that we are trying to get into this debate. I think it is necessary to look at a few of the facts in relation to the interstate road transport legislation. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in his second reading speech on 8 October, in one paragraph said: The report and the subsequent fast-track package have received broad industry and general community support as these groups have recognised that the recommendations must be implemented as a package. A bit later on he said: I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of the co-operation that has been shown by the States and Territory governments, the industry, unions and users. Those two statements are patently incorrect. Those of us who looked at the legislation in the early stages fairly naturally believed that the Minister had told us what the position was. What we find, of course, is that the States have not agreed and that an extraordinarily large proportion of the users have not agreed. Just to show the Senate that what I have said is correct, I will read portions of submissions made by some of the State Ministers. One of them says: As the sole rationale for States participation in the scheme is to receive some funds out of it, all States should have an input in determining the distribution formula . . . before he nominates the roads on which the funds are to be spent. A bit later on it says: In addition to the above the Government is concerned about the possible use of section 34 of the Bill . . . specific conflicts between State authorities and then only with the agreement of the States through ATAC or one of its sub-committees is the way that it should work. Another Minister said: . . . the Federal Minister already has sole responsibility for the distribution of national road funds . . . taking these factors into account, I have agreed that the draft legislation should, if possible, be amended to incorporate the distribution principles . . . This is a long way from being the sort of agreement that the Minister has talked about, or that Senator Vigor is of the opinion is correct. Clearly and patently it is not. Another Minister said: Administratively, the Bill is cumbersome and would involve considerable additional workload. Later he went on: To help ensure that the new fee is constitutional, the Commonwealth has separately requested the Interstate Commission to investigate and recommend an appropriate level for the cost recovery-based fee . . . The problems are seen to be that the Commonwealth is seeking greater powers than it needs to, to achieve these objectives which would then compromise State/Territory powers and regulatory efforts. Because the detail had not been thought through, the legislation is too open-ended . . . the impression is the Commonwealth Minister is committed to proceeding with both the operator and registration provisions and through lack of advice, to retain provision for separate Federal safety standards and for offences where State Territory offences already exist. A major problem appears to be that the Commonwealth officers involved have not appreciated the practical issues nor the scope for open-ended legislation to be abused over time. Their Minister has not been advised as to how to legislate to achieve the original purpose and avoid creating unnecessary concerns for the States Territories. That is the sort of thing that has come through from the States already. This is the way that they see it. They have had to work on the presumption of the contents of the Bill and their work is based on very limited opportunities to examine the detailed implications. The operator licensing provisions are seen to be premature and the detail of how they are to operate has not been adequately thought out. It presumes too much on parliament. The remaining differences reflect mainly variations in regional considerations or delays by some administrations in implementation. Potential problems appear not to have been understood by Commonwealth officials. A much simpler, more effective approach would be for the safety requirements, of the State or Territory in which the vehicle is, to be met as at present and a further effort made to remove the few remaining differences between the State and Territory requirements. This is what the Minister told us had all been agreed. Agreed, my foot! We are a long way from getting this to the stage where we can accept it as legislation. I have had a quick run through the main Bill and looking at the areas which require regulations, I found 50 separate clauses that I believe will have to be covered by regulations. To have what will amount to 70 or 80 regulations-because a lot of those clauses will require more than one regulation-in a Bill as small as this is asking too much of the industry, the State governments and this Parliament. If the Democrats want to fall for this business of giving an open cheque to the Labor Party whenever it asks for it, that is up to them. But it will not happen as far as the Opposition is concerned. It is our responsibility to see that this legislation is in a fit and proper condition when it comes before the House. If we are to get on with this legislation, let us look at these matters clause by clause and let us have some answers from the Government as to what this is all about. There are so many open-ended issues and so many questions not answered. Issues were raised in the second reading speech that are nothing to do with the Bill in any way, shape or form. There is this question of the Inter-state Commission. Why is the Inter-state Commission making an inquiry if we are not even going to wait for the outcome? What is the point of the Government giving undertakings and kidding Senator Vigor about a $1,400 figure that it is prepared to put in the legislation when a couple of lines further down the page it says that it will take advice from the Inter-state Commission? I feel sorry for Senator Vigor. He has been sucked into believing this sort of rubbish. He has been hoodwinked and hoaxed in every possible way. I think it is time this House took the matter really in hand and made sure that it got the answers. I would be surprised if, on the information that we have before us, we would be able to line up all the road transport operators in Australia and put them through this rigmarole. I am very disappointed that the Government has not seen fit to take the advice it has been getting from the industry, from the State governments and from the Opposition. So be it; it is on the Government's head. But the Bill will certainly not go through without our complaining and I would certainly hope that the Democrats even yet will come to listen to the arguments that will take place in the Committee stage and get some sense from them. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.10) —I refer to the suggestion which has been made in this debate that the interstate road transport legislation ought to be referred to a Senate committee on the ground that we need to have regard to the small transport operators in Australia. Senator Vigor made the comment that all of the transport interests have been satisfied. I believe that that is not right. He made some comment concerning Mr Barry Lewis, who represents a considerable number of people who are interested in this legislation. Senator Walters —He certainly does not represent the Tasmanians. Senator JESSOP —Senator Walters mentions the Tasmanian transport interests. I mentioned in my speech earlier today that its interests happen to be quite important, because to my knowledge all of the States except New South Wales are very concerned about the impact of this legislation on transport operators in the States. The Northern Territory has demonstrated its reservations. Fifty clauses of the Interstate Road Transport Bill are the subject of regulation. The Labor Government says that it is interested in deregulation. Certainly the Opposition is interested in deregulation. Yet 50 clauses of the Bill are subjected to ministerial decision with respect to what happens in the industry. I think that that is bad, particularly for Tasmania. I mentioned that fact earlier. Senator Vigor dares, as a new senator, who has no idea of the implications of the Bill, to say that all interests have been consulted. He dares to make some comment about Barry Lewis, the representative of the Professional Transport Drivers Association which represents the interests of small business. The Democrats are parading before Australians as representatives of small business. They are desperately trying to survive in this place. Yet Senator Vigor says that everybody has been consulted. That is wrong, and that is an incredible indictment of the Australian Democrats. Senator Vigor —All the people who have contacted us have been satisified. Senator JESSOP —The honourable senator is wrong, and he is demonstrably wrong. It highlights the insincerity and ignorance of the Australian Democrats in this Parliament. The sooner they are eliminated from the Senate, the better it will be. The Opposition recognises the need to improve the safety aspects of the industry, the need to introduce graduated licences and the need for access to consumer protection arrangements, all of which will be done by the States. Senator Vigor does not recognise that because he has not studied the proposition- Senator Vigor —You did not read my speech. Senator JESSOP —I do not read the honourable senator's speeches. I listen to the nonsense that he talks in this place. The Opposition supports the introduction of registration fees for interstate operators, to bring them in line with the appropriate fees for intrastate operators. However, there are a number of measures in the Bill that we are particularly disturbed about. I do not think the Democrats have given any thought to this aspect. The Press release of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) of 26 October this year gives us cause to be very concerned. In the first paragraph of his Press release he states that owners and operators of interstate trucks will not have to pay any more than a $1,400 registration fee for a typical 38- tonne semi-trailer under the new interstate road transport legislation. In the seventh paragraph-I will quote it for the benefit of my colleague Senator Vigor-the Minister assures the industry: No change would be made to the fee until the Interstate Commission had presented its report on road and rail cost recovery. Senator Archer —He has four months. Senator JESSOP —The honourable senator has four months to make up his mind about that. Senator Knowles —He will need it, too. Senator JESSOP —Exactly. My colleague from Western Australia says-- Senator Vigor —We think faster than you. Senator JESSOP —Do I need to comment on that? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will address the Chair. Senator JESSOP —Mr President, the Queensland Government, the Western Australian Government, the Tasmanian Government, the Northern Territory Government and the representatives at the Australian Transport Advisory Council conference have all expressed grave concern about this Bill. I think the satisfactory arrangement would be to refer it to a committee of the Senate so that an appropriate in-depth examination could be made of its implications for the transport operators of Australia. If we pass this legislation it will impose greater costs on the industry. It will mean that many small operators will go to the wall. There will be unemployment. The Hawke Labor Government purports to represent small enterprise in Australia. This legislation simply props up big operations and big unions and acts against the interests of the small operators. Therefore, I believe that the Opposition's approach to this legislation is appropriate-the approach that supports small enterprise. The Australian Democrats purport to represent small groups. They should look at what the word `democrat' means. It means democracy, something that is supposed to be fair to all. But the Democrats have chosen to support big unions and big enterprise and to ignore the democratic rights of the small people who are affected by this measure. I think that stands as an indictment of the Australian Democrats. In this place they have a history of purporting to represent minority groups. They talk in this place about environmental matters in Tasmania. They talk about animal liberation- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is getting away from the terms of the motion before the Chair. Senator JESSOP —Thank you for your guidance, Mr President. I am just illustrating the lengths to which the Australian Democrats will go in this Parliament to-- Senator Sanders —Justice. Senator JESSOP —Justice? Senator Sanders —That is right, justice. Senator JESSOP —We have a renegade American here-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that Senator Jessop come back to the terms of the motion before the Chair. Senator JESSOP —I suggest that the Democrats, including the former American citizen who is now an Australian citizen and who purports to represent all the minority groups in Australia, ought to direct their attention to the small business people operating in the transport industry. I do not regard the honourable senator as an Australian. I think he is a renegade American who has come into the chamber to interrupt- Senator Sanders —Mr President, I raise a point of order. This is a personal denigration and I do not think it has any place in this chamber. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator has taken objection to the words used by Senator Jessop. I therefore ask Senator Jessop, under standing order 418, to withdraw any imputation against the honourable senator. Senator JESSOP —Well, I will say he is a renegade Australian. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to withdraw. Senator JESSOP —I withdraw. I want to make the point that the Democrats in this Parliament represent a minority view, and on this occasion they are disregarding the small operators in the road transport area. Therefore, I am surprised particularly with Senator Vigor, for whom I have a great regard. I serve on a committee with him and we work together, but I am surprised that he has disregarded the small operators in the context of this Bill. He has disregarded the importance of referring this important question to a Senate committee for close examination. I believe that in rejecting that proposition he is supporting big business and big unions in Australia. I believe that deserves the condemnation of the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.22) —Far be it from me to defend the Australian Democrats-they are big enough and old enough to look after themselves on this occasion and indeed on all others-but I am moved to rise by Senator Jessop's reference in the course of his rather squalid little filibuster here tonight, which he will no doubt regret when he wakes in the morning with a clearer head than he manifestly has at the moment-- Senator Jessop —On a point of order, Mr President: I object to that allegation. It is uncalled for. I was speaking from a position of concern about the particular Bill. It is not unusual for the Minister-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Jessop has taken his point of order. Clearly there was an imputation under standing order 418 on the part of the Minister. I ask him to withdraw his remark. Senator GARETH EVANS —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator Walters —You are a disgrace-an absolute disgrace. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will come to Tasmania in a moment. I am moved to rise, as I have said, by Senator Jessop's reference in the course of his speech to insincerity and ignorance. There is indeed no better exponent of those particular qualities than Senator Jessop in this place. He has displayed them in good measure in his contribution here tonight, not least in his assertion that the States in general, and I think he said Tasmania in particular-something Senator Archer also said in his contribution-had not accepted the principles embodied in this particular package. Senator Archer —I did not. Senator GARETH EVANS —That was the inference, as I understand it, in what Senator Archer said. To the extent that there was an inference in what Senator Archer said, but much more explicitly in what Senator Jessop said, I think it is appropriate to put on the record an extract of a speech made by Tasmanian Premier Gray to the Australian Road Transport Federation convention just a few days ago, on 20 October this year. What he said in relation to the report in question on which this legislation is based was this: The Report has also been welcomed by my Government. We have announced our support in principle for the package of recommendations developed by the Inquiry. Already a fast-track package incorporating a set of the Inquiry's recommendations selected for early implementation has been adopted by the Australian Transport Advisory Council. I interpolate there that that is the body of Ministers from all States, and all States through their Ministers accepted at that ATAC meeting the elements of the legislation that have been before us tonight. Premier Gray went on: My Government has expressed its support for the fast-track package and is currently working on means of implementing those recommendations requiring State Government action. It is appropriate that those matters be put on the public record because there has been a series of, as I understand it, complete misstatements about the effect so far as the States are concerned of this particular legislative package and their response to it. I believe that in that speech made by Robin Gray there purporting to speak on behalf of all State Premiers, we have the lie to so many assertions made in the course of this debate tonight. Senator Archer —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister is deliberately misleading the chamber. He made a comment about the acceptance of the report. There is no question about the acceptance or otherwise of the report. We are talking about the legislation in this place. While he chooses to quote what the Premier of Tasmania-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now debating the issue. To date he has made no point of order. I ask him to come to his point of order. Senator Archer —My point of order is that the Minister has deliberately misled the Senate on the basis that he is quoting what somebody said about the report when what we have been talking about is the legislation. They are two entirely different things and the Minister knows it. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will let the quality of that contribution and that particular distinction speak for itself. I simply make the point that there is no case for referring this legislation to the Committee. The motion that has been moved by Senator Hamer should be rejected out of hand accordingly. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(10.27) —It is with some regret that I rise to speak in support of this motion. As one of the newer senators in this place, I can clearly remember discussions I had with people in relation to my preselection for the Senate, and one of the things that I raised in favour of the Senate was its committee system and what a wonderful place it is because where there is certain degree of concern over legislation and particular subject matters the Senate committees can handle it. I now find the Australian Democrats, especially one South Australian Democrat, trying to block the referral of this legislation to a committee. Senator Puplick —Shameful. Senator VANSTONE —As Senator Puplick said, it is shameful and regrettable. As this legislation will not be proclaimed until some time next year, I can see no valid reason for rushing it through the Senate tonight. I can see no valid reason for rushing it through at any time. I do not see why it should not go to a committee as that obviously would not impair the effect of the legislation. I would like to make a couple of comments about a public meeting in South Australia to which Senator Vigor referred. He mentioned that there was a meeting where there were over 200 people in attendance. I am sure that I attended the same meeting. Senator Vigor and I must add up differently because I think there were just 100 people at that meeting. Senator Jessop —Is that the one at which they said that Senator Vigor should not become political? Senator VANSTONE —Yes, quite. That is exactly right, Senator Jessop. Senator Vigor has told the Senate that that meeting was misled by a pamphlet produced by the Professional Transport Drivers Association of South Australia. He did not tell the Senate that there were two public servants at that meeting to explain the legislation and that, having heard the explanation of the public servants, the meeting was still not happy with the legislation. I regret that Senator Vigor chose to exclude that portion of the activities of the meeting from his comments on the meeting to the Senate. It is not up to me to suggest that the public servants were there because there is now a perceived problem in the industry with this legislation, although one could be excused for saying that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) sent these public servants to the meeting because he now realises that the industry is cottoning on to what is happening with this legislation and there is some concern, otherwise one could ask why would he send two public servants to the meeting to explain it. As I have said, I regret that Senator Vigor did not tell the Senate that, after hearing the explanation from the public servants and after reading what he called the misrepresenting leaflet, the meeting was still not happy. Senator Vigor also failed to tell the Senate that the general feeling of people at the meeting was that they were totally unaware of what this package would mean for their industry and that they desperately wanted more time to acquaint themselves with the legislation. They are not trying to get out of the ambit of the legislation; they simply want time to acquaint themselves with it. As I asked earlier, as this legislation will not be proclaimed until next year, why will the Democrats not support a reference to a committee, which would give the industry time to acquaint itself with the Bill, the Senate time to do the Committee job that should be done-- Senator Jessop —And give the States time to consider it. Senator VANSTONE —And the States time to consider it. I add one more point: At that meeting Senator Vigor said that he probably could organise a delay until 1 December but not past that time because the Democrats had given certain undertakings that would require the legislation to be passed by that time. For the Democrats to offer one month's consultation on this legislation to an industry that is not organised, that has different groups representing it all over the place and has individual sub-contractors, is more than unkind when the Government has had much longer than that. It is probably not appropriate in the Senate for me to use the word that I could use to describe that action. As this legislation will not be proclaimed until next year, I can see no valid reason why it should not be referred to a committee to give the Senate time to peruse it properly and to give the industry time to acquaint itself properly with it. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(10.30) —On 9 October I raised the matter of home loan service fees which were being charged by the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia. My comments are recorded at pages 946 to 948 of the Senate Hansard. I was critical that this particular bank intended to introduce a loan service fee which was to be payable by those of its clients who were repaying a home loan. The ceiling on interest rates for housing loans is currently 13.5 per cent. The Commonwealth Bank is charging that maximum rate. The announcement of an additional loan service fee of from $30 to $90 a year for mortgages from $1,000 to $100,000 came as a most unpleasant surprise for many of my constituents. On 9 October I suggested that the loan service fee was nothing but a deliberate ploy to counter the 13.5 per cent ceiling set by the Government. In fact, I said: . . . I would need great persuasion to be convinced that the bank which I mentioned is not like the tax evader, trying to find loopholes in the government directive that the ceiling be 13.5 per cent for housing loan bank interest rates. Although my remarks were directed principally to the Commonwealth Bank, I did make reference as well to other banks which had introduced or were about to introduce similar loan service fees. I asked those banks to look to their own consciences to see whether they should continue to charge these fees. The Commonwealth Bank and the ANZ Bank have now decided not to persist with these fees. This decision became known today to those customers who had been affected. Since I was critical in my remarks on 9 October, I should now congratulate both the Commonwealth and the ANZ banks upon reversing their earlier decision. I would also say that it is commendable for such large corporations to respond positively in a relatively short time. This indicates that these two banks are sensitive to the needs of their consumers. It is conceivable that my remarks in the Senate were part of the pressure that brought about these banks' changed attitude. Whether this is a fact or not is unimportant. By scrapping the loan service fee the banks have avoided a considerable amount of bitterness and ill feeling from many of my constituents. The additional charge, as small as it may have appeared to the banks, in reality would have meant another financial burden for many of my constituents to shoulder. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.32) —Tonight I desire to raise two matters that concern the Australian Government. They relate to the Government's policy and its administration in respect of the protection of refugees in this country. Both matters have been outstanding for some considerable time. They indicate, in a different way, that I think the Government is acting in a way which is highly inconsiderate of the individuals concerned and in a way which does not comply with its obligations internationally or under its own laws. First I want to deal with the question of the five Irian Jayan refugees-the number has now risen to nine-who were held on Thursday Island. Honourable senators will recall that I spoke on this matter on 18 September 1985 and that I placed on the record certain correspondence which I had with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Hon. Chris Hurford. There have been developments since that time which I think it is important to mention. However, first I want to say something about the determination that was made when these five young Christian men finally made it to Thursday Island. They were treated by the Government in a shocking way in the remarks made by Mr Hurford and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). On 17 July 1985 Mr Hurford announced that the Federal Cabinet had decided that day to refuse them permanent residence in Australia. He conveyed the decision by saying that the permanent head had said: You will note that the statement does not purport to be a decision on refugee status. It does convey a decision by the Government not to grant permanent residence status to a certain class of people, which specifically includes your clients. That letter was written to the solicitor representing these men and it was a clear and unmistakable breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. It made use of the fact that these men were from Iran Jaya. Because the Government was fearful of harming relations with Indonesia it was refusing them this right. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced the same decision; that is, that he would not give them permanent residence. Before their case was heard by the Committee on the Determination of Refugee Status, before evidence was obtained and decisions were made, it was announced that they would not succeed. I made this matter the subject of quesions on notice on 8 October this year. I requested the production of the Cabinet minutes. I understand the original description was a clear breach of our obligations under the international charter. It has since been changed. Those questions have not been answered in the Parliament and I do not suppose they ever will be. The Minister, Mr Hurford, wrote a letter which I had incorporated in Hansard in an earlier speech. Among other things he stated to me: 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. He also stated: 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. That was utter nonsense because that was quite obviously the case. The Committee was determining its attitude in advance. Following that speech I received a reply from the Hon. Chris Hurford. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter which sets out his answer to my allegations. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS The Hon. Chris HURFORD M.P. Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600 24 Oct 1985 Sen. The Hon. A. J. Missen, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Missen Your speech on refugee policy in the adjournment debate of 18 September needed to be informed by a distinction made by successive Australian Ministers for Immigration. That distinction is between protecting refugees and resettling them. Australia's adherence to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol forbids our sending people genuinely in fear of persecution back to their country of origin. The convention and protocol do not regulate where a refugee should settle permanently. That is another question. For example, your colleague Mr Michael Mackellar, when Immigration Minister in 1977, said: ``The decision to accept refugees (for resettlement) must always remain with Australia . . . It may not be in the interests of some refugees to settle in Australia. Their interests may be better served by resettlement elsewhere. The Australian Government makes an annual contribution to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which is the main body associated with such resettlement.'' Just last July, and in reference to the case of the five Irian Jayans, the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Mr Ian Macphee, said: ``There is certainly a very arguable case for refugee status. It seems to me whether they then are allowed to stay permanently in Australia is a separate question. They could be granted refugee status with temporary residence in Australia pending negotiations with another country, perhaps another South Pacific country, for them to go permanently to, and I think, myself, that is the preferable option for the Government to pursue.'' This distinction is made by a number of Governments that have earned international respect for protecting refugees. These frontline states (bordering countries from which refugee flee) seek international resettlement of their refugees, whom they give only temporary asylum. Austria is an example. The policy you attacked is that of your own party in government and opposition, and is an internationally-accepted practice of governments with good records of assisting refugees. I am curious about your suggestion that the Government is in breach of the convention and the Migration Act. The convention is silent on the question of permanent settlement and the Migration Act does not require that governments grant residence to any person or class of persons. You mention section 41 of the Act, which says a person in custody under the migration laws should have access to legal advice. The Irian Jayans are not in custody. They are being cared for on Thursday Island at the expense of Australia's taxpayers; $20,000 so far in meals, accommodation and medical care. No-one has stopped the five men getting legal counsel. You know they are so represented. I should add that the case of the five Irian Jayans has attracted advocates uninterested in protecting refugees but preoccupied with the politics of establishing a camp of Melanesian irredentists in northern Australia. I deplore the way these advocates have fought the five refugee applications in public. The confidences and privacy of these five men have been abused. Yours sincerely CHRIS HURFORD Senator MISSEN —I thank the Senate. Mr Hurford denied in the letter that there had been a breach of the convention relating to the status of refugees. He also took refuge in statements made earlier by Opposition members which indicated that the refugees might be granted only temporary residence until they found another country in which to reside. This suggestion was made but it does not answer the questions which I raised in an earlier speech and the allegations which I have made of a clear breach of the Government's undertakings. In particular, what has happened since is that no decision has been finally made. The men remain on Thursday Island. We know that the DORS Committee has made a decision because it stated that these men should be granted refugee status. However the matter has been sent back to the DORS Committee and it has been required to consider the matter again. In the Australian of 1 November this year Robin Osborne, who has taken a considerable interest in this matter, stated: While Canberra seeks a third country in which to resettle the five-a near-impossible task-the Irian Jayans exist in limbo, unable to find proper work or get suitable skills because of their uncertain tenure. They are literally thanking God for the help of the local Catholic Church. Since July they have been languishing and their status has not been determined. The latest is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has decided to find out from the Papua New Guinea Government what it wants us to do. A report in today's Age headed `Government to await request on Irian Jayan refugees' stated: The Government will not decide its policy on the resettlement of Irian Jayan refugees from Indonesia until it receives specific requests from Papua New Guinea. As though the Government cannot determine of its own volition what is the right and proper thing to do in respect of these men! Presumably, it expects the Papua New Guinea people, who already have 10,000 people over their borders trying to settle, to take back the nine people for the very fear that more people might come to Australia. We are hiding behind the Papua New Guinea Government waiting on its requests. I submit that this is an outrageous situation which should not be tolerated by the Australian people. One of the refugees was recently reported in an interview published in the Catholic Leader newspaper as having said: If I am sent back to Irian Jaya the army or police will shoot me. I can't go home while they are there. It is true that there is a great feeling of fear. Probably the reason why the DORS Committee made its decision can also be found in the records which the Amnesty organisation has made available to me concerning what has happened in regard to the 12 people who were deported from Papua New Guinea and delivered into the hands of the Indonesian authorities in Irian Jaya. They were received all right at first. They were given transport, money and so on by the Indonesian Government in an effort to convince them immediately that the security of their lives was guaranteed. However, after a few days these refugees became frightened and insecure because they were continually visited by Indonesian military intelligence personnel at night under conditions of great distrust. A number of refugees who returned voluntarily after staying a few days at Jayapura were arrested during the night by the Indonesian military powers and taken to various prisons. I suggest that it is therefore clear that the fears of these people are very great and very real in terms of the way in which they are treated. I put it to the Senate that the further continuation of this matter is a disgrace so far as the Australian Government is concerned not only because of its breaches of international and local law but also because of the cowardly way in which it is administering this matter by not making a decision and holding people's lives in such a state of uncertainty. I also want to make reference to another similar case which I think shows the way in which the Government has operated. I refer to the case of Tamil refugees in this country who are claiming to be refugees and who have either received no reply or are being refused refugee status. I am going to deal with only one case in particular, although a number of others have also been referred to me by legal aid people in Victoria. By way of comparison I want first to read to the Senate what was said by Mr David Waddington, a Minister of State at the Home Office, in a letter which he wrote to Lord Avebury, the head of the human rights section in London. There had been a lot of controversy in the European countries which between them have about 50,000 Tamil refugees-not nine or the small number to be found here. In his letter he said: The United Kingdom is bound as a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention and Protocol on the status of refugees to abide by the provisions of these agreements which have been incorporated under the Immigration Rules. Under their provisions a person may apply for asylum on the ground that if he were required to leave, he would have to go to a country to which he is unwilling to go owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Each applicant is interviewed and cases are considered individually on their own merits. I made representations to Lord Avebury that Tamils in Britain, Holland and other countries should not be sent back. In an accompanying letter sent to me Lord Avebury pointed out: What he doesn't say however, is that, as a matter of practice, we have not insisted on the demonstration of an individual well-founded fear of persecution, where the victimisation is of a whole community. Unfortunately here, whereas in the first case I mentioned the DORS Committee made a ruling that has been thrown back at it, it has made rulings but obviously it has not been informed by the Government of information that the Government well knows applies to the situation faced by the Tamil community in Sri Lanka where there is very considerable fear by the whole community and where a considerable number of deaths have occurred. The particular case that I have had drawn to my attention by Miss Pam O'Connor of the Legal Aid Commission of Victoria is one of Mr Nagamany Puvanendran. He has tried to get to Australia since 1981. He tried to get to Australia from Nigeria at that time. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Sri Lanka. He has some nine years experience as a high school teacher in areas of general science and chemistry. He is a single man with no relatives in Australia. After his arrival, he approached Amnesty International and was referred by Amnesty International to the Legal Aid Commission of Victoria for assistance in making a claim for refugee status, which was subsequently completed on 1 May 1984. He sought refugee status on the grounds that as a Sri Lankan Tamil he had a well-founded fear of persecution, both at the hands of the military authorities and at the hands of Sinhalese mobs, having on two occasions been singled out for beatings by Sinhalese mobs because he was a Tamil. Details of that have been given to me. This is a man who, indeed, has been attacked on two occasions when he has been back in Sri Lanka, so he surely fits the category which the DORS Committee, quite mistakenly, thinks is necessary. Senator Tate —Has he been attacked by the Tamil terrorists who also terrorise other members of the Tamil population? Senator MISSEN —No; let us keep Senator Tate's prejudices out of this matter. He was attacked by Sinhalese mobs. I am quite happy to deal with other matters, but the honourable senator should try to keep his prejudices out of this and keep to the subject about which I am talking. The details of Mr Puvanendran's application to the Review Branch are contained in a letter dated 14 August 1985. For the sake of brevity, Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 179 Queen Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Telephone (03) 607 0234 AUSDOC DX 228 Facsimile (03) 607 0250 LEGAL AID COMMISSION OF VICTORIA Your ref. LEG/AE:JH 83/24103 Our ref. H84 D45227 PO'C:ja Phone enquiries 607 0385 14 August 1985 Review Branch Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, P.O. Box 25, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616 Attention: Mr Lawless Dear Sir, We refer to your letter of 18 July and to our letter of 23 July. It is unclear from your letter of 18 July whether a new decision is also to be made concerning our client's application for resident status, or whether only the application for refugee status will be reconsidered. If the latter, we would be pleased to receive your statement of reasons for the decision communicated in the Department's letter of 15 January 1985 refusing Mr Puvanendran's application for resident status as requested in our letter of 24 January 1985. Without having a statement of reasons for the earlier decision, we are at some disadvantage in addressing you as to matters which you may consider relevant in the further consideration of our client's refugee application. Upon reading the file, it appears that the Committee and Departmental officers attached significance to matters which we would have thought were of little relevance e.g. the Department's view expressed in a minute of 9/11/84 that ``the applicant's brothers were more at risk-however apparently they had not been in any specific danger to date''. There is nothing in Mr Fensling's note of the interview of 21 January 1984, nor in the writer's recollection of what was said at that interview, to indicate that Mr Puvanendran was ever asked about his brothers' experiences. If he had been, he would have advised that at the time prior to the interview his brothers had been living in the Eastern Province which at that time was a relatively quiet area, whereas he had had to live in the Sinhalese-dominated Central Province in order to obtain work. Another example of where the Department has been prepared to draw inferences adverse to our client's case from matters of little relevance appears in Mr Fensling's note dated 5/7/84 of the interview conducted on 21/6/84 where Mr Fensling records that Mr Puvanendran makes no complaint of any harassments by his Sinhalese colleagues during the period of his residence in Sokoto, Nigeria during the July 1983 disturbances. As Mr Puvanendran had never suggested that he considered he was at risk of violence by Sinhalese people in Nigeria, it is hard to see what relevance this information could have. Mr Puvanendran's comments about the attitude of his Sinhalese colleagues in Nigeria were not volunteered by him, but elicited in response to questions posed by Mr Fensling. It is also apparent from the file that the Department and the members of the D.O.R.S. Committee focused their attention on the likelihood of persecution of Mr Puvanendran by the security forces to the virtual exclusion of considering the risk that he faced from communal violence. It has even been suggested that the violence which he suffered on two occasions at the hands of Sinhalese mobs was ``minor random violence''. (See P.M.C. view in extract of minutes of D.O.R.S. meeting held 19/9/84). The evidence Mr Puvanendran has given is that on both occasions he was selected as the target of violence because he was a Tamil. On the first occasion a mob of local youths came to his home to find him. They knew where the Tamils lived and were going round to look for them. It was only as a result of the intervention of his Sinhalese landlady that he was spared further violence. His evidence as set out in his statement is that on the second occasion a Sinhalese mob approached passengers waiting to take the train to the Tamil-populated Eastern Province, and that they selected their victims by questioning them first to ascertain from their accent whether they were Sinhalese or Tamils. In our submission, this is neither random nor minor. Even though our client was not seriously injured on either occasion, he might well have been, as many other Tamils have been killed at the hands of Sinhalese mobs. There also seems to be an assumption on the part of all who considered the case that it is not sufficient for Mr Puvanendran to show that he belongs to a group which has been singled out for persecution on the grounds of race etc., but that he must in addition show that he has been individually singled out for persecution above and beyond that suffered by the rest of the group. In our submission, this grossly misconstrues the requirements of the convention. While there is no doubt that an applicant for refugee status must show that he individually fears persecution, there is no requirement that the persecution must be of a kind greater than that suffered by other members of a persecuted group to which he belongs. The agents of persecution need not be the police, military or other agents of Government; as set out in paragraph 65 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status; ``Where serious discriminatory or other offensive acts are committed by the local populace, they can be considered as persecution if they are knowingly tolerated by the authorities, or if the authorities refuse, or prove unable, to offer effective protection''. As to whether Mr Puvanendran as a Tamil does fit into a persecuted group, we enclose a copy of a statement from Amnesty International dated 24 May 1985 in which Amnesty expresses its view that, if returned to Sri Lanka, Tamils face the risk of; arbitrary killings by members of the security forces in reprisal for the killing of their own men or of members of the Sinhalese community. arbitrary arrest and possible long-term incommunicado detention, particularly of young men, their relatives often remaining unaware of their whereabouts for weeks or months after arrest. ill-treatment and torture after arrest. In the same document, Amnesty re-affirms its opposition to the involuntary refoulement of members of the Tamil minority to Sri Lanka. The same document mentions that it has received reports of the arrest and detention without trial of Tamils returned against their will to Sri Lanka. In view of such evidence, it is in our submission irresponsible for the Department to take the view apparently adopted in this case that only those Tamils who have been involved in some political activity or can show a greater risk of persecution than other Tamils will be considered for refugee status. It is interesting that the Department and the D.O.R.S. Committee, although being prepared on preliminary evidence and submissions only to reject our client for both refugee status and resident status, nevertheless considers ``that Mr. Puvanendran should not be returned to Sri Lanka at present. Presumably the Committee would not have made that last finding if it had thought that Mr. Puvanendran would not be at risk on his return to Sri Lanka. Mr. Puvanendran therefore finds himself in the extraordinary situation that although he is thought to merit protection from Australia ``at present'', he will not be allowed to settle here nor is he even offered a temporary entry permit that will ensure his right to stay for some certain future period. In the meantime, he is not allowed to work and his status remains that of a prohibited non-citizen, whose very presence in the country exposes him to the possibility of prosecution for an offence punishable by six months imprisonment or $1,000 fine (Migration Act Section 27 (1)). If a further decision is to be made concerning Mr. Puvanendran's application for refugee status, we would ask that a proper interview be conducted, transcribed and the transcript made available to Mr. Puvanendran for correction. There have been a number of developments since the preliminary interview on 21/6/84 which are highly relevant to his application, and which he would like the opportunity to put before the Committee. In April, 1985, Muslems together with Sinhalese Commandos went on a rampage through the Eastern Province destroying Tamil villages and killing Tamils. Mr. Puvanendran's parents, grandmother and brothers, who were living in the village of Valaichenai had their homes destroyed and had to seek refuge in refugee camps until after the Commandos had left the area. Since then, they have had to live with relatives in overcrowded conditions. Mr Puvanendran has letters from his father and brothers written immediately prior to, during and after these events which present a dramatic record of the suffering and distress inflicted upon the Tamil population of the Eastern Province. Our client has presented us with a number of letters in English and in Tamil from his relatives, together with newspaper reports, and a map showing the progress of the Commandos through the Eastern Province. He would like to present all of this evidence to the Committee, and seeks an interview in order to submit that material. We also enclose an application for a temporary entry permit, and would be glad if you would forward it to the relevant section of the Department to enable him to legalize his status during the period that these further enquiries are being conducted. He also asks again that he be given permission to work, and we would be glad if you, or some other section within the Department, could advise of the prospects of obtaining a work permit. Yours faithfully, P. O'CONNER for: Director of Legal Aid Encl. Senator MISSEN —The fact is that Mr Puvanendran has been now for some considerable time in Australia. He had originally not received any word about this but ultimately was told that his application had been refused by the DORS Committee. It was only by use of the Freedom of Information Act that he found that he was not being required to leave immediately, because the Committee felt that it was not altogether safe to send him back. I do not know how it could come to that conclusion and not give him the information that it was not safe to go back. At present the Government is relying on the hope-it is a very slim hope-that there may be a settlement, a cease-fire, and some conclusion drawn and, therefore, some peace restored, and therefore it is not making decisions. It is holding people in mid-air during this period. The result of this was that on 31 October 1985 Mr Puvanendran had a letter from the Regional Director in Victoria of the Department, in which he said: I again refer to your application for the grant of permanent resident status in Australia, based on your claim for recognition as a refugee, and also on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. As you were informed on 15 January 1985 your applications had been rejected, but your temporary stay in Australia was extended pending an examination by this Department of policy relating to Sri Lanka. Your applications have been reconsidered in the light of the present situation in Sri Lanka. I regret that I must inform you that it has been decided by the Delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that your claim for recognition as a refugee cannot be approved. For several months Mr Puvanendran was trying to get the details of that, and then, instead of getting details of it, he was told that it was reconsidered and decided that his claim had not been established. When honourable senators read the letter in Hansard they will realise what this man has had to suffer, and they will appreciate that here, indeed, was a clear case where he had the very worry, personally, about attacks that he had suffered twice in Sri Lanka in the period that he was there. On that same day, 31 August, I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) speaking of the position in Sri Lanka. I had a reply from the Prime Minister to a letter which I had written on 2 September 1985 on general matters, and I sought to find out from him whether the matter of Sri Lanka was raised at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting-and I shall be asking questions in the Parliament about that. But in the reply which the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, sent to me-this was the earlier letter, dated 18 October 1985; it was rather late arriving because of the strike-he pointed out general matters. I seek leave, Mr President, for this letter to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Acting Prime Minister Canberra Senator A. Missen Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Missen Thank you for your letter of 2 September 1985 to the Prime Minister concerning the situation in Sri Lanka. As you may be aware, the Government has on numerous occasions made known to the Government of Sri Lanka its concern over the continuing communal violence in that country and has actively encouraged the Sri Lankan Government to seek a political compromise acceptable to all parties in the dispute. Mr Hayden, during his visit in May, held discussions with President Jayewardene, representatives of the Sri Lanka Tamil communities and the Buddhist clergy on the issues. You will be aware of India's role, particularly since June, in bringing the Sri Lankan Government and Tamil representatives to the negotiating table in an effort to find a political solution to the inter-communal problem. The Government fully supports India's present efforts and welcomes indications that some positive developments may eventuate from these discussions. The Commonwealth as a whole has not been active on the Sri Lanka problem because the Sri Lankans regard it as being a domestic issue and there have been no indications that either Sri Lanka or India would be prepared to accept a Commonwealth role. Australia would of course be willing to assist in any appropriate way should India or Sri Lanka seek our (or Commonwealth) assistance to help resolve the conflict. Yours sincerely LIONEL BOWEN Senator MISSEN —It is clear from that letter that the Government is hoping, though it is not doing much about it, that a settlement will come to the problems that have caused Sri Lanka to be at fever pitch. I was there in July and have reported to this Parliament on that visit. I know that on both sides there are extremely difficult problems for people, and particularly for the minority in Sri Lanka. Of course, the police and the army are now very much out of control. The fact is that this person has been rejected and he is now apparently required to leave the country. He cannot go back to Sri Lanka, and will not do so unless he is completely crazy. As I have said, other applications have been referred to me. One concerns a man who since 1983 has been endeavouring to get a determination of the issue so that he can make his life plans and decide what he is going to do. I submit that it is very unfortunate indeed that this matter has not been attended to by the Government, that it puts it off hoping that a solution will somehow crop up. I further wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on 22 October 1985 and to complete this matter I ask that that letter also be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 22 October 1985 The Hon. Chris Hurford, M.P. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, Re: Mr Nagamany Puvanendran-Application for Refugee Status and/or Resident Status I have been consulted by the above-named in respect to his application which has for some considerable time been before the DORS Committee and before the Government, and which I suggest has taken a most unsatisfactory course of action. I also saw Miss Pat O'Connor of the Victorian Legal Aid Commission about this matter. I enclose, for convenience, copy of a letter dated the 14th August 1985 from the Legal Aid Commission to me, together with the various enclosures. I refer in particular to their letter of the 14 August 1985 to the Review Branch of your Department in the ACT in respect to this matter. To bring this further up to date; I enclose a copy of a memorandum dated the 16th October 1985, headed ``Sri Lanka: Allegations of Extrajudical Executions and `Disappearances' in May 1985'', to which is annexed copies of letters from Amnesty International to the President of Sri Lanka dated the 7th June 1985, and to the Minister for National Security; the Hon. Lalith Athulathmudali, dated the 10th July 1985. These letters give ample evidence of the extreme danger being suffered by members of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka at the present time. As you are well aware, I followed your journey to Sri Lanka and saw a number of people and have reported to parliament in respect to this matter. I believe that the problems, particularly in the Eastern Zone, are very intense, and worsening, and that it would be an act of complete folly for a person such as Mr Puvanendran to return to Sri Lanka at the present time. My complaint is not only on his behalf but I am aware of another few cases which are in the hands of Miss Pat O'Connor where there have been considerable delays and where the situation is similarly unsatisfactory from the point of view of the person claiming resident status. They relate to Tamils in a similar situation to Mr Puvanendran. I want to make the following specific points to you and to the Foreign Minister, who is aware of my interest in this matter and who I am sure can advise you further: 1. There was apparently a practice of giving temporary entry permits by your Department until October 1984. It was then stopped without reason and so Mr Puvandendran has had to make his application accordingly. There is considerable concern that there is assumption by the DORS Committee that inter-communal violence can be disregarded and only some element taken into account where a person has a particular concern over and above that of the Tamil community in general, ignoring the fact that in the case of Mr Puvanendran there are two reasons why he has been singled out and has already suffered two assaults. It is put to you that the remarks by the DORS Committee show a concentration on irrelevancies which are not mainly to the point. 2. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the effect of the International Convention on International Status in that refugees have to show a well-founded fear of persecution but there is no requirement that the particular applicant has specialist claims in this regard. 3. It is clear from further information which was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, that while the DORS Committee rejected Mr Puvandendran's original application, it did not suggest that he should return at the present time-as well it should not. However, this is an entirely inconsistent attitude and seems designed to avoid telling the applicants information which is of importance to them. 4. I have no doubt that the Government has in mind the risk of some flood of applicants occuring but this is no satisfactory reason for adopting this policy of delay and prevarication. In fact, in Mr Puvanendran's case, he sought for six months to obtain reasons for the decision and then, on the 18th July 1985, was told that the application was being reconsidered so it was unnecessary to give reasons. There is no indication as to whether that application has been reconsidered. The result is that in his case, and similar cases, a very unsatisafactory situation arises where people cannot plan their future lives, cannot make arrangements and where in addition to the worries which they have for their families and friends in Sri Lanka, they have the completely uncertain situation of their own lives, lasting over a period of years. I suggest that this course of conduct is inhumane and disgraceful from the point of view of the Australian people. The Foreign Minister has taken a very strong stand-at least he did until recently-and has endeavoured to persuade the foolish members of the Sri Lankan Government to take some action to control their undisciplined forces and to stop the constant repetition of human rights violations, deaths and destruction, which is destroying the country of Sri Lanka. I suggest the least this Government can do is to deal compassionately with those people who seek refugee or resident status under the Migration Act, and that this has not been done in this case. I urge that you bring this matter to finality. Unless I get some indication that this will be done, the matter must be raised in the Parliament. Your sincerely, ALAN MISSEN Senator for Victoria Senator MISSEN —I pointed out in that letter that until October 1985 the Department had the habit of giving temporary permits. The practice was then stopped; I do not know why. There is also misunderstanding as to the effect of the international convention, and a well-founded fear of persecution is what is required. Senator Tate —Persecution by whom? By the Government. Senator MISSEN —By people, by mobs, by groups. Senator Tate —You are accusing the Sri Lankan Government of persecuting Tamils. Senator MISSEN —I am saying that the Sri Lankan Government does not have control of the situation. I am giving it the benefit of that doubt. I am saying that many people, particularly in the eastern and northern zones, are being persecuted, robbed, raped and killed. We should not be completely one-sided; there are extremists on the other side who are also taking advantage of the situation. I also pointed out in the letter that the Government apparently fears the risk of a flood of applicants. There is no flood of applicants, as one can see; there are many people in other countries, but not here. If the Government were minded to consider the compassionate and humanitarian circumstances and allow a change of status to permanent residents, the Department would surely take into account the matters which are in its own instructions from Mr A. Robertson, the Acting First Assistant Secretary of the Operations and International Division of the Department, who says that, amongst other things, these are the points to consider: 8. War or political turbulance in home country subsequent to visitor's departure which would make return home unsafe. 9. Gross and discriminatory denial of fundamental freedoms and basic human rights on return to the person(s) country of nationality or former habitual residence provided residence elsewhere is not more appropriate. Those matters should have been well within the compass of the DORS Committee and it should have granted the application. If the Committee has not been given this information by the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who know well the situation in that country, that is remarkable. I feel that these two issues show Australia and our Government in a very bad light. It is deferring and putting off to the disadvantage of individuals because it is hoping that something will crop up that will save it from making a decision. I believe that both matters are an indication that we are ignoring our international obligations and that we are not using our knowledge of the situation in these two countries. I urge again-I know that our poor, weak and timid Press, who have all gone to bed, will not notice this-- Senator Gareth Evans —Hey! Senator MISSEN —Not all; there is one member here. It is a shame that this country is not more aware of the situation. We are concerned about human rights, and tonight Senator Tate put down a report showing our concern in regard to this matter. We should be concerned with human rights in other countries, too, and I think that our action in these countries does not match what we have said on previous occasions. This is a matter of shame for the Australian Government. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.55) —On 9 October in the debate on the reference to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of the question of Army land, I took issue with the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), on his assertion that there was growing local concern in the Singleton area about the location of the Army camp there. I then tabled a large collection of statements from local organisations and government and semi-government bodies supporting, or at least not opposing, the expansion of the Army base at Singleton. At the bottom of the list that I tabled was a note supplied to me by the Singleton Shire Council saying that no community groups opposed the retention and expansion of the Singleton Army base. I should mention that there were 29 organisations among the community groups and nine among the government and semi-government bodies included in that list of support. I have since received a letter from Mr Geoff Wyatt of 5 Forsyth Lane, Glebe, which is a suburb of Sydney, relating to an organisation in the Wollombi Valley called the Wollombi Valley Landholders Association. I seek leave to have this letter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 22 October 1985 Geoff Wyatt 5 Forsyth Lane, Glebe, N.S.W. 2037 Ph. 660 6324 Dear Senator Baume: A member of a group of landholders and residents of the Wollombi Valley who are against expansion of the Singleton Artillery Range, I note Hansard of October 9 which records your support for an inquiry into the location and co-location of Army bases. Pages 885-6-7 refer to your tabling a summary of letters or submissions received ``in favour or not opposing the retention and expansion of Singleton Army Base'' presumably presented to you by Singleton Council. This summary ends with: Note: ``No Community Groups opposed the retention and expansion of the Singleton Army Base''. This is untrue, and we would appreciate your setting the record straight. On August 23 1984 the Wollombi Valley Landholders Association convened a meeting at Broke seeking information from Singleton Council, the Army, and interested parties. This was the first organised opposition by citizens concerned that expansion would lead to unreasonable social disruption including increased noise pollution, compulsory land acquisition and loss of heritage. They were, and are, also concerned that expansion of the artillery range to accommodate the most sophisticated available weapons, now and in the future, would make the Lower Hunter from Williamtown Air Force Base west to Singleton a major military target in the event of war. Since the Broke meeting in August 1984 the Wollombi Valley Association through its No Base Expansion Group repeatedly voiced its opposition to Singleton Council, both directly at a meeting in March 1985 with a Singleton Council deputation led by the President, and in address by a No Base Expansion Group member to a Singleton Shire Council meeting later in the same month. The Group's protest was well documented in the many newspaper articles written on the issue, in Singleton, Cessnock, Newcastle, Sydney and nationally. Further, Singleton Council refused the Group's request to be represented when the Minister for Defence addressed the people of Singleton in June last. We state that Singleton Council has made selective use of information to exclude opposition to expansion. Additionally, some groups who originally supported the Council have subsequently withdrawn that approval. The Hunter Region Community Forum representing 37 community organisations, now says it was ``conned'' by Singleton Council. The attached copy of a letter by a leading winemaker in the area should attest to the mood prevalent in that industry. The No Base Expansion Group protest was made known to the NSW Government and the Defence Department through documentation and representation during the months leading to the June decision not to go ahead with the Singleton proposal. We are now preparing a submission to the Senate Standing Committee inquiring into the whole matter of Army base location and re-location. Part of this submission will highlight Singleton Council's attempts to stifle and silence opposition to its proposal and its connivance with the No Base Committees representing the Cobar and Central Tablelands people to have the base expanded after the Defence Department decided against it. One matter we would seek the Standing Committee to examine would be Singleton Council's hiring the Sydney co-ordinator of various No Base Committees to promote and publicise its proposal at the rate of $1000 a month for several months. This co-ordinator, John Duff, like a number of No Base members, owns land in the Central Tablelands area. I attach for your information a document which similarly questions the role of the National Trust in its tacit approval of expansion at Singleton. The signatory to this document also owns land in the Central Tablelands area. In closing, may I point out that the Wollombi Valley protesters are not anti-Army. At the March 1985 meeting with the Singleton Council deputation we gave our complete support for retention of the existing base and expressed sympathy for the economic hardship Singleton township would necessarily undergo should the Army decide to wind the base down. In that even we however proposed that a government-sponsored body comprising Singleton and neighbouring Cessnock Councils and the Wollombi Valley Association should be set up to identify and where possible implement alternative industries to ensure the survival and prosperity of Singleton township. I offered, and subsequently signed a statutory declaration to this end, the first token $1000 towards such an enterprise. The Singleton Council deputation dismissed our proposal out of hand-but later advocated the same as its own initiative in a communication to the Cobar Shire and local protest group. Our offer-and mine-still stands. I thank you for your attention on behalf of the aforementioned landholders and residents of the Wollombi Valley. Yours Sincerely, GEOFF WYATT Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Senate. I will not keep the Senate long on this matter except to say that nothing in that letter appears to me to diminish in any way the point that I made at that time. It suggests that the area would become a military target, for example, if Singleton were expanded while at the same time asserting that the Wollombi Valley protesters are not anti-Army. I think the general proposition in the letter-I concede that it is true-is that there is a group of people who apprised the Singleton Shire Council of their opposition. I think it would have been proper for the Council to include them in the list as a dissenting group. However, I think the thrust of what I said remains totally unassailed by the small group whose major objection, as I understand it, is to the extension of the Army base south into the Wollombi Valley. As I understand it, the Council itself does not support its extension in that direction. As I understand it, the Council wants Crown land that is not in the valley although it is in a southerly direction from the existing base. The organisation cites a leading wine maker in the area as someone who opposes the expansion of the base and says that this should attest to the mood prevalent in the wine industry. I think I should mention that the Hunter Valley Vineyards Association, making up all the wine growers in that area, support or certainly do not oppose that extension of the Army base. The Hunter Region Community Forum, representing 37 community organisations, now says it was `conned' by Singleton Council on this matter. I should mention that the association is not listed in my group of submissions. As I understand it, it is a leftish group which does not represent any of the substantial organisations in the area affected or likely to be affected by the Army base. As I said, I maintain the proposition I put before. There is no evidence of any significant concern in the area whatsoever. In fact, the enormous volume of attitude in the region is for the expansion of that Army base in the Singleton area. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.00) —I will ensure that Senator Michael Baume's contribution to the ongoing debate about the Army land in New South Wales is brought to the attention of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) for such consideration as he thinks appropriate to give to it. As to Senator Missen's contribution on a miscellany of topics relating to the treatment of refugees and people claiming refugee status, all I really wish to say at present is that the issues to which Senator Missen refers are ones of considerable delicacy and difficulty, involving the weighing and balancing of a large number of competing criteria in circumstances where some of the simple verities espoused by Senator Missen are perhaps not quite so evident at close quarters as they appear to be from where he sits. I understand his concern and I will refer it to myself tomorrow morning when I am Acting Foreign Minister in order to see what sort of sensible response can be made. A Government response on the particular question of Papua New Guinea border crossings will, of course, await Mr Hayden's return from his current visit to Papua New Guinea where that particular topic is obviously assuming a very high place on his agenda. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.01 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Air Navigation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 276. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order 1985-M24-1986 Performance. Consular Privileges and Immunities Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 265, 266. Defence Act-Determinations 1985- No. 64-Overseas Living Out Allowance and others. No. 65-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 66-Vehicle Allowance and Language Proficiency Allowance. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 264. First Home Owners Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 267. Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notices- No. 149-Prohibition relating to the taking of female Southern Rock Lobster from waters off the eastern and southern coasts of Australia, dated 30 September 1985. No. 151-Prohibition relating to the taking of scallops from proclaimed waters in Bass Strait, dated 3 October 1985. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 286. Grain Legumes Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 281. High Court of Australia Act-Regulation Rule of Court, dated 26 September 1985. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 274, 278. Interim Forces Benefits Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 270. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 275. Papua New Guinea (Members of the Forces Benefits) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 273. Passports Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 277. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1985-Postal Amendment No. 6. Public Service Act- Appointment-Department of Aviation-M.R. Shannon. Determinations 1985 Nos 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determinations 1985- No. 17-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Executive Member, Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation and others, dated 16 September 1985. No. 18-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Secretaries of Parliamentary Departments, dated 24 September 1985. Repatriation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos. 268, 279. Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 269. Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 272. Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos. 271, 280. Seat of Government Administration Act- Determination made under the following Ordinance-Health Services, dated 8 October 1985. Ordinances 1985- No. 55-Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment). No. 56-Cemeteries (Amendment). Regulations 1985- No. 25-(Cemeteries Ordinance). No. 26-(Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs Ordinance) ). GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: A Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Act to come into operation on the date specified: Grain Legumes Levy Act 1985-All provisions, excluding sections 1 and 2-1 November 1985 (Gazette No. S449, 31 October 1985) GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S MESSAGES-ASSENT TO LAWS: Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that His Excellency had, in the name of Her Majesty, assented to the following Laws: 21 October 1985-Message No. 35- Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Act 1985 (Act No. 111 of 1985) Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 112 of 1985) Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 113 of 1985) Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Act 1985 (Act No. 114 of 1985) Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1985 (Act No. 115 of 1985) Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act 1985 (Act No. 116 of 1985) Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act 1985 (Act No. 117 of 1985) States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act 1985 (Act No. 118 of 1985) Communications Legislation Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 119 of 1985) 28 October 1985-Messages- No. 36- Companies (Fees) Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 120 of 1985) Australian Federal Police Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 121 of 1985) Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 122 of 1985) No. 37- Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 2) 1985 (Act No. 123 of 1985) Income Tax (Individuals) Act 1985 (Act No. 124 of 1985) Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Act 1985 (Act No. 125 of 1985) Medicare Levy Act 1985 (Act No. 126 of 1985) Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 127 of 1985) No. 38- Loan Act 1985 (Act No. 128 of 1985) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 7) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 February 1985: (1) Are psychiatric patients experiencing difficulties because of changes to hospital benefits with the advent of Acute Care Committees. (2) Is the 35 days maximum hospitalisation period, after which an Acute Care Form (3B) must be completed so that the Federal Government's bed subsidy can continue, an unrealistically short time in the treatment of some psychiatric disorders. (3) Is a problem of confidentiality caused by filling out this 3B form. (4) If the bed subsidy is revoked by the Committee, is it retrospective to the date the form was signed, up to 60 days previously. (5) Is there any appeal process for patients whose Acute Care Form is rejected. (6) Will the Minister for Health attempt to rectify these difficulties. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Psychiatric patients are placed in no different a position to any other patients given that the sole criterion for section 3B certification is `acute care'. Medical practitioners are able to exercise professional judgement in relation to the meaning of acute care in respect of all patients. To assist medical practitioners, the Acute Care Advisory Committees have developed draft guidelines in relation to the determination of `acute care'. It is expected that the guidelines will be finalised shortly. In relation to psychiatric conditions, the guidelines read as follows: ``Patients suffering from psychiatric conditions may require long term acute care. However, a comparison of the average length of stay of acute psychiatric patients in psychiatric units in public hospitals has indicated that in only relatively few instances does the length of stay need to exceed 35 days. Consequently, Committees should review the need for periods of acute psychiatric care in the same manner as for other medical conditions. Ongoing treatment that could be given in an outpatient or day care hospital setting would not be considered as acute care.'' During the period 1 February 1984 to 30 June 1985, a total of 4,564 section 3B certificates throughout Australia were referred to the Acute Care Advisory Committees. Of these, 1,614 (or 35.4%) related to psychiatric conditions. The comparable figures for Queensland are 577 and 148 (25.6%) respectively. Of the total referrals to the Committees, 1,150 (or 25.2%) were revoked Australia-wide. For Queensland, 132 (or 22.9%) of certificates referred were revoked. Revocations relating to psychiatric conditions were of the order of 61% of total revocations but, for Queensland, 36 per cent of revocations related to psychiatric conditions. The above figures may not be generally reflective of the number of patients involved as several section 3B certificates may relate to the one patient. It is emphasised that certificates are only revoked on the advice of the Acute Care Advisory Committees which provide statutory peer review. These Committees are wholly comprised of medical practitioners representing the Commonwealth, State health authorities, the AMA and the health funds. (2) The Commonwealth bed day subsidy continues to be paid in respect of all eligible patients accommodated in private hospitals, irrespective of the `35-day rule' and whether or not a section 3B certificate is, or remains, in force. It is the health insurance benefits paid by health funds that are affected as a result of the arrangements. As indicated in the answer to Question 1, the Acute Care Advisory Committees consider that psychiatric conditions should be regarded as no different from other medical conditions and that the average length of stay for psychiatric patients should not generally need to exceed 35 days. (3) The question of confidentiality arises in relation to the information sought by filling out the section 3B certificate. Section 3B of the Health Insurance Act requires that the certificate of acute care be given in accordance with the `approved form'. The approved form of the section 3B certificate requests certain clinical details to be furnished to assist Acute Care Advisory Committees in the determination of whether a section 3B certificate should be affirmed, varied or be revoked. It is possible in some circumstances that the issue of confidentiality could arise (eg. if the medical practitioner were to give the certificate direct to the hospital or health fund without the patient's knowledge). However, in reality, it would be expected that medical practitioners would obtain the patient's consent, as a matter of prudence and in the context of proper doctor/patient relations, to the provision of the certificate to the hospital or health fund. Circumstances could arise when a patient is unable to give consent. It is, of course, in the patient's best interest that a section 3B certificate be issued and submitted as the non-issue could result in non-compliance with section 3B of the Act and the payment of lower nursing home type patient rate of benefits and the raising of the patient contribution. The form of the section 3B certificate is in the process of being re-designed and consideration is being given to the whole matter of confidentiality. (4) As advised in answer to Question 2 above, the Commonwealth bed day subsidy continues to be paid irrespective of whether or not a section 3B certificate is revoked. While a section 3B certificate can be signed by a medical practitioner up to 14 days before the commencement date specified in the certificate, it is the period specified in the certificate as the period for which acute care is needed that stand to be affected as a result of the Acute Care Advisory Committee review process. This period cannot exceed 30 days. (5) Yes. Review is available under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act of decisions taken to revoke section 3B certificates following recommendations made by an Acute Care Advisory Committee. The Ombudsman can also investigate administrative actions if a complaint is laid. (6) The Government is continuing to closely monitor the section 3B certificate arrangements and, where necessary, improvements will be made. Some improvements have already been made (eg. extension from 7 days to 14 days of the prospective period for medical practitioners to sign certificates) and others are contemplated. In this latter respect, new administrative procedures are to be introduced to streamline the processes for handling section 3B certificates to reduce the potential for patients to have to reimburse hospitals when certificates are revoked following review. In addition, the Government has introduced legislation to provide for retrospective certification. This will protect patients against being financially disadvantaged because a certificate had been overlooked for signing at the appropriate time. (Question No. 37) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) What percentage of international flights arrive at: (a) Sydney International Airport; (b) Melbourne International Airport; and (c) Brisbane International Airport, in each of the following time periods: (i) prior to 7.00 a.m., (ii) between 7.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m., (iii) between 9.00 a.m. and 12 p.m., (iv) between 12 p.m. and 6.00 p.m., and (v) after 6.00 p.m. (2) What is the average time which passengers spend on international aircraft prior to their arrival in Australia. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) Time Period % of International Arrivals Sydney 0001-0700 21 0701-0900 20 0901-1200 28 1201-1800 16 1801-2400 15 TOTAL 100 (1) (b) Time Period % of International Arrivals Melbourne 0001-0700 15 0710-0900 17 0901-1200 33 1201-1800 29 1801-2400 6 TOTAL 100 (1) (c) Time Period % of International Arrivals Brisbane 0001-0700 10 0701-0900 8 0901-1200 29 1201-1800 32 1801-2400 21 TOTAL 100 Note: The period to which the statistics relate is 10 March 1985 to 16 March 1985. While the total figures, and their composition, vary somewhat from week to week, the figures quoted are indicative of the normal weekly pattern. (2) Any attempt to provide an average time spent on aircraft by passengers prior to their arrival in Australia would be misleading. Many passengers would have travelled only four hours or less from nearby destinations, another group for seven to nine hours from South-East Asia and other ports whilst another group would have travelled in excess of sixteen hours from the United States of America and Europe. It would not be possible to provide a break-up of these groups without devoting considerable resources to obtaining an answer. (Question No. 105) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: Are airline passengers required to store their cabin luggage beneath the seat in front of them; if so, (a) what is the origin and status of such a requirement, and (b) when did such a requirement come into force. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. Airline operating procedures require passengers to stow or have their luggage stored in accordance with the approved stowage procedures. The present approved areas for stowage as listed in the Air Navigation Orders are: under a passenger seat; in overhead lockers; or in other lockers designed for the purpose. (a) The requirement contained in the Air Navigation Orders for the safe stowage of loose articles has been in force for some years. It was introduced as a result of overseas accident experience. This showed that many deaths and injuries occurred in otherwise survivable accidents as a result of loose articles flying around the cabin or due to egress of survivors being impeded by those articles blocking escape routes. In Australia during the seven year period to 1985 Australian airlines experienced 35 incidents involving unexpected turbulence in which people were injured. Whether the injuries resulted from contact with loose objects or the aircraft structure is not recorded, however, during turbulence any loose object is a potential hazard and the requirement for safe stowage of cabin baggage is intended to reduce that hazard to passengers. (b) The space under a passenger seat has been an approved stowage area since August 1979 following development of revised design standards for passenger seats at that time. (Question No. 183) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Aviation aware of 2 recent incidents at the Alice Springs airport, one involving passengers who were able to walk out onto the tarmac while an aircraft was taxiing in, and the other involving a woman and two children who were struck by a baggage truck which was moving across the tarmac; if so, could these incidents have been prevented had there been sufficient security at the airport. (2) Is the Minister concerned at the obvious lack of sufficient security personnel at the airport, given that situations such as these have arisen; if so, what action will the Minister take to ensure that security arrangements, including the provision of additional staff, are made. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Yes. Both incidents were the result of airline staff's failure to observe the apron safety standards in respect of passengers when loading aircraft. The matter has been drawn to their attention and appropriate rectification measures taken. Security and management of the Airport is continually under review and my Department is fully aware of the incidents you raise. The security fence and gates have recently been upgraded to restrict the number of movement access points to the tarmac area. The responsibility for safety and security of passengers during aircraft loading operations rests with the Airlines concerned. (Question No. 265) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) What official position is held by Mr D. Norris in the Accounts Section of Australian Telecommunications Commission (Telecom), at 233 Castlereagh Street, Sydney. (2) How long has Mr Norris occupied his present post and what previous positions has he held at Telecom. (3) How many complaints have been lodged in relation to the work of Mr Norris in recent years. (4) Has Mr Norris recently acknowledged, to customers, cases of overcharging by Telecom in excess of $100 and has he then personally refused to arrange for the despatch of a letter of apology for the overcharging together with a new amended account. (5) Has Mr Norris offered, in substitution for issue of an amended account, to deduct overcharged amounts from some future account; if so, when a customer requests the termination of a telephone service what happens to the ``credit'' which results from overcharging. (6) Is it Telecom's policy, as Mr Norris has indicated, not to apologise in writing to customers where it acknowledges overcharging them, especially when significant amounts are involved, and not to issue amended accounts; if so, at which meeting of the Commission was this policy established and which Commissioners were in attendance at that meeting. (7) If the policy referred to in (6) above was not established at a meeting of the Commissioners, which individual manager or officer set the policy and when. (8) Will the Minister for Communications request Commissioners to establish a policy requiring Telecom to formally apologise in writing to customers where overcharging is acknowledged as well as speedily issuing them with an amended account; if not, why not. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Senior Credit Officer, Clerk Class 4. (2) Approximately two years. Previously held positions of Credit Officer and Assistant Credit Officer. (3) Telecom Australia has no record of any formal complaints lodged by customers in relation to this Senior Credit Officer's work. (4) The officer has stated that he cannot recall any such instance when such an overcharge has been confirmed by investigation. (5) The officer has stated that such an offer may be made if the disputed charges had already been paid. If, however, the disputed amount was still outstanding, arrangements would be made for the amount to be withdrawn. In the situation where a customer has cancelled the service, the amount of overcharge would be credited to the closing or final bill, thereby offsetting the incorrect charge. If the credit exceeded the charges rendered on the final bill, a refund cheque would be issued. (6) and (7) There is no such policy. (8) It is general practice in Telecom that if a customer requests a formal acknowledgement of overcharging and/or an amended account, these are provided. (Question Nos 288 and 289) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) Can the Minister urgently investigate allegations made in Queensland State Partliament on 7 March 1985 that a ``Mr Rand regularly flies between `Silver Plains' (on Cape York Peninsula) and Honolulu without having a customs or immigration clearance.'' (2) Could the Minister inquire into the following statement made by Mr Glasson, Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police and confirm or deny the allegation contained in it: ``Police inquires revealed that Mr Rand has undertaken numerous overseas flights between 1973 and 1983, but again no evidence of any offence in this State has been disclosed relating to these trips. The Commissioner of Police is unable to say whether any of these trips were made without customs or immigration clearance. However, this would be a matter for the appropriate federal departments. While there is no evidence at this stage to directly involve Mr Rand in any unlawful activities, you may rest assured that all possible action will be taken should evidence be forthcoming to support a prosecution.'' Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: (1) I have reports from officers of my Department that the allegations to which the honourable Senator refers have been investigated and found to be without substance. (2) Mr Rand has made a number of trips into and out of Australia in the period mentioned. On each occasion he underwent the usual formalities for persons entering or leaving Australia through a proclaimed airport. (Question No. 332) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Aviation aware that QANTAS Airways Ltd sought to operate a charter flight from Kastrup, Copenhagen to Australia earlier in 1985. (2) Is it correct that an Inspector from the Department of Aviation who was not endorsed on Boeing 747 aircraft, the aircraft QANTAS wished to operate, was sent to inspect the airport referred to in (1) above; if so, why was it necesary to send an inspector and what type of aircraft was this inspector endorsed to fly. (3) Does Australia hold all the relevant data on the airport referred to in (1) above. (4) Does the airport referred to in (1) above conform to international safety standards. (5) Who paid for the costs involved both directly and indirectly in the inspection of the airport referred to in (1) above. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am aware that earlier in 1985 Qantas sought to divert two of its scheduled Australia-Europe services through Copenhagen in order to provide a service to two tour groups. The flights were not charter flights but regular public transport flights requiring that the highest level of operating standards should be applied. (2) Yes. Airways Surveyors inspect airports used by Qantas, whenever possible before scheduled services commence. This activity enables my Department to ensure that facilities used by Qantas are adequate for such operations, and in paticular that the level of safety is at least equivalent to that available at Australian international airports. The officers concerned are trained and experienced in the detailed development and application of operational standards. The officer who inspected Copenhagen is endorsed on the Fokker F28 aircraft but not on the Boeing 747 aircraft. A specific type endorsement is not considered to be relevant to this particular activity, for which appropriate specialist knowledge and experience in the application of operational standards is more relevant. (3) My Department holds published operating data concerning Kastrup airport. Experience has shown that published data frequently does not draw attention to unstated differences from international standards and operational peculiarities which may need to be highlighted or allowed for before a service begins. (4) In the event the inspection disclosed that the Kastrup airport conforms to international safety standards. (5) Qantas provided tickets free of charge and met travelling allowance costs of $A1042.11. (Question No. 474) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) Has the Australian Government frequently stated its desired aim to use international forums, such as the United Nations, for disarmament and arms control. (2) Why did the Australian Government boycott the seminar on 9 August 1985, at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament research, chaired by an Australian authority, Dr Dahlitz, on the safeguarding of nuclear materials used in industry to prevent diversion to weapons use. (3) Can the Government explain how boycotting this seminar helps disarmament and arms control. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Government is actively using the international deliberative and negotiating forums such as the United Nations and the Conference on Disarmament to promote respect for existing disarmament and arms control agreements and the negotiation of additional agreements. (2) It is correct that the Australian Government was not represented at the seminar on 9 August 1985 at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) on the safeguarding of nuclear materials used in industry to prevent diversion to weapons use. This was not as a result of a ``boycott'' but of a responsible decision about the deployment of the limited number of relevant Australian officials available in Geneva. It is not possible for Australia to be represented at all international meetings and seminars, especially overseas. The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, as its name indicates, is not an international forum on disarmament and arms control. It is a research institute which undertakes independent research on disarmament and related security issues. On the day in question, the Australian delegation to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva was engaged in activities of a higher priority in accordance with Government policy. Specifically, Ambassador Butler was chairing the Conference on Disarmament Ad Hoc Committee on Radiological Weapons; of the other two members of the delegation, one was assisting Ambassador Butler in this task while the other was participating in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons. These two Ad Hoc Committees are negotiating towards new international arms control and disarmament agreements. Attendance at the UNIDIR seminar was not judged to be of comparable importance. (Question No. 485) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1985. (1) Was the draft Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985, tabled on behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the previous sittings of the Senate, framed after full and comprehensive discussions with organisations representing Veterans; if not, why not. (2) Does this legislation take away from Veterans and their dependants benefits that have been freely accessible to them for years. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The draft Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 was formulated after consideration by the Government of recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review. The Committee comprised:- Sir William Keys, O.B.E., M.C., National President of the Returned Services League of Australia (Chairman); Rear-Admiral G. R. Griffiths, A.O., D.S.O., D.S.C., Chairman of the Australian Veteran's and Defence Services' Council; Mr B. C. Ruxton, O.B.E., Victorian State President of the Returned Services League of Australia; Mr A. G. Robertson, O.B.E., Chairman, Legacy Co-ordinating Council; and Mrs B. Hughes, M.B.E., A.O., National President of the War Widows' Guild of Australia. The Committee first met on 8 February 1983 and presented its report to me in November of that year. The Report was tabled in Parliament and circulated widely in the Veteran community. Many submissions were received and considered in the framing of the draft Bill. Ninety-five per cent of the Committee's recommendations have been incorporated in the Bill. Amendments to the standard of proof provisions were included in the Bill in accordance with the amending legislation which came into force on 6 June this year. These amendments were adopted following the O'Brien decision by the High Court and the Government's Economic Statement of 14 May 1985. The Bill was tabled, rather than formally introduced, in the Senate on 30 May 1985 to enable its provisions to be discussed with Veterans and organisations representing them. Material on the Bill was subsequently circulated widely in the Veteran community. Officers of my Department have conducted over 90 seminars around Australia to explain the Bill and to answer questions. Submissions have been received from individuals and from organisations representing Veterans and war widows. the views expressed have been taken into account by the Government in deciding the final form in which the VEB was introduced in the Parliament. (2) No Veteran or a dependant of a Veteran will lose an existing pension or benefit as a result of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985. The Bill consolidates, rationalises and simplifies existing entitlements available to Veterans and dependants. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill contains a number of provisions which will benefit Veterans and their dependants. Specifically these are: eligibility for disability pension will be extended to Veterans who were domiciled in Australia immediately before either World War I or II and who served in that war as a member of an Allied Force; eligibility provisions for disability pension and war widow's pension will be standardised on those now applicable to service during World War II; the definition of ``child'' will be expanded to include a child dependent on the Veteran at the time of a Veteran's death; the preparation of a ``Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions'' will ensure consistency in assessment of the rates of pension payable to Veterans and members of the Defence Force for incapacity related to service; war widows will not lose their pensions if they remarry or have remarried since 29 May 1984; domestic allowance, a special pension supplement of $12 per week, will be payable to all war widows; service pension eligibility will be extended to Veterans involved in bomb and mine clearance following World War II and Veterans of the Malayan campaign who received a General Service medal for such service; service pension eligiblity will be extended to Veterans who served in Vietnam, although not allotted for special service, if they were injured or contracted a disease as a result of action by hostile forces; a Commonwealth or Allied Veteran will not have to satisfy the present ten-year residency requirement for service pension eligibility if the Veteran becomes permanently incapacitated for work while in Australia or during a temporary absence from Australia; the test for ``permanent unemployability'' for service pension purposes will adopt the Social Security invalid test of at least 85% permanently incapacitated for work; the definition of treatment will be widened to enable provision of a wider range of treatment, including social and domestic assistance where necessary, to frail aged Veterans and War Widows; a document entitled ``Treatment Principles'' will be prepared which will set out the circumstances in which, and the conditions subject to which, the Repatriation Commission can provide particular forms of treatment; there will be a legislative basis to provide counselling services for Veterans; decoration allowances will be extended to include the Distinguished Service Medal; and recreation transport allowance will be extended to a category of Veterans who are limited in their powers of locomotion to the same extent as certain amputees. Changes made to repatriation legislation in June 1985 have been incorporated in the VEB. These involve: amending the standard of proof applying to the determination of war widows' and disability pension claims; amending the criteria relating to payment of pension at the totally and permanently incapacitated (T &PI) rate; the removal of future grants of dependants' pensions and freezing of existing dependants' pensions at their current rate. Arising from the consultative process on the VEB the Government has announced it will modify the VEB to: reframe the standard of proof in a way more acceptable to the Veteran community and, in particular, to remove the ``40 year rule'' which applied the less generous civil standard of proof to war widows' pension claims where a Veteran dies or died 40 years or more after service; continue VEB coverage for new defence force enlistees in respect of any hazardous service; extend benefits to particular defence personnel who served in the Vietnam theatre of war but who were not previously treated as allotted for such service; extend the occurence provision to cover all eligible war service where a Veteran has had eligible war service; continue medical treatment entitlement for pulmonary tuberculosis sufferers; extend medical treatment entitlement to war widows who remarried on or after 29 May 1984 and whose pensions are restored by the VEB; extend medical treatment to all service pensioners receiving a 50% disability pension. (Question No. 488) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) How many medical and non-medical experiments using animals have been undertaken by the Department of Primary Industry or its agencies during the last 10 years? (2) What species of animals were used in the experiments? (3) For what purposes were the experiments undertaken? Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Officers of the Department of Primary Industry have been involved with five medical experiments over the last 10 years. Most of the research requirements of the Department are contracted out to other institutions such as Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and universities, and very little experimentation is undertaken by the Department or its agencies. In addition to the five medical experiments, the Department has undertaken fish tagging for the purpose of monitoring fish populations, and has provided observers on shipments of live sheep. The Department of Primary Industry does administer and distribute funds provided by Government for the purposes of research in a number of rural industries. A record of research activities so funded and of the recipients of such funds is contained in the 1985 Compendium of Rural Research published by the Department. Some of these research activities involve laboratory or field experiments using live animals. The National Health and Medical Research Council, CSIRO and the Australian Agricultural Council have adopted a Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Experimental Purposes. The guidelines contained in the Code are based on the principle that animals are treated with respect and care, and that consideration of their welfare is an essential factor in determining their use in experiments. The Code came into effect in 1985 and applicants for funds under the various Rural Industry Research Funds are now required to certify that the research project has been examined and approved by a relevant animal experimentation ethics committee and that all the requirements of the Code will be observed. If any experiments are undertaken by the Department in future, it will also abide by the code. (2) Sheep and dogs were used in the five experiments conducted by the Department. (3) The purposes of the experiments were as follows: (i) two experiments on sheep to validate analytical methods for detection of antibiotic residues; (ii) an experiment on sheep to validate analytical methods for detection of the anthelminitic rafoxanide; (iii) an experiment on sheep to validate analytical methods for detection of residues of the insecticide cyromazine; (iv) an experiment on dogs to establish the prevalence of heartworm in the Australian Capital Territory. (Question No. 498) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Is the Government aware of the grounding early this week of a Korean vessel, the `Maritime Gardenia', which left Newcastle with a load of 11,500 tonnes of wheat and was proceeding without a pilot through the Great Barrier Reef when it was grounded at Wednesday Island. (2) Has the vessel since required assistance of the pilot and other services and is it now extensively damaged and in extreme danger of causing spillage on the Reef. (3) When will the Minister for Transport reply to representations made by myself, the Queensland and Torres Strait Pilot Service and other responsible organisations, and take action to impose compulsory pilotage in the Great Barrier Reef area, thereby protecting the Reef from imminent danger. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. On 18 August 1985 the ``Maritime Gardenia'' grounded on Alert Rock in the Torres Strait. The ship did not have a pilot on board at the time. (2) The ship was refloated early on 19 August with the aid of a pilot and was taken to a safe anchorage. Although the ship's bottom was extensively damaged there was negligible oil pollution. (3) I have been advised that the Minister for Transport replied to representations from the Honourable Senator on this matter on 23 August 1985. Other representations on this issue have also been answered. The Government, having consulted extensively with responsible organizations, has decided to seek an International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution recommending that ships transitting Hydrographers Passage, the inner route north of Cairns, Torres Strait and the Great North East Channel carry a pilot. The IMO Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation has endorsed Australia's proposal which is to go before the IMO Maritime Safety Committee in January 1986. (Question No. 507) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) What security checks are carried out on applicants for positions with Ansett, Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas as on-ground or in-flight staff. (2) Who conducts such checks, the Department of Aviation or the individual airline companies involved. (3) What criteria is set for a security clearance before applicants are approved for positions. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) Security checking of applicants for positions with Australian airlines is a matter for each airline. (Question No. 508) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What individual security facilities are provided at Australian airports by Ansett Airlines of Australia. (2) What is the break-up of security personnel employed, directly or indirectly, by Ansett at each Australian airport through which the company operates. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Ansett Airlines is required to operate in accordance with an Aviation Security Programme approved by the Secretary to the Department of Aviation. In complying with this programme, the airline is required to provide the necessary technical security equipment. (2) Security staffing is a matter for the airline in consideration of its security programme requirements. (Question No. 509) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What individual security facilities are provided at Australian airports by Trans Australia Airlines (TAA). (2) What is the break-up of security personnel employed, directly or indirectly, by TAA at each Australian airport through which the company operates. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Trans Australia Airlines is required to operate in accordance with an Aviation Security Program approved by the Secretary to the Department of Aviation. In complying with this program the airline is required to provide the necessary technical security equipment. (2) Security staffing is a matter for the airline in consideration of its security program requirements. (Question No. 510) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What individual security facilities are provided at Australian airports by Qantas. (2) What is the break-up of security personnel employed, directly or indirectly, by Qantas at each Australian airport through which the company operates. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Qantas Airways is required to operate in accordance with an Aviation Security Program approved by the Secretary to the Department of Aviation. In complying with this program the airline is required to provide the necessary technical security equipment. (2) Security staffing is a matter for the airline in consideration of its security program requirements. (Question No. 512) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) How many aircraft operated by (a) Trans Australia Airlines (TAA), (b) Ansett and (c) Qantas leave Australian airports during the course of an average week. (2) How many of these aircraft are given security checks by direct or indirect employees of (a) TAA, (b) Ansett and (c) Qantas, in view of community concern about aircraft safety in the face of increasing international terrorism. (3) How are these checks carried out. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) More than 1100. (b) More than 1100. (c) More than 160. (2) (a) All Ansett and TAA aircraft are subject to routine security checks as part of normal pre-flight preparations and in accordance with approved airline security programs. Passengers on randomly selected airline flights of these operators are subject to pre-boarding security screening. (2) (b) All Qantas aircraft are subject to routine security checks as part of normal pre-flight preparations and in accordance with their approved airline security program. Passengers on all departing Qantas flights are subject to pre-boarding security screening. (3) In accordance with the approved airline security programs. (Question No. 513) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Aviation upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What makes and models of commercial aircraft are operated to and from Australian airports by the following airline companies (a) Trans Australian Airlines (TAA) (b) Ansett (c) Qantas. (2) How many of each model are operated by each of the three airline companies. (3) What is the age of each aircraft operated by the three airlines. (4) What is the life expectancy of each of the models operated by the three airlines. (5) Are maintenance checks increased as each aircraft grows older; if so, are these checks enforced and by whom; and are such checks carried out by employees of the individual airlines, or by independent personnel employed by a Government Department. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (2) and (3) The three major Australian airlines operate a total of 111 commercial airline type aircraft. Listed by make and model they are: MAKES &MARKS OF AIRCRAFT-TAA, ANSETT, QANTAS Company Made by Type Model No. on register oldest manuf. date most recent manuf. date TAA Airbus A300 B4-203 4 1981 1982 Boeing 727 276 12 1972 1980 Douglas DC-9 31 9 1967 1971 Fokker F27 600 3 1970 1971 ANSETT Boeing 727 277 13 1974 1981 Boeing 737 277 12 1981 1982 Boeing 767 277 5 1983 1984 British Aerospace BAe146 200A 2 1985 1985 Fokker F27 200 5 1959 1968 Fokker F27 400 5 1966 1970 Fokker F27 500 6 1975 1977 Fokker F28 1000 7 1969 1971 Fokker F28 4000 2 1982 1982 QANTAS Boeing 747 SP-38 2 1981 1981 Boeing 747 238B 19 1971 1981 Boeing 747 338 3 1984 1985 Boeing 767 238 2 1985 1985 Note: Because there are so many aircraft involved, the year of manufacture for the oldest and newest of each aircraft type has been provided. (4) The majority of the airline aircraft operated by the Airlines have no fixed retirement life. Those that do are the Fokker F27 and F28 which have a 90 000 flights limit. None of these types on the Australian Register are anywhere near this limit. The design of the structures are such that economic considerations will generally decide the replacement time. (5) Older airline aircraft are the subject of special audits to ensure the long term airworthiness of aircraft. Supplemental Inspection Programs have been promulgated in Australia for `high-time' B747, B727, F27 and F28 aircraft. A program for the DC9 is currently being developed. New aircraft such as the B767, designed to the current damage tolerance rules, have long term considerations built into the approved maintenance system. Inspections of aircraft are carried out by Airline personnel who have qualified for and been issued with the appropriate licences and certificates by the Department of Aviation. The Department is responsible for the approval of inspection programs and procedures and conducts surveillance checks to ensure compliance with procedures. (Question No. 520) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) Has the Australian Government instigated an inquiry 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. (2) Has the Australian Government considered through what intelligence the French agents knew that Norfolk Island was the most effective route through which to escape. (3) Does the Government believe that this intelligence was from inside Australia. (4) Have the Australian authorities confirmed the identity of the Frenchman who was at the Sydney picture theatre with French agent Maniguet when Federal Police arrived. (5) Have the Federal Police questioned this Frenchman since 15 July 1985; if not, are Federal Police trying to track down this person, who may be an accessory to an act of murder and terrorism. (6) Has the Government thoroughly investigated any other Australian connections, either official French agents or others. (7) Would the Australian Government concede that: (a) it would be most unlikely that no other base outside New Zealand and France was used by the French for the bombing; and (b) another country close to the scene would be needed and this other base on available evidence was Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1)-(3) I have been informed the alleged French agents did not escape from Norfolk Island. They were questioned on the Island by New Zealand Police and no charges were laid against them. (4) When the Australian Federal Police (AFP) spoke with Xavier Maniguet on 16 July 1985 he was in company with one Pierre Roussel, an Australian citizen and a resident of Sydney, New South Wales. (5) The AFP have not questioned the person Roussel since 16 July 1985. The crimes alleged against the French crew of the yacht Ouvea were committed in New Zealand and therefore the AFP can only act to assist New Zealand Police upon their request. No request to interview the person Roussel has been received by the AFP. (6) I refer the honourable senator to Senator Evans' answer to his question without notice on 9 October 1985 (Hansard, page 905). (7) (a) and (b) I have no basis on which to concede the propositions put forward by the honourable senator. (Question No. 523) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: 1. Why did the central Launceston telephone exchange fail twice during one week in August 1985 and in both instances for extended periods of time. 2. What measures have been taken to prevent the reoccurrence of these incidents and thus allay the concern of the Launceston community. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: 1. The first failure was due to a fault in one of two Central Store Multiplexor units at the exchange. The complex nature of the fault required intensive investigation on both state and national levels before the cause could be identified. The second failure occurred as a result of severe overloading of the remaining multiplexor while the faulty unit was being repaired. 2. A comprehensive technical investigation into all circumstances of the faults was initiated by Telecom and a third multiplexor unit has been installed to provide additional security for the network. (Question No. 527) Senator Brownhill asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Did a Mr Frans Andriessen, Agriculture Minister in the European Economic Community (EEC) recently visit Australia; if so: (a) what was the purpose of the visit; (b) who initiated the visit; (c) who met the expenses for the visit; (d) to which parts of Australia did Mr Andriessen travel, and with whom did he have meetings; (e) what attempts were made to examine the dairy, beef and sugar industries at the grower level; (f) what was the outcome, if any, of the visit; and (g) are there any plans to reciprocate the visit, or to repeat the visit with similar EEC officials in the foreseeable future. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: His Excellency, Mr Frans Andriessen, Vice-President of the Commission of the European Communities responsible for Agriculture visited Australia over the period 8-13 September 1985. (a) The purpose of the visit was for Mr Andriessen to have discussions with the Ministers for Trade and Primary Industry and with rural industry leaders on a range of issues including agricultural trade problems and the associated question of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. It was also intended that Mr Andriessen should see the Australian rural sector at first hand. (b) The visit followed an invitation from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry during their visit to Brussels in February 1985. (c) Mr Andriessen was invited as a guest of the Australian Government. His travel and living expenses within Australia were met by the Government. (d) The principal discussions in Mr Andriessen's program were with: Canberra, ACT: The Prime Minister, the Ministers for Trade, Primary Industry, and Foreign Affairs; The President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives; the Honourable Ralph Hunt, Opposition Spokesman for Primary Industry; members of the ALP Caucus Primary Industry, Rural and Provincial Affairs Committee. Hay, NSW: Mr I. McLachlan, President, National Farmers Federation Freeling, South Australia: Mr M. Shanahan, Senior Vice President, National Farmers Federation Adelaide, South Australia: The Honourable F. T. Blevins, MLC, Minister for Agriculture in the Government of South Australia Sydney, NSW: Dr B. Standen, Deputy Managing Director, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (e) Mr Andriessen visited wool, wheat and wine growing areas. Because of time constraints and Mr Andriessen's expressed desire to see South Australia and the wine sector, he was unable to examine dairy, beef and sugar industries at the grower level, but he was fully briefed on these sectors by Australian Ministers and the President of the National Farmers Federation. Mr Andriessen's briefing also included a video presentation of the problems facing the Australian sugar industry. Mr A. Wilkinson, a senior EC Commission official of the Agriculture Directorate-General, who accompanied Mr Andriessen, examined the dairy, beef, sugar and horticultural industries during the course of a longer visit to Australia. (f) The Minister for Primary Industry issued a press release on 10 September on the outcome of the visit by Mr Andriessen. Mr Kerin said that he had received reassurances from Mr Andriessen that the EC would continue to refrain from extending beef export subsidies to certain Asian markets and that consideration was also being given to extend the coverage of the agreement to include other markets. The Minister said that other commodity matters had been discussed with Mr Andriessen including wine, dairy products, sugar and barley and malt. Mr Kerin said that the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy had been highlighted in discussions and that an Australian submission on CAP reform had been presented to Mr Andriessen. Mr Andriessen subsequently advised in a letter to Mr Kerin that there would be no attempt by the Community to develop beef outlets in Papua New Guinea. (g) Under the present Government there has been a stepping up of contacts between Australian Ministers and the EC Commission in order to develop a more constructive dialogue on trade problems. Mr Andriessen's visit was his third meeting with Australian Ministers since February of this year. Australia/EC Ministerial Consultations were held on a formal basis annually and will next take place in Canberra in 1986. It may be expected that the process of more regular contacts between Australian Ministers and the EC Commission will continue. (Question No. 533) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) Do coeliac sufferers have to observe a strict gluten-free diet. (2) Was a commercial food list of all gluten-free products produced by the Coeliac Society with assistance from the Department of Health; if so, did this task become too large for the modest means of the Coeliac Society and were two lists then compiled and printed entirely by the Department and has the Department now ceased compiling such a list; if so, for what reason. (3) Are manufacturers required to indicate gluten content in their labelling; if not, how can consumers know if the product is safe for coeliac sufferers. (4) Will the Minister for Health ensure that an up-to-date list is prepared and distributed in view of the effect that gluten has on coeliac sufferers. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, the primary treatment of coeliac disease is the avoidance of gluten in food. Foods containing wheat, rye, barley and oats must be eliminated. (2) A ``List of Gluten Free Food Information'' has been published by my Department for more than twenty years. Apart from one issue, when the research of gluten-free foods was carried out by the New South Wales Coeliac Society, my Department has been solely responsible for obtaining, assessing, collating and finally publishing the data. My Department has not ceased to compile this list. However, because of a lack of resources, it was unable to revise the list in 1983 or 1984. (3) Current food regulations throughout Australia do not require the declaration of the presence of gluten. The Model Food Standards Regulations of the National Health and Medical Research Council which form the basis of State and Territory food law do specify content and labelling requirements for foods marketed as gluten-free for the use of coeliac disease sufferers. This regulation has already been incorporated into law in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. The National Health and Medical Research Council's Food Standards Committee regularly reviews regulations regarding food labelling and concerns about the identification of gluten content of foods have been forwarded to the Committee. (4) A ``List of Gluten Free Food Information'' is currently being compiled. I anticipate that it will be available for distribution to the appropriate people at the end of this year or early 1986. The Federal Department of Health is not the sole source of information about gluten in foods. Dietitians working in specialist clinics caring for patients with coeliac disease and Coeliac Societies themselves provide supplementary information on local availability of foods. (Question No. 542) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: (1) How many letters has the Minister for Primary Industry received on the Tasmanian woodchip issue each month since January 1985? (2) What proportion of letters has favoured changes to the present operation of the woodchip industry, for each of these months? Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1 and 2 I have received over 3,300 letters on woodchipping in Australia since January 1985. No record of those referring solely or specifically to Tasmania has been kept. Similarly, the number favouring change to the present operation of the woodchip industry is not available but I can advise that the letters cover a wide range of opinion from support for the industry to total opposition. It would not be appropriate to divert scarce staff resources from consideration of the export licence issues to extract the detailed information requested. (Question No. 543) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: (1) What activities are undertaken by the Department of Foreign Affairs for: (a) regular bilateral approaches by the Australian Embassy in Jakarta to request open access to the territory of East Timor by the Australian mission; (b) promotion of visits by the responsible non-governmental organisations to assess the human rights situation in East Timor; (c) lobbying for the reintroduction of the question of East Timor on the agenda of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights; (d) regular briefings of Australian Ministers and official visitors to Indonesia about the Government's concerns regarding human rights violations in East Timor; and (e) the raising of human rights issues in fora such as the Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia (IGGI). (2) Will the Government request the Indonesian authorities to: (a) furnish details of the particular offences of the 154 East Timorese who appeared on an Indonesian Government public list and have been tried and convicted; (b) list all other persons who have not yet been brought to trial. (3) Will the Government request the Indonesian authorities to investigate whether any persons, who are listed in an Amnesty International report as being reportedly executed or have `disappeared', are in Indonesian custody. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) Permission to visit the province of East Timor is requested by the Australian Embassy in Jakarta from time to time as the opportunity arises. There is no regular schedule of visits to the province by Australian Embassy staff who, in the normal course of their duties, visit the different provinces comprising the Republic of Indonesia. The Embassy is aware of the importance of making regular visits to provinces such as East Timor and Irian Jaya, and is seeking to increase the frequency of visits by Embassy personnel. Permission has been sought for an ambassadorial visit to the province. (b) As stated by the Prime Minister in Parliament on 22 August, Australia has, since 1979, recognised Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. This has enabled Australia to seek permission for visits to the province by Australian delegations, including by non-government organisations. The Government has also sought access to East Timor for international humanitarian organisations and aid workers because of our continuing concern about the human rights situation in the province. (c) On the basis of information available the Government does not intend to lobby to put the question of East Timor on the agenda of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The Commission voted in closed session at its 41st session in 1985 not to keep the human rights situation in East Timor under review. Australia preferred that the situation should be kept under review, and voted to keep it under review. This view was not sustained by the Commission. The closed session work of the Commission is based on matters referred to it by the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, a body of independent experts. In August each year the Sub-Commission decides which countries the Commission should examine at its next session on the basis of evidence indicating continuing and gross violations of human rights. In August 1985 the Sub-Commission decided that new communications on the human rights situation in East Timor did not warrant its re-inclusion on the list of situations to be considered in closed session at the Commission's 42nd session in 1986. While it would be possible for Australia to lobby for the consideration of East Timor in public session, new information suggesting a continuing pattern of gross violations of human rights would be required to justify this. The Government is not aware of substantial new information on the human rights situation in East Timor which could convince the Commission to take up the question. The most recent information was that presented by Amnesty and others to the 41st session, which has already been taken into account. Action on Australia's part concerning the human rights situation in East Timor should be judged primarily by our capacity to bring about an improvement in the situation. An attempt to revive the issue in public session at the Commission in 1986 in the absence of evidence of significant new developments would probably fail. Such an initiative may also weaken Australia's capacity to exert positive influence on the Indonesian authorities over events in East Timor. (d) It is standard practice for the Department of Foreign Affairs to provide briefing on aspects of the bilateral relationship to visiting Australian Ministers and officials. The content of briefing material varies according to the purpose of the visit. Human rights, including our concern about human rights in East Timor, are an important part of our bilateral relationship with Indonesia. (e) The Intergovernmental Group of Indonesia (IGGI) is a consortium of various countries, including Australia, set up in the late 1960's to disburse aid to Indonesia in accordance with sound development goals. Its primary focus therefore is the performance of the Indonesian economy. In deciding its position at IGGI meetings, the Government takes into account other considerations which have a bearing on that aspect of our relationship with Indonesia. The Government has succeeded in having one human rights issue raised at IGGI. In June 1984, Indonesia agreed to an Australian proposal that the Indonesian Government arrange a briefing on the transmigration program as a whole for interested IGGI representatives in Jakarta. This briefing was held in Jakarta in March 1985 and was attended by officers of the Australian Embassy. The Government looks forward to further constructive discussion on transmigration, including the transmigration program in Irian Jaya, with the Indonesian authorities. (2) (a), (b) and (3) Yes. The Government has sent the lists released by the Indonesian Government, to which Senator Missen refers, containing names of prisoners tried and sentenced and prisoners released, to the Embassy in Jakarta. The Embassy will request the Indonesian Government to provide details of the particular offences for which the 154 people have been tried and convicted, to list all East Timorese persons who have not yet been brought to trial and to investigate whether any persons, who are listed in the Amnesty International report on East Timor as having been executed or as having ``disappeared'', are in Indonesian custody. (Question No. 556) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) How many Customs Officers have been disciplined in the period 1982-85. (2) How many Customs Officers have been disciplined internally and how many individual officers have been charged under the criminal code. (3) Why is there such an obvious discrepancy between State branches of Customs in disciplining officers. (4) Can the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce review discipline procedures which allows a Queensland Customs Officer to be charged under the criminal code for a dispute with a senior officer over a bottle of whisky while more serious breaches of discipline have been handled internally. (5) Why is a convicted narcotics offender being retained within the Australian Customs Service while another charged over a bottle of whisky has been recommended for dismissal. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Thirty nine officers have been disciplined in the period. (2) (a) Twenty five of those were disciplined internally, that is, they were charged only under the Public Service Act. (b) The other fourteen were charged under the criminal code or the Customs Act. A number of these were also suspended under the Public Service Act pending the outcome of the Criminal proceedings. (3) I am not aware of the discrepancy to which the honourable senator refers. (4) The disciplinary procedures which apply in the Australian Customs Service are those which apply to the Australian Public Service as a whole. In August, the Comptroller General of Customs directed a study aimed at developing a specific code of conduct for Customs Officers. That work is in progress. (5) The Australian Customs Service recommended the dismissal of both officers to whom the honourable senator refers; the Public Service Disciplinary Appeal Board subsequently decided that the narcotic offender be transferred rather than dismissed. The second officer, who was convicted of a charge under the Crimes Act, has appealed against his dismissal; that appeal is still being considered by the Disciplinary Appeal Board. (Question No. 563) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Will the Minister for Health urgently assess the need for the formation of a sub-committee of the National Nursing Consultative Committee to examine the needs and issues relating to nursing in remote areas. (2) Will the Minister also ensure that remote area nurses are represented on such a committee. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The National Nursing Consultative Committee discussed the needs of remote area nurses at its meeting on 4 October and agreed that more information on remote area nurses was required. The Department's senior nurse adviser, Dr Patricia Wood, who attended the annual conference of remote area nurses in July, has been asked to prepare a report for the consideration of the Committee at its next meeting. Senator Ryan —On 23 April 1985 (Hansard, page 1358), Senator Zakharov asked me a question without notice concerning financial arrangements which are available in the Australian Capital Territory for tertiary students who need to take out loans to supplement their tertiary education assistance scheme allowances. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education both operate loan schemes to assist needy students. The institutions received $55,500 and $58,500 respectively in 1985 under the Government's new Special Assistance for Students Program, and have used these funds to supplement the funds available in their existing loan schemes. Under the schemes the institutions administer, loans at low interest rates are offered to needy students. The institutions have established committees to administer the schemes and these include representatives of students and staff. The detailed terms and conditions of the loans are the responsibility of the institutions. Senator Walsh —On 16 September 1985 (Hansard, page 551) Senator Boswell asked Senator Button, as the Leader of the Government, a question without notice about industrial action by the Transport Workers Union which was halting the air shipment of Australian beef and lamb exports. In his reply, Senator Button undertook to refer this matter to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: The Government was extremely concerned about the impositions of bans on the air freighting of meat exports and their effect on both our trading reputation and the level of export orders. A number of discussions were held with union officials in an attempt to have these bans lifted and I was personally involved in seeking to have this matter resolved. As you may be aware this dispute went before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 17 September. All bans on the air freighting of meat exports were subsequently lifted at midnight on 19 September. Senator Walsh —On 10 September 1985 (Hansard, page 320), Senator Short asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications the following question without notice: Is he aware that as part of the continuing vicious campaign waged against the Dollar Sweets Co Pty Ltd in Melbourne that company's telephone lines were cut more than a month ago? Is he also aware that legal action is to be instituted by the company against Telecom because of Telecom's failure to restore normal telephone services at the plant? Will the Minister take whatever action is within the Government's power to have Telecom instruct its employees to restore normal services as a matter of urgency before the company is forced into liquidation or will the Government continue to acquiesce in the death of this small business by the illegal and undemocratic actions of certain militant unions? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Telecommunications Commission: All faulty telephone and telex services were progressively restored to the Dollar Sweets Co Pty Ltd as from 4 September. The work was finally completed on the 10 September. All Dollar Sweets' communication facilities have been working since that date. There was a partial failure of the system on 30 September and repairs were effected that day by Telecom staff. The Camberwell District Telecom Manager has had discussions with the Managing Director of Dollar Sweets and arrangements have been made to rebate rental charges for the various services affected. Althouth legal action was foreshadowed by the company, no proceedings have been instituted against Telecom. (Question No. 179) Senator Lewis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) What Commonwealth Government leased or owned buildings in the Australian Capital Territory have had asbestos fire-retardant material removed. (2) What, if any, Commonwealth Government leased or owned buildings in the Australian Capital Territory have asbestos fire-retardant material yet to be removed. (3) What, if any, fire-retardant material is being used to replace asbestos fire-retardant material in Commonwealth leased or owned buildings in the Australian Capital Territory. (4) What provision is made in Commonwealth leased or owned buildings in the Australian Capital Territory for fire isolation doors or flaps in airconditioning trunking to prevent the spreading of fire or smoke from compartment to compartment; how many buildings have such devices fitted; and when will such fire prevention devices be fitted in all airconditioning trunking in Commonwealth leased or owned buildings in the ACT. (5) What Commonwealth leased or owned buildings in the Australian Capital Territory are fitted with fire sprinkler systems and how many are yet to be fitted. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. It should be noted that parts (3), (4) and (5) of the question were prepared in consultation with the Department of Housing and Construction as it has the relevant information and technical expertise in these areas: (1) Commonwealth Government leased and owned buildings in the Australian Capital Territory under my Department's control where asbestos fire-retardant material has been removed are listed at Attachment A. (2) Commonwealth Government leased and owned buildings in the Australian Capital Territory under my Department's control where asbestos fire-retardant material has been identified and has yet to be removed are listed at Attachment B. (3) Where asbestos-containing fire retardant material is being replaced, alternative asbestos-free fire retardant materials such as vermiculite plasters, silicate conglomerates and mineral ceramic materials are used. (4) Commonwealth owned and leased premises in the Australian Capital Territory generally comply with the requirements of the Australian Capital Territory Building Manual. The manual requires that door openings in fire rated walls which separate fire compartments are fitted with fire doors of fire shutters. It also requires air handling ducts (trunking) penetrating such walls to be designed in accordance with the relevant Australian standard. This Standard requires fire dampers (flaps) to be installed within the ducts at the wall penetration in certain circumstances. Approximately 418 buildings (71 leased) occupied by the Commonwealth Government are fitted with such devices. Based on Department of Housing and Construction records there are no known instances where any Commonwealth owned or leased premises in the Australian Capital Territory are not fitted with the fire safety devices as required. It should be noted that fire dampers are installed to resist the spread of fire rather than the spread of smoke. (5) There are 192 Commonwealth owned or leased buildings in the Australian Capital Territory protected by fire sprinkler systems. The Department of Housing and Construction has recommended to the relevant client department the installation of a sprinkler system as being appropriate for the protection of approximately 9 additional buildings in the Australian Capital Territory. Attachment A COMMONWEALTH OWNED AND LEASED BUILDINGS WHERE ASBESTOS MATERIAL HAS BEEN REMOVED Owned Buildings Administrative Building Anzac Park East Building East Block Leased Buildings Electricity House Qantas House Tasman House Wales Centre Attachment B COMMONWEALTH OWNED AND LEASED BUILDINGS WHERE ASBESTOS MATERIAL HAS YET TO BE REMOVED Owned Buildings Acton House Albemarle Building Bristol Building Cameron Offices Casey House Civic Offices South Building Deakin Offices Edmund Barton Building Hinkler Building Juliana House NBSL Laboratory, Downer Treasury Building Leased Buildings Bank House 62-64 Colbee Court, Phillip Cooleman Court 1 Farrell Place, City GIO Building Hawker Post Office 39 Jardine Street, Kingston 25 London Circuit, City Macarthur House Medibank Building MLC Building, City 14 Mort Street, City 11 National Circuit, Barton NCDC Building 7 Neptune Street, Phillip Northbourne House Prudential Building Reserve Bank Building (Question No. 207) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) How many jobs were generated in the Australian economy by domestic defence expenditure during the financial year 1982-83. (2) How many of the jobs referred to in (1) were generated- (a) directly; (b) indirectly; (c) in the primary, secondary, tertiary sectors; and (d) as a consequence of sales of defence equipment overseas (3) What was the average income per capita of each job generated. (4) What was the distribution of the jobs generated by domestic defence expenditure in the financial year 1982-83- (a) by State and Territory; and (b) according to Australian Standard Industrial Classification (ASIC). (5) How many people were employed in the Australian economy at 30 June 1983 directly and indirectly in support of the national defence effort. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Other than the usual statistics for Defence Force and civilian personnel in the Defence organisation, the Department of Defence does not maintain data of the type sought. There were 72,782 regular Defence Force personnel and 39,221 civilians in the Defence and Defence Support organisation at 30 June 1983. Following discussion with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, it is estimated that 75,000 jobs (rounded to the nearest 1000) were supported in the Australian economy by domestic Defence expenditure during the financial year 1982-83. This estimate has been prepared from an input-output analysis based on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and is subject to the caveats which typically apply to such analyses. This information is in terms of jobs supported-either directly, indirectly, or as jobs induced-rather than jobs generated. These terms are defined as: (a) Jobs directly supported include: (i) jobs that exist in public instrumentalities and private organisations which directly provide goods and services to Defence; (ii) positions occupied by regular Defence Force personnel and civilians in the Defence organisation, but excluding members of the Reserve forces and civilian inoperative staff. (b) Jobs indirectly supported include all jobs which exist as a result of spending by the recipients of the Defence dollar in jobs directly supported; and (c) Jobs induced include jobs that exist due to additional capital formation by organisations after taking into account Defence expenditure, and the consequential first round consumption effects. (2) (a), (b)- Jobs directly supported... 12,000 Jobs indirectly supported... 21,000 Jobs induced... 42,000 75,000 (c) (i) Jobs directly supported in the primary sector-Nil; in the non Defence secondary sector (defined as manufacturing)-8,000; in the non Defence tertiary sector-4,000; (ii) Jobs indirectly supported (and induced) by Defence expenditure cannot readily be dissected between primary, secondary and tertiary sectors; (d) Jobs supported as a consequence of sales of Defence equipment overseas cannot readily be derived. (3) Data on the average income per capita of each job generated is not available. (4) (a) The distribution of jobs by State and Territory can readily be estimated for directly supported jobs only as per the table below. (4) (b) Data not available. (5) See answer provided to Question 1. State Defence Organisation Directly supported jobs (non Defence) Total Australian Capital Territory... 10,623 2,110 12,733 New South Wales... 33,494 2,773 36,267 Victoria... 31,964 4,112 36,076 Queensland... 15,714 1,864 17,578 South Australia... 6,543 622 7,165 Western Australia... 3,587 201 3,788 Tasmania... 417 19 436 Northern Territory... 1,368 233 1,601 Sub-total... 103,710 11,934 115,644 Defence personnel overseas... 2,211 . . 2,211 Defence personnel on ships... 5,646 . . 5,646 Part time employees in Defence... 436 . . 436 Total... 112,003 11,934 123,937 (Question No. 306) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on Monday 20 May 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of a Press report in the National Times of 3 May 1985 concerning Government in action in assisting the United States Government with investigations into nazi war criminals. (2) What action has the Government taken to assist the United States Government with investigations into nazi war criminals. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) Requests for assistance with United States Government investigations were referred to the Australian Federal Police and the results of their inquiries were communicated to the United States Embassy. (Question No. 605) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) Has Australia either raised or spoken on the Kurdish right to national self-determination in any United Nations (UN) forum since 1945. (2) Will the Government raise the Kurdish question at any of the UN forums given the right to national self-determination of the Kurds under: (a) the Charter of the UN (Chapter XI); (b) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (Article 15, Article 21); (c) the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples 1960 (Article 1, 2); (d) the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the UN 1970; (e) the Helsinki Declaration 1975 (Article VIII); (f) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1976 (Articles 1); and (g) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976 (Article 27). Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There was correspondence with the honourable senator on the situation of the Kurdish people earlier in the year. As was said at that time, it seems clear that the Kurds, as a minority population in a number of countries, do suffer disciminatory measures. The Government has a good record in responding to clear cases of such discrimination and, in relation to the Kurds, has raised problems brought to its attention both in bilateral contexts and in multilateral human rights fora, most recently at the 41st session of the Commission on Human Rights earlier this year. As to the issue of a Kurdish right to self-determination, the Australian Government does not consider it is appropriate to view the problems of the Kurds in the context of self-determination as it is understood in the international instruments referred to. The problem is not one of national autonomy but rather, where it occurs, the oppression of members of a minority group who should freely be able to enjoy their cultural and ethnic diversity within the dominant society. The Government has not hesitated to assist the cause of numerous oppressed ethnic and religious groups. As specific violations are brought to our attention, appropriate action will be considered. (Question No. 622) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: (1) Why were certain documents removed from the file released by the Department of Primary Industry with regard to the proposal to import the Eurasian leafcutter bee (magachile rotundata) from New Zealand, including a paper by Dr Eric Mathews and Folios 85 and 86 from National Parks and Wildlife Service to the Minister for Primary Industry. (2) In which areas are the bees to be released and does the program include Tasmania. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The only document removed from the file released by my Department was a memorandum from the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service to the Department of Arts Heritage and Environment dealing with the need for an environmental impact study on the proposed release of the leafcutter bee. In accordance with normal procedures, my Department sought the approval of the authors of all documents included in the file prior to its release. The Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service advised that, `Due to receipt of further information from States and Territories subsequent to my letter of 17 January 1985, that letter does not clearly represent the position of the Service. Therefore, letter and attachments should not be included in AAHQS Information Folder to public.' (2) Current proposals involve a trial release in Keith, South Australia by the United Seed Growers of South Australia and Dr Maelzer of the Waite Agricultural Research Institute.