Friday, 8 November 1985 The Senate met at 9 a.m. The Clerk-Honourable senators, the President and Deputy President are unavoidably absent at this time. In accordance with standing order 30 the Senate may proceed to elect a senator to act as President. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That Senator Colston take the Chair of the Senate to act as President this day until such time as the Deputy President is available to take the chair. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Senator Colston) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 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 fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 150 citizens), Richardson (from 164 citizens) and Vallentine (from 105 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 as in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 657 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer- submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senators Chipp (from 72 citizens) and Zakharov (from 36 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 showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention of the Elmination 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 suppress 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 requests the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Lewis (from 38 citizens), Missen (from 490 citizens) and Zakharov (from 243 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. We the undersigned express our concern over the sale of the Belconnen Mall due to the likely detrimental effect on the provision of community facilities presently existing in the Belconnen Mall. 1. In particular we seek guarantees that the present Child Care Centre and Community Facilities be retained by incorporating the same into the conditions of sale of the Belconnen Mall and that the services will receive the same real level of funding and support currently provided by the Canberra Commercial Development authority. 2. That a financial commitment to the Building of Stage 4 of the Belconnen Mall listed under section 14C in the Ordinance of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority be undertaken. Stage 4 to consist of community facilities such as community hall, large glassed enclosed community park, exhibition space, health and fitness club, ice rink, amusement centre and office accommodation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this petition be considered. by Senator Vigor (from 466 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we urge that the Australian Government expresses its concern to Indonesia over consistent reports of widespread human rights violations in East Timor, as detailed by Amnesty International, and that the Indonesian Government be urged to take steps to prevent killings, torture and arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, as has been recently reported. We would further humbly request that the Australian government use its voice at the United Nations to lobby strongly for the reinsertion of East Timor to the Human Rights Commission Agenda; that the above human rights concerns be raised at the General Assembly when the Decolonization Committee makes its report; and that steps be taken to initiate UN conducted negotions between Indonesia, Portugal and representatives of the East Timorese people, including Fretilin. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud: (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Rae (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: i. a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, ii. subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, iii. farmer unrest at seed prices, iv. monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, v. increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 43 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, nine sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 4) 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 44 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a brief statement of explanation. Leave granted. Senator COATES —The Regulations and Ordinances Committee is concerned about a provision in this Ordinance which may have the effect of unnecessarily reversing the onus of proof. We have received an explanation from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), but the Committee remains concerned about the justification for this reversal and is requesting further advice from the Attorney-General. Today is the last day for giving a notice of motion of disallowance and I do so in order to protect the Committee's freedom of action in this matter. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with deep regret the demise of the Camelia Restaurant, Brisbane's oldest licensed restaurant, that will close its doors at 12 noon today, may it `rest in peace'; (b) condemns the Federal Labor Government for its callous disregard for all small business, but in particular the restaurant and catering industry, whose members are suffering extreme financial hardship due to the Federal Government's taxation attack on the restaurant and catering industry; (c) notes with concern the many jobs lost from the restaurant industry and that 1,500 young Queenland men and women employees have already been forced to join the dole queue; (d) congratulates the Queensland restaurant and hospitality industry for their hard-fought campaign against the Federal Government's total disregard for restaurant owners that will be forced into bankruptcy and restaurant employees that will lose their livelihood; and (e) urges all small business organisations that have been affected by the Government's draconian tax legislation to take similar action to the Res- taurant and Caterers' Association and expose this Federal Labor Government as anti-small business, anti-rural and anti-enterprise. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the Soviet Union's recent contribution to the increased militarisation and nuclearisation of the Pacific and East Asian region with the arrival at Cam Ranh Bay of the nuclear-capable battlecruiser, Frunze and the Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyer, Osmotritel; (b) recalls that the USSR stated that it would increase its presence in the region to counter the United States' deployment of sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles; (c) urges both superpowers to actually start the process of reducing their land and sea-based nuclear arsenals; and (d) supports moves for comprehensive nuclear weapons free zones in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and notes the inadequancy of the recent South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty in failing to prevent this significant escalation of the arms race. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate congratulates the Camelia Restaurant on its endeavours to spend $1 1/2m in redeveloping in the Riverside development in Brisbane. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.07) —Pursuant to notice which I gave yesterday, I move: (1) That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent paragraph (2) of this Resolution having effect. (2) That the Question on the matter of urgency moved by Senator Durack under Standing Order 64 on 6 November 1985 be put forthwith. That motion was: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to strengthen Australia's alliance with the United States through an effective ANZUS Treaty and the maintenance of joint defence facilities. The Senate will recall that the two hours for consideration of that urgency motion expired before any vote was taken and that, as a result of that, immediately it expired I moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable that motion to be put and a vote taken forthwith, on Wednesday afternoon, 6 November. Unfortunately, that motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, although supported by a very clear majority of senators, did not satisfy the requirement of Standing Orders that it should have an absolute majority of senators; I think that it was one short of that. As a result of that, I gave this notice of motion yesterday so that the matter could be rectified and a vote could be taken. That is why I have moved this motion. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.09) —I wish to inform the Senate that I may have many faults but the incapacity to count is not one of them. For that reason, it would be pointless for us to divide on such a motion, although we may oppose it. I just wish to say that on Wednesday, from my reading of the Hansard-I was not present at the time-the simple reason for Senator Gareth Evans and the Government opposing the motion was that the urgency motion itself was put up as a party political act, not an unusual thing to happen in this chamber, and it was considered necessary to demonstrate that this was so. It was considered necessary to demonstrate in both the debate and the vote that that was so, and that was done quite clearly. Senator Durack has since used a tactic that I would have used, and has moved for the suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders so that he no longer needs an absolute majority of the Senate. He quite clearly has a simple majority of the Senate to carry this motion and for that reason we will not oppose it. With the indulgence of the Senate I might just say that when the vote is taken the Government will support the urgency motion for two simple reasons. The first is that it is Australian Labor Party policy to favour an effective ANZUS Treaty. It has been stated many times by the Government that it would like to see an effective ANZUS Treaty, a Treaty that is more realistic, and one which has New Zealand in it, and therefore we cannot oppose that section of the motion. Secondly, we are willing as a government, and have said so-it is our Party policy-to host the joint defence facilities for their early warning and verification roles; we are not particularly happy to host them for their war fighting capacity. But, in light of the fact that the motion simply says `the maintenance of joint defence facilities', we cannot be hypocritical and not support the motion in that regard. That does not mean that we think that the moving of motions like this assists the American-Australian alliance any more than we think that the attitude of some members of the United States Government, as expressed in some of their actions and remarks, assists this alliance. A couple of weeks ago I represented the Australian Labor Party at a disarmament conference in Vienna. I and members of other social democratic and democratic socialist parties and governments in the world pointed out that we were in alliance with the United States, that we had such an alliance for historic and obvious political and defence purposes at the moment but that at the same time we wished to be treated as partners in such an alliance and not in the manner in which, one may say, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics sometimes treats its partners in alliance. All I can say is that at that conference a senior representative of the United States treated those of us in this alliance situation in much the manner that the USSR treats its alliance members. I do not believe that that representative did so necessarily with the approval of the United States Government or the United States President. Despite that, we still support ANZUS and we still support the maintenance of the joint defence facilities, because if we are to have disarmament we need verification and early warning systems. For that reason we will support this obviously party political urgency motion, but I repeat that breast-beating of this type by Opposition parties and attempts to enter into debates on delicate matters of foreign policy and defence in this way do not advance the cause of this country. It may help the warm inner glow of some people opposite, particularly some of those who will vote against the motion, but it does not help this country's relationship with the United States or anybody else. Having put that position, I think it would be fairly sensible, after a few more people have got up and done a bit more breast-beating, to get on with the vote that inevitably will occur. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.14) —in reply-Briefly in reply, I hope that the Senate will be able to take an early vote, and I do not want to delay the Senate on the matter. I simply cannot let some of the remarks of the Acting Leader of the Government, Senator Grimes, go without comment. The fact is that the security of our nation is the most important responsibility for this Parliament and this Senate to consider. The motion put forward by the Opposition on Wednesday afternoon reads: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to strengthen Australia's alliance with the United States through an effective ANZUS Treaty and the maintenance of joint defence facilities. Back bench members of the Australian Labor Party are now coming out in their true colours. Most of them do not like this. We have had a lot of rhetoric from the Government and from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about support for ANZUS, but the back bench members of the Labor Party do not subscribe to the principles of this motion and that is why they would not vote on it the other day. They adopted the most extraordinary tactic of squibbing the issue by voting against the motion which their Acting Leader, Senator Grimes, has this morning decided they should support. That is why the Opposition moved this motion; not for the political tactics or reasons that Senator Grimes has suggested. I hope we will now be able to have a vote on this and let those members of the back bench of the Labor Party show us whether they do or do not support the rhetoric of their Prime Minister. Senator Grimes —I take a point of order, Mr Acting President, as I believe I should do so. The previous speaker, Senator Durack, has suggested that I decided how my colleagues would vote. We do not operate in that way. The reason there was no vote on Wednesday was that the Opposition added an extra speaker and talked the time out. If it cannot organise its affairs it will end up in this sort of situation. The ACTING PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, you know quite well that that is not a point of order. The question is: That the motion moved by Senator Durack be agreed to. Those of that opinion say `aye'; to the contrary `no`. I think the ayes have it. The question now is: That the question on the matter of urgency moved by Senator Durack under standing order 64 on 6 November 1985 be put forthwith. Those of that opinion say `aye'; to the contrary `no'. I think the ayes have it. We will now move to the placing of business. Senator Chipp —Mr Acting President, I rise to a point of order. You have not put the substantive motion. Senator Chaney —I wish to speak to the point of order. I heard you say that the motion should be put forthwith. Although I thought we had already voted on that, that is what you actually indicated to the Senate chamber. I think you have not actually put the substantive motion before us forthwith. The ACTING PRESIDENT —To make sure that we know what we are doing, I will put the following question: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to strengthen Australia's alliance with the United States through an effective ANZUS Treaty and the maintenance of joint defence facilities. The Senate divided (The Acting President-Senator M. A. Colston) Ayes ... 58 Noes ... 6 Majority ... 52 AYES Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A.W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Morris, J. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, Robert Colston, M. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller) Cook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K.W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Giles, P. J. Townley, M. Grimes, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. NOES Chipp, D. L. Siddons, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vallentine, J. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Referral to Standing Committee Debate resumed from 5 November, on motion by Senator Hamer: 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. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.25) —The Senate has before it a motion moved by my colleague Senator Hamer, 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. In the absence of other honourable senators wishing to speak on this motion, Senator Hamer has asked me to speak on his behalf and to make the remarks he would have wished to make at the conclusion of the debate on his motion. As the Senate is aware, Senator Hamer, in his capacity as Deputy President, is fulfilling certain formal functions relating to the royal visit this morning and therefore he is unable to conclude the debate on his own motion. The Senate is debating a motion moved by Senator Hamer under Standing Order No. 196A. It states: 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 motion has been moved because the Bills are obviously defective-a position which has been accepted by the Australian Democrats, who have planned to move a substantial number of amendments in the Committee stage. 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; and the Inter-State Commission is producing a report on cost recovery for interstate road and rail services. These are serious defects which will not easily be corrected. There is no hurry for these Bills. They cannot be proclaimed before the middle of next year at the earliest. In the view of the Opposition, they are perfect examples of the sorts of Bills which should be referred to a Senate legislative committee for public examination. Opposition members of the Standing Committee on National Resources are confident that such consideration could be completed by the first sitting day of February 1986. What is the alternative to referring these Bills to the Standing Committee? It is that we immediately go into the Committee of the Whole here where we are unable to have any of the experts and the people affected by the legislation. Senator Vigor has heard representations from some individuals and has done a deal with the Government to get these amendments accepted. But are these amendments all that is necessary? Even more, do not the amendments proposed create new problems, which people affected might be able to point out to us? I do not know, but I am sure of one thing-the Australian Democrats do not know either. It seems to me an irresponsible and totally unnecessary action to rush these Bills through the Senate when there is a standing committee set up to consider legislation in detail and when the result of such consideration would undoubtedly result in better Bills than we could produce by rushing them through the Senate today. The only argument that Senator Vigor of the Australian Democrats produced in favour of rushing the Bills through was that this would encourage the States to pass the essential complementary legislation. I do not believe that the passage of these Bills by this Parliament would affect by even one day the date on which the States would pass their legislation. The agreement to pass complementary legislation is already in place and the States would be encouraged rather than discouraged if this Parliament properly considered this legislation before passing it. There is no urgency whatever for us to pass these Bills. Early next session would provide a generous margin for implementation. I urge the Government and the Australian Democrats-I shall come back to the twisting and conniving of the Australian Democrats to avoid their own party policy on this matter-to think again and refer this Bill to a Senate legislative committee for proper examination, for proper input from experts and for thorough and proper input from those people in the road transport industry whose livelihoods depend on our getting this legislation right. I would like to deal with one other point. During the earlier discussion of this motion the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, interjected: `This is just another delaying tactic'. It is nothing of the sort. I suppose that, in a sense, every minute given by the Parliament to consideration of Bills is a delay. The bureaucrats and the Executive would like Parliament to be a mere rubber stamp for their proposal. Nevertheless, we have a duty, as the legislature and as the elected representatives, to see that Bills are properly examined, always bearing in mind, of course, the necessity for timely enactment of the legislation. Timeliness is not a problem with this Bill. The Government is planning or hoping to push something like 67 Bills through this Senate before we rise in December. There is no way we can give proper consideration to these Bills without using our supporting committee system which was designed to make our consideration of Bills more effective. The Opposition has been through the Government's proposed legislative program and a committee consisting of Senator Hamer, Senator Peter Rae and myself has examined this in detail and has listed 19 Bills which, in our opinion, would benefit from being publicly examined by a Senate committee and which could afford to wait until early next year for passage through the Senate. I am sure that everyone who has served on a Senate committee examining a Bill would agree that the result of such examination is a much better Bill than that which was originally produced. It is our duty to produce proper legislation, not to rush Bills through in a frantic panic in the last and late nights of a session. Therefore, as each of these 19 Bills comes up we will be moving to refer it to an appropriate committee. I repeat to Senator Vigor, through you, Mr Acting President, for we are looking for support from his party for the proper examination of Bills, that this is not a delaying tactic. It is part of our duty to ensure that legislation is properly drawn and to ensure that this Parliament does not accidentally or unwittingly make mistakes which would affect the lives or livelihoods of people whom we are supposed to be elected to serve. The debate on this matter has gone on for some time. It will be recalled that, in terms of the motion originally moved last May by Senator Chaney and referred to again by Senator Hamer in his remarks, if our proposals had been accepted this debate would have been curtailed to 30 minutes and that would not have left us open to the accusation of wasting time. I want to draw Senator Vigor's attention to a document which he may never have seen. It is entitled `Australian Democrats Policy Papers-Part 3'. I presume that Senator Vigor has never had the benefit of studying this document. Therefore I propose, through you, Mr Acting President, to enlighten him as to what the formal policy of his own party is in this regard. On page 8, under the heading `Parliamentary Reform' and the sub-heading `Joint Parliamentary Standing Committees', the document states: Surveillance by Parliament of the Executive and of public administration should be strengthened by the establishment of a powerful committee system. All government activity should be open to scrutiny by committees, which should also assist Parliament by making members more aware of matters which need to be dealt with. Committees will also provide a specific mechanism to ensure due consideration of any matter brought before Parliament . . . The document goes on to state that there should be ample time for this study. Let me take Senator Vigor to page 9 of this policy document. Under the heading `Policy Items' and the sub-heading `Legislation' paragraph 6 states: While a Bill is before Parliament it will be scrutinised, clause by clause, including any delegations of power, by the relevant Standing Committee. Here we have the Australian Democrats-the proponents of the political principle of keeping the bastards honest. On this occasion we will be able to test which of the Australian Democrats-I hesitate to use their own terminology-will be found honest in this matter. Here are the policy papers of the Australian Democrats. Here is a clear statement that while a Bill is before Parliament it will be scrutinised clause by clause, including any delegation of power by the relevant standing committee. On this particular matter the Democrats apparently are in the process of refining hypocrisy into an art form and, indeed, their political twistings on this matter would make any cork-screw look like a ramrod. We have, therefore, the opportunity to put it squarely to the Australian Democrats. They keep telling us that the important thing in Parliament and in parliamentary legislation is that we should adhere to the principles upon which we were elected and that we should take our Party platforms and work for their implementation. Here, for the first time in the course of this session, is a motion moved which is 100 per cent in accordance with the formal policy statement of the Australian Democrats. On the first occasion that they are asked to adhere to their own printed document, to their own formal policy, they are about to squib, they are about to rat and they are about to betray. They are once again about to demonstrate the value of the word as given in policy statements of the Australian Democrats. Senator Sheil —That word `scrutinise' is a bit big for them. Senator PUPLICK —Indeed. I happen to have had the great advantage of hearing Senator Macklin on the radio on the PM program on 6 November. He was discussing the Bill which he has before the Parliament about democratic elections. He was discussing why it was necessary to bring that into the Senate for debate and why he expected the Australian Labor Party to support it. As I was listening I wrote down his exact words. He said: We must make sure the Labor Party abides by its own policy. All we are doing is asking the Australian Democrats to abide by their own policy. Here they come into the chamber and castigate the poor members of the Australian Labor Party and say: `All we want to do, members of the Government, is to invite you to abide by your own policy'. I say to our colleagues in the Australian Democrats in moving this motion: All we invite you to do is abide by your own policy. We are perfectly happy to judge the integrity of the Australian Democrats as a political force in this chamber by measuring them, not against our tests, but simply against the tests which they erect for themselves and put forward in their own policy documents. As I have said, the motion moved by Senator Hamer is part of a campaign upon which the members of the Opposition will be embarked between now and the end of this session and well into the next session. That process is to identify those Bills coming before the Parliament which clearly require some additional parliamentary scrutiny before they are debated in this chamber or before they are considered in the Committee of the Whole. We have identified, as I said, 19 pieces of legislation which ought to be subject to that. We will be moving precisely this motion on each occasion that one of those 19 pieces of legislation comes before us for consideration. We will watch, wait and see what the Australian Democrats do about this. One thing which is not in doubt is that these two pieces of legislation require further amendment. The Democrats have recognised that by seeking to move amendments or to give notice of lengthy, detailed and complex amendments in the Committee of the Whole. At the moment the Democrats are rushing around the countryside attempting to drum up support for all sorts of propositions, to tell us that in fact they regard this as a matter of great moment. I am reminded that Senator Vigor has a proposition before the Senate that there ought to be an additional select committee, one specificially to deal with the question of transport because he regards this as so important and urgent a matter and the sort of thing that ought to be considered. We agree that it ought to be considered. We agree that there are many people unhappy with the legislation. We do not necessarily have to go out to those people and ask them to send us telegrams telling us what a good job we are doing on their behalf. We know full well that we will be judged on our actions in this matter. Those who have an interest in seeing this legislation properly debated and improved will be grateful, without our soliciting them for telegrams of support to boost our egos and to remind us what good fellows we are in the course of this debate. We have not given assurances, as Senator Vanstone so cogently pointed out the other evening in reference to the assurances given by Senator Vigor to various public meetings around the place, that the legislation will be delayed until 1 December or that some crummy, under the table or behind the chair deal will be done with the Government to get this amendment accepted as a trade-off for passage by this particular date. We do not happen to believe in legislation by covert deal. We happen to believe in legislation by public examination; we happen to believe that legislation ought to be examined in full light of public scrutiny, public debate and public participation through use of the Senate committee system. It is not our proposition that government and, in particular, members of minor opposition parties, should get together and cobble together some covert deal, saying: `Give me these amendments and I will give you the Bill by such and such a date so that we can make electoral heroes of ourselves'. We happen to have far higher standards than that. I once thought the Australian Democrats had far higher standards than that. I was one of these naive people who actually believed that when the Australian Democrats put something in their formal platform and in their policy statements they might actually be persuaded once in a while to adhere to it. I thought that in terms of keeping the bastards honest that was going to be a touchstone of permanent value for the Senate. I now find that honesty is a tradeable commodity, that honesty is a commodity which can be bargained away as far as deals done with the Government are concerned. If anything, this debate has served two useful purposes: First, it will allow us to determine whether in fact the Democrats have a genuine commitment to the Senate committee system; secondly, it will allow us to determine whether the Democrats have any commitment to their own policy statements. We will be able to judge and to weigh them on that basis. We are not asking for a delay which will unnecessarily hamper or prevent the passage of this legislation, or indeed will in any way interfere with the States passing the necessary complementary legislation to give effect to the overall package. We are saying that these Bills are defective. The issue is important. The Senate has the expertise and the resources to be able to do something about it. What it needs on this occasion, because of the balance of votes in this chamber, is the commitment of the Australian Democrats to see the Senate committees work, see the Senate committee system expanded and used in the way that it ought to be and to see the two pieces of interstate road transport legislation examined, reported upon and improved prior to their passage, which could then be facilitated in the early part of the session in 1986. We will watch, we will judge and we will see on this occasion just how honest the `bastards' really are. The ACTING PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Before I call the Minister for Veterans' Affairs I indicate that the terminology that was used in the last sentence or so is probably something that we should refrain from using in this chamber. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.44) —The Government does not accept the second attempt being made by the Opposition to delay this legislation. In the debate that took place on the legislation last Tuesday an attempt was made by the Opposition to delay it. Now we have the assurance of Senator Puplick that that is not the intention. Nevertheless, the motion we are debating today-incidentally, it was moved after the conclusion of the second reading debate, taking advantage of a standing order-seeks to have this legislation referred to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. It is a rather hollow tactic on the part of the Opposition to prevent the Senate in a four-day sitting from passing one piece of legislation. This will be due substantially to the tactics the Opposition has adopted during this sitting week. It is just not true to say that inadequate or unfair consultation has taken place in respect of this legislation. For the past two years the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), in his inimitable style of seeking views, and compromise where views cannot be accepted, from the States and other interested parties, has brought down a fast track package of legislation which will have the effect of substantially meeting the needs of the industry. The legislation was formulated on the basis of extensive consultation with all the major political parties ensconced in the State parliamentary area. It is a tribute to the Minister that he has been able to reach substantial agreement with National Party, Liberal Party and Labor Party governments because not even within the Labor Party is there necessarily a common position on matters affecting Commonwealth jurisdiction on which there are State views and which involve States' rights. This legislation was debated at length in the House of Representatives some weeks ago. It is wrong to suggest that somehow or other the legislation which has come into this place does not represent the consensus and the compromise approach which has been the objective of the Government in respect of the legislation, knowing full well that the introduction of legislation that does not have the support of the States and cannot, therefore, be portrayed as representing a genuine view in respect of State attitudes means that its passage in the Senate will be rather torrid. Senator Puplick, who was forced to carry a brief at short notice, spent half his time denigrating or attempting to embarrass the Australian Democrats. He put up a pretty implausible argument as to why the legislation should be put aside. It is clear that the Opposition has no coherence on this matter. In the debate that has taken place on these two pieces of legislation affecting the national attitude to our fast track industry, the important road transport industry, most of the Opposition senators said that they supported the legislation and its general thrust. Yet, when it comes to the nitty gritty of dealing with this matter in a cogent and sensible fashion, Senator Puplick seeks support for a part time amendment to refer the legislation to a committee. This would achieve the same objectives as the amendment that was defeated in the Senate on Tuesday night. That is why Senator Puplick has spent so much of his time, not debating the logic or illogic of the Opposition's policy attitude to the legislation, but rather attempting to make some sort of an impassioned plea to the Democrats to change their view as expressed in the vote on Tuesday night and vote for the amendment which, if accepted by the Senate, would probably mean that no legislation at all would be passed in this sitting week. The Government has the responsibility of governing. In this session it has brought down these two pieces of legislation to meet that objective. A committee was set up which reported to the Parliament in September 1984. Since that time the Minister has spent countless hours as, indeed, have his officers, in travelling throughout Australia talking to the leaders of the industry and the States and coming to a conclusion which will have to be accepted. This conclusion was reached in a spirit of compromise; nevertheless it met the basic thrust and the basic responsibility of a national government to produce a piece of legislation that would establish some measure of influence, control and jurisdiction in respect of the road transport industry. Since this legislation was being discussed in the House of Representatives we have had correspondence, telexes and other indications from the States of support for the general principles of the legislation. On 17 September, Mr Hinze, the Queensland Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing, said in a telex: Given the constitutional realities, and the complexities of other alternatives Queensland agrees that the Commonwealth Government should implement the type of scheme proposed. He then went on to say: Generally, there has been good co-operation between Commonwealth and State officials working out the administrative details of the scheme. One Labor Minister, the Western Australian Minister for Transport, in a letter of 21 October-that was after the House of Representatives had passed the legislation and referred it to the Senate-said: My Government accepts that the Commonwealth is acting in good faith with this legislation, for the benefit of the States. Of course, the gem of them all is the statement of the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Gray, made on 20 October 1985 in a welcoming speech to the Australian Road Transport Federation. He said: 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. One is therefore entitled to ask what is the Opposition's strategy and what are the problems for the Opposition? Is it that the Opposition, having said in debate that it generally supports the legislation, is taking the delaying, obstructionist tactics which have been a feature not all the time but from time to time of the tactics of the Opposition in the Senate when we have had Federal Labor governments? It is just not true to say that somehow or other the Government is acting improperly or that it is not acting in concert with the States. It is also not true to say that it does not have the substantial support of the industry itself. Listening to the debate on this legislation one could come to the only conclusion that the Government is faced with an Opposition that is playing an obstructionist role. For example, in the debate on Tuesday the Opposition moved an amendment to the motion for the second readings, and that was defeated. The Opposition then indicated that in the Committee stage it would move 50 amendments which were clearly designed to bog the Senate down and to create difficulties in the passage of this legislation. Will we be confronted with that action, assuming that the Senate does not agree with the new tactic that has obviously been thought out by the Opposition front bench? Will the Senate be put in such a position whereby, the Opposition having taken the opportunity to move an amendment at the second reading stage-I appreciate that that is a definite tactic-it will be bogged down with 50 amendments from the Opposition? There have been discussions with the Opposition and with the Australian Democrats. A measure of goodwill and co-operation has been extended by the Minister in the way in which he has operated not only in this place but also in discussions that took place with the industry and with State representatives. We concede that it is not always possible to accommodate everything that is asked for when there is a conflict of views, but the Government believes that the legislation is a reasonable compromise. Therefore, any suggestion that some fast track tactic is involved, that we are trying to prevent the Senate from exercising its review responsibilities and that somehow or other we are denying the normal and logical debate processes on this legislation, falls down completely because there is no evidence to suggest that the Government's approach to this matter is not fair and reason- able. It is just an example of the democratic rights of sections of the industry to present another viewpoint. Who do we accept represents the viewpoint of the industry? One small group that is very vocal has a right to present its view to government, the Opposition and to any other person involved in the debate on the issue. We concede that. Nevertheless, the Government has set itself the responsibility of having this legislation passed so that we can begin the process that Mr Gray suggested, that is, the process of complementary legislation which has to flow from State jurisdictions. We know that the passage of this legislation does not mean that as from Monday next, for example, all things will fall into place and another area of consultation with the States will take place as they begin the process of bringing in their complementary legislation. That is the way in which governments and Ministers should operate when we have to deal with six States. We should have consultation with not only the States but also the Territories. We are attempting to establish some form of uniformity in road safety standards; we are attempting to establish a package which will protect the interests of the operator, particularly the small operator. He may not see it that way. Nevertheless, that is the strategy of the Government and that is the strategy that everybody associated with the industry accepts is fundamental if we are to bring about a cogent and coherent policy in respect of the road transport industry. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.57) —The speech made by Senator Puplick before that of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) was an interesting one. Obviously he had sifted his way through Roget's Thesaurus in order to come up with the colourful language that he used and weave it into one short speech. The unfortunate thing about it is that it is a Johnny-come-lately speech on this whole operation. He is obviously totally unaware of the negotiations that have been going on with his Party with regard to the reference of Bills to committees. It is a pity that a range of items about not engaging in any discussions or activities was not recorded in Hansard because that is precisely what his front bench and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) have been doing with us. I suppose one cannot blame him, having been fed in with very little briefing, for trampling over the area on which his front bench colleagues have been walking. I will simply rehearse, in brief-I do not wish to hold up or contribute in any way to the Opposition filibuster on this matter-that the proposition of sending Bills to a committee for scrutiny and report is one with which we have indicated we agree in principle. We have done that by letter and publicly and we hold to that proposition. However, we have said that we saw in that proposal, which was basically the proposal put forward in a notice of motion by Senator Chaney and debated some time ago, a range of practical difficulties. I will enumerate some of those difficulties which were encompassed in a letter sent to the people who were negotiating this matter on behalf of the Opposition parties. Since it was a letter I was invited to write to a particular person, I do not intend reading it because I assume that that would be seen to be confidential information. I will refer to the seven basic problems we saw. One was that it was suggested that we agree to allowing a debate of 30 minutes for every item. We have already seen this operating today. Since six or seven items are sometimes placed on the Notice Paper to agree to that proposition by way of sessional order would decrease the debating time on legislation by some three hours a day. Since on most debating days we do not manage to get three hours of debate on Bills, it would mean that no government legislation would proceed at all. The second problem relates to references to committees in the numbers that have been indicated by Senator Hamer in his notice of motion earlier this week, an extract of which appears in the motion which we are currently debating. We raise objections to that based on the time for the standing committees to meet, have a hearing and produce a report, and the staff resources which would be able to be provided for that. On a one-off basis those types of problems do not occur, but we are not talking about a one-off basis here. If we refer to the 19 Bills which are the subject of the proposition before us, we see that we are talking about a massive hike. We will find in a debate later in this chamber on the Appropriation Bills that we will have to make some fairly hard decisions about how the resources available to this chamber are allocated. The third proposition is that the standing committees need to be augmented. Senator Vigor has drawn attention to one hiatus and other honourable senators have drawn attention to other parts which are missing from our standing committees which would prevent a comprehensive coverage of all legislation. The fourth problem is that the sittings of the Senate would need to be changed radically to accommodate such operations. We already know that this chamber sits for fewer days than most comparable chambers around the world. Unless honourable senators are willing to reduce the number of days we sit, finding additional time for senators to appear on those committees will be somewhat difficult. I draw attention to the fact that senators often serve on more than one committee; the average is sometimes three or four committees. That applies to almost every senator in this place, particularly with the recent addition of two select committees. The fifth problem relates to implications in terms of Hansard reporting staff, particularly if, as has been projected, a number of committees meet at the same time. Only a certain number of Estimates committees can meet at the same time, so that the idea of every standing committee meeting at the same time, plus some of our select committees, is simply not feasible at the moment. Sixthly, there is evidence before the Senate that the establishment of the Estimates committees to investigate in a detailed manner the subject matter of the Appropriation Bills so that the Committee of the Whole-Senator Puplick referred to this-need not go on as long as one might otherwise have thought has failed. Since 1979 the average time spent in Committee on Appropriation Bills, after all the Estimates committees have dealt with them, is 16 1/2 debating hours, which is just over a week of the Senate's sitting time. That is more than the amount of time it used to take before the Estimates committees operated, so we are looking not at a decrease in the time which the chamber will sit if we do more committee work, but an increase. We would welcome that, but every honourable senator ought to know what it is about and the decision ought to be made by every honourable senator, not just those in the Opposition parties. Seventhly, the parallels which have been drawn between the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and reference of Bills to committees are totally fallacious. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee operates on a quasi-objective basis, whereas sending Bills to a standing committee, fairly obviously, is a political operation. That is fair enough and we would agree with that. I remind Senator Puplick, because he was not here at the time, that every time we moved for a reference to a committee the Fraser Government kicked and screamed blue murder. Every time it resisted to a vote sending any Bill to a committee. So let us not have the pompous type of moralising from Senator Puplick, which really does not befit the type of proposition he is talking about. Senator Puplick —What happened to the Freedom of Information Bill? Senator MACKLIN —Senator Puplick has already spoken. If he wants to get up and speak again, he can seek leave. The proposition which Senator Puplick was asking us to accept went way beyond that which Senator Hamer was asking us to accept. Senator Puplick's proposition was that any Bill which the Opposition feels should be sent to a committee should be so sent to a committee. Senator Teague —No, that is not our view. Senator MACKLIN —That is what Senator Puplick said. The difficulty with that proposition is that the normal method by which this chamber sends Bills to a committee is in fact by a majority of this chamber voting to send those Bills to a committee. We do not want to subscribe to the minority running this place. Senator Puplick —That is a great line, coming from the Democrats. Senator MACKLIN —I invite Senator Puplick to look at the Hansard to see whether at any time a decision made here was not made by a majority. The proposition to which Senator Puplick referred related to the necessity for some Bills to be scrutinised by a committee. We have wholeheartedly accepted that proposal in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Indeed, we have already indicated an attraction to the proposition of more Bills being sent to committees. When the Liberal and National parties were in government they would have resisted valiantly any attempt to have this proposition imposed on them, as it were, in one fell swoop. We have proposed that any such proposition should be given to the Government. We have said that at some period in the future, when the Government has reorganised its legislative program, we propose to support a proposition to send more Bills to committees. I think that is the way to do it. That is a reasonable proposition, which, if Senator Puplick were sitting on the other side of the chamber, I am sure he would support. The Democrats are attempting to be fair to the Government's program as it is currently brought forward and also to be fair to increasing the scrutiny which this chamber is able to provide. I think that is a laudable objective. Other proposals have been put forward. For example, it has been suggested that we do away with most of our second reading debates and increase the amount of time that would thus be released for more detailed debate in the Committee of the Whole. That seems to me to be an interesting suggestion that would be worth while entertaining and debating. We have suggested that this proposal ought to be examined by a committee. We think there is a logic in that. If one feels so strongly about the committee system, one should not be resisting an inquiry into that proposal. However, we find resistance from the Opposition parties to having the proposed changes in this chamber examined by a committee. It seems a very odd situation. We feel that a committee inquiring into the legitimate and worthwhile proposals that have been brought forward probably would come up with some new proposals by which this chamber may be able to proceed with its business. In conclusion, I bring to the attention of the Senate that currently, before the House of Representatives meets next week, on the Senate Notice Paper we have 60 Bills. This week we have already spent eight hours discussing so-called matters of public importance and we will discuss such a matter again today. As I have said on other occasions, when one looks at how important the matters of public importance are, one feels that the Government of this country cannot be dealt with evenly by the Senate or the House of Representatives if the Senate feels that many of those matters are so urgent and important that they have to be debated today, having been debated last week, the week before and the week before that. What we would urge now is a Committee of the Whole debate. We have prepared complex amendments-yes, Senator Puplick, they are complex. They have been circulated to honourable senators and to the Opposition shadow Minister and doubtless have been the subject of investigation within the Opposition's party structure. We believe that these are the amendments which are needed finally to bring together the Bill as it is. It is not a difficult Bill; it is not a complicated Bill; it is a fairly straightforward Bill. It is one which has been debated for a fair amount of time. Senator Archer —What did you say it was? Good heavens! Senator MACKLIN —I am sorry if Senator Archer finds it too complicated; but then, he might find the ABC complicated. If he wants to have a look at a complicated Bill, I suggest that he come in when we discuss the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) in the House. He would then see what a complicated Bill looks like. This is a relatively straightforward Bill. It is a very important Bill; I am not denying that. One would hope that the debate that we will be able to have in the Committee of the Whole will be sufficient to reform the Bill in a way which I think will be acceptable to the majority of honourable senators. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.11) —I do not want to delay this Bill but I rise briefly. I feel it necessary to be rather less charitable to Senator Puplick than was my colleague, Senator Macklin, who is perhaps of a kinder and more generous disposition than I am. Senator Puplick's speech was facile, but much less than honest. I do not blame him for that. That was basically because the total Liberal-National Party enterprise which is now under way is much less than honest. Senator Puplick made a specific attack on the Australian Democrats, saying that we have policies in certain directions and that he felt we should abide by them. Australian Democrat policy covers a huge ambit of action, which would indeed, if it came into legislative form, transform Australia into a modern and prosperous democracy. Meanwhile, however, we have to live with the real and far from ideal world of today's politics. Senator Puplick knows that just as well as I do. As Senator Puplick generously conceded to us, we have to carry out our task of keeping the bastards honest. It is not always easy, but we do our best one way and another. As I said in this place yesterday, the Government has continued to resist-and has given clear notice through the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, that it will continue to resist-giving this Senate the financial means, the staff and the facilities to carry out its committee functions properly. That is the real world in which we live, and Senator Puplick knows that as well as I do. I reiterate what Senator Macklin said: When there was a Liberal-National Party Government, it resisted any idea that the Senate should have more independence and that it might be able to increase its committee system. I am hoping very much that as we get further into considering the recommendation of Estimates Committee A to us, the Liberal Party will follow what Senator Puplick is saying and not sell him out, because unless the Opposition passes that resolution of Estimates Committee A as it stands, the Opposition will be much less than honest itself. I am saying this in the interests of keeping the Opposition honest. Think about it for a while. In spite of Senator Puplick's pious words, his own Party in government has just as bad a record as the Australian Labor Party has in not letting the Senate committee system work. Of course the Democrats would like to see every Bill referred to a committee; of course we would like to do these things that Senator Puplick has said. But we cannot do it if the Opposition and the Government connive, later on this week or next week, to see that the committee system of the Senate is not extended. I will just leave these words in the minds of Opposition senators, and we will see what happens by next week. When we debate that matter, perhaps I will remind Opposition senators of what has been said today. The real fact of the matter is that this is a political ploy on the part of the Opposition. There is apparently, I gather-and we have our sources of information-the strongest desire in certain States, especially South Australia but possibly also Tasmania and Western Australia, where, believe it or not, there will soon be State elections, not to have this legislation passed for a while because it is felt that it might be the sort of legislation that rocks the boat where a minority group is concerned; to wit, the truckies. I suggest that this is really the reason behind what the Opposition is doing, and the Opposition is being less than honest in not admitting it. Perhaps Senator Messner will get up and admit it. I am sure we will have triumphed if that ever happens, but somehow I doubt that it will. My next point is that we have a vast amount of legislation before us still to get through. We are getting well towards the end of this session of Parliament. We have not done all that much this week. I do not think we have passed even a single Bill this week, largely due to the fact that every day the Opposition has put up quite inane and repetitive matters of public importance, which has been done before over and over again. Opposition senators know as well as I do that they like to pull the old speech out of the drawer; it is much easier if they can bring up an old subject again because they do not have to go to the trouble of writing a new speech. I think it is getting a little bit tedious one way and another that they do this. Senator Archer —Have you spoken on them? Senator MASON —I have not spoken on a matter of public importance this week, not once. I have not and I would not do so, because the Government has told us that it has a lot of Bills it wants to get through which it considers necessary to the good government of this country. The Democrats have taken a pledge not to unreasonably block, delay or interfere with government legislation, except for the best of reasons. Things being what they are, we, in close consultation with the community and the interest groups concerned, make that decision. We have made such decisions before and we will make them again. Whether we want it or not, that happens to be our responsibility, and we are not shuffling it off on the Opposition's behalf. In our judgment, this is not such a case. There is not a good reason for putting this Bill to a committee and delaying it. I am very concerned at what is looking very much like a filibuster on the part of the Opposition, and the Opposition knows perfectly well what our attitude towards filibusters is. We hold our hand over the Opposition and we allow Opposition senators the right to speak. Without us they would not get it; they could be gagged and guillotined every day. We give the Opposition that right, but it is up to us to decide when the Opposition is being naughty and it is being naughty now. I suggest, my little friends, that you might stop doing that. Senator Archer —`Admonish' is the word. Senator MASON —I have a reason for saying that and it is this. What are we playing with here? I want to get this back into its proper proportions. We are playing with a matter of the life and death of Australians on the road every day. Opposition senators know as well as I do that, if they delay this Bill, that will create a significant number of deaths which would otherwise probably have been avoided. Senator Puplick —Oh, what rubbish! Senator MASON —Wait a minute, Senator Puplick. The purpose of this Bill is to so regulate truck traffic on Australian roads as to make them less amenable to accidents. Senator Puplick knows that as well as I do, and I suggest he consult his conscience on it. If we delay this Bill, it will be at the cost of the safety and lives of Australians using the roads. We know perfectly well that most truckies are good, respectable drivers. Some of them are not. It is those ones who are not that we are trying to get at. Everybody who drives a car in this country has had an unpleasant experience with a truck on the road. To some of them that unpleasant experience has meant being a paraplegic for the rest of their lives, a long stay in hospital, or being killed. That is not good enough for the Australian Democrats. We will not tolerate the Opposition playing political games on this basis. As I said, from experience the Opposition knows what our attitude is towards filibustering. I only hope that this filibuster will not continue into the Committee stage of this Bill. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.18) —I must say that I am provoked by the unrestrained hypocrisy of Senator Mason to stand and at least address some of my remarks to this outrageous display of misbehaviour on the part of the Australian Democrats when the Liberal Party is taking such a principled position in referring to a committee a Bill of very great controversy and very great concern to the Australian community. I am drawn even more by looking at the Notice Paper and noting that Senator Vigor himself, in a notice of motion on 23 August this year, has already moved for the creation of a Senate Committee on Transport. Surely the Democrats, with Senator Vigor's leadership in this, are clearly interested in investigating further the question of road transport in this country, and its relationship with rail transport and so on. Yet they stand in this place and want to push through legislation which has demonstrable opposition from the State governments and are now trying to act against the interests of the State parliaments in terms of what they might have to say on these matters. Senator Vigor until just now has been leading the debate on this matter, but I notice that other senators have had to take it out of his hands because he is simply too much of an embarrassment to the Democrats, having already put down this notice of motion on the Notice Paper. Clearly, that is a very difficult and tricky position for the Democrats to be in at this time, when one of their members is saying `We ought to refer matters of transport to a committee of the Senate to investigate the whole matter' while Senator Mason and other Democrat senators are saying: `We ought to push the Bill through as quickly as possible'. If anybody is confused it has to be the Democrats. What about the Democrats, for once, standing up in this place and giving us their honest opinion about what is right for this country, instead of playing politics with every little piece of influence in the community in the way that they do. Whether it is on tax, transport or any other issue, they are to be found wanting on principle. I have two simple questions for the Government on this matter. It seems to me that some quite significant points have not really been explained. Why is it that we have to rush this legislation through the Federal Parliament at this time when it will not have effect before 1 July 1986 and when the States must pass complementary legislation before that time and there are some six or eight months for that to happen? Why is it that we have to push this through now? Senator Gietzelt —So that the States can respond. Senator MESSNER —Why is it that the Federal Parliament has to take the lead in this matter and why is it that it has to push this matter through now when the States have not, through their parliaments, expressed a view on it? It smacks of some kind of jack-booted approach by the Federal Government-which is typical, of course, of the Hawke Labor Government-in trying to press its opinions upon the States. We want to know why it is that the Parliament has to face this Bill at this time. The second question is simply this: Even though the essence of this legislation is the imposition of a registration fee of, I understand, $1,400 on interstate registered vehicles, there is also to be, concurrent with that, a requirement that vehicles have a monitoring device attached. It seems to me that the purpose of that monitoring device is nothing other than to control the mileage done by vehicles over the roads of Australia. If that be so, why is it necessary, bearing in mind that the Government is charging a flat registration fee, to impose an alternative method of taxation? It seems to me quite clear that the Government must have something in mind other than merely the application of a flat registration charge. Senator Jones —You are evading the question. Why don't you get on to the motion? Senator MESSNER —I am just raising these points of principle at this stage in the hope that the Government might be able to answer them and so short circuit the debate at a later stage. Senator JONES(Queensland)(10.23) —My comments on the referral of the interstate road transport Bills to the Standing Committee on National Resources will be brief. Senator Puplick talked about the Australian Democrats not supporting the referral of legislation or other matters to committees. In all fairness, I have found the Democrats, particularly Senator Mason and Senator Vigor, very attentive to committees and in the Senate standing committee system I have developed with them a very good working relationship. I find that they are very attentive at committee meetings and they are very attentive to various matters raised in committees. Seeking to refer this matter to a committee is just a delaying tactic by the Liberal Party of Australia. If one goes back and looks at the history of the legislation and at the committee that was set up-I know this has been said but I think it needs to be said again-one finds that the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry, which comprised the Chairman, Mr Tom May, Professor Gordon Mills and Jim Scully, commenced in 1983 and reported in September 1984. The Government responded to it in 1984, and subsequently in June 1985 the recommendations were endorsed by the committee itself. The report and the fast track package which subsequently eventuated have received broad industry and general community support. In other words, it has been discussed by the industry itself, it has been discussed by the operators and by other people within the industry, and they have agreed to it. So it seems to me that referring this legislation to a committee is only a delaying tactic by the Opposition. At this stage having a committee look at something, which has already been looked at, or making recommendations so that legislation can be brought up in this place is not warranted. Senator Messner said that it looked as though the Government was adopting some sort of jack-boot approach, that we were forcing the legislation through and were not discussing the matter with the State governments. If one looks at the report of the inquiry that was undertaken one finds that there was discussion with the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which comprises Federal, State and Territory Ministers. I think it lays out very clearly the fact that there was discussion with State Ministers and their departmental officers in relation to the legislation that has been brought forward. I think it is important to the industry that this legislation goes through this place so that we can, as Senator Mason said, create a position of safety in relation to it and also bring some sort of organisation and regulation into this industry that for so long has been unable to manage its affairs in the way it should have managed them or meet the requirements that have been placed upon it. All I can say is that trying to force this motion through is a delaying tactic by the Opposition. There has been an inquiry and there has been long discussion with people involved in the industry and with Ministers who hold the transport portfolios within the States. Because of the discussions held and the recommendations made, I believe that this legislation should be supported in the Senate. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.28) —I want to refer to the reason for the debate taking place today. It arises out of your contingent notice of motion, Mr Deputy President. Before I do that I have to correct something I said earlier. When this matter was debated on Wednesday I referred to vehicles thundering along the Hume Highway, apparently with 26 wheels. I have been advised that that is not right, that they normally have 22 wheels not 26, and that they do not cart 40 tonnes but gross 38 tonnes in the eastern States and 41.9 tonnes in South Australia. I apologise for those errors in what I said on Wednesday night. Nevertheless, I can assure you that if one is passed by a 22-wheeler grossing 38 tonnes, travelling at about 75 miles an hour, it is quite a frightening experience. I do not wish to debate the issue of the referral of the interstate road transport Bills to a Senate committee and the merits of that because I really believe that it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt by my colleagues that this legislation is in such a shambles that it ought to be referred to a Senate committee. I want to raise the higher ground. As you know, Mr Deputy President, this all arises out of a notice of motion which has been sitting on the books since 10 May this year. It is notice of motion No. 25, given by Senator Chaney, and it seeks to install forever the legislative purpose of this chamber. I honestly direct my remarks to the back benchers of the Australian Labor Party. I want them to think about the Senate chamber and its purpose. This is clearly the legislative House. This is where legislation gets looked at in some detail and where it is amended. The legislation cannot be amended in the House of Representatives unless something sudden and drastic happens to the Government, in which case there would probably be an election. But it can be amended, whether we are in government or the Australian Labor Party is in government, by the Senate, which is the House which amends legislation. For that reason the Senate has set up a number of standing committees to look at various pieces of legislation. The first such committee it set up in 1932. It is the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, which considers how subordinate legislation should be dealt with. It then set up the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills to look at the same sorts of things as are considered by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and to report on those matters to the Senate. Senator Chaney has put down this notice of motion which, if passed, would enable Bills such as these Bills to go to a Senate committee for proper examination. It is well known that when legislation goes to a bipartisan Senate committee it comes out with proper and adequate amendments, usually unanimously supported by the members of the committee. I know that it was your idea, Mr Deputy President, when you put down your contingent notice of motion that, where there is legislation which ought to be referred to a Senate committee, a motion could be moved that would enable a Senate committee to give proper and adequate consideration to it. If ever legislation needed proper and adequate consideration by a Senate standing committee, it is this legislation. As my colleague Senator Messner has mentioned, Senator Vigor of the Australian Democrats has already indicated that there ought to be a Senate committee on transport and communications to consider the very sorts of things that are raised by these Bills. I cannot understand why the Democrats are being so blockheaded about supporting this proposal. It has not yet been accepted by the States. Even the Federal Government is operating on the basis that the earliest this legislation could operate by is 1 July next year. There is therefore all the time in the world for a bipartisan Senate committee to give this legislation adequate and proper consideration and report to the Senate as to whether it adequately fullfils the tasks which the Government is suggesting in the second reading speech it should. I hope that the Democrats have had second thoughts about this matter and are prepared to support the Opposition on it. As to the general question, I hope that back bench Labor senators will apply their minds to the enormous benefits to the nation of Senator Chaney's proposal. It is a bipartisan and impartial proposal. There are no party politics in notice of motion No. 25 because it is anticipated that one of these days we will be back in government and the situation will continue; in other words, that legislation from the Liberal and National parties will be able to be referred to a Senate standing committee for proper examination. I can assure Government senators that when we were in government a number of our back benchers tried to persuade our Government to adopt this idea but they were unsuccessful. I am hoping that the people opposite who in those days would have supported such a proposition might, as the ALP is in government, support it. This will be to the benefit of all Australians for many years. This is not in any way an attack on the Government. As I have said, if we can make sure that the legislation which is passed by the Australian Parliament is proper and adequate legislation which fulfils the ideals which the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) expects of it and which are indicated in his second reading speech, it will benefit all Australians. Of course, the Government will not support this proposal because it never wants ordinary senators and members of parliament to have a good look at its legislation as they always find out there is something wrong with it. The Ministers always adopt the Yes Minister principle and say that whatever they and their public servants have drawn up has to be accepted by the Parliament. I suggest the back bench members of the ALP have a good look at notice of motion No. 25 put down by Senator Chaney and realise the benefits in it. I also ask the Democrats to have second thoughts about this matter. Question put: That the motion (Senator Hamer's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Siddons, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller) Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Hill, R. Coleman, R. N. MacGibbon, D. J. Cooney, B. Missen, A. J. Evans, GarethRae, Peter McClelland, DouglasWatson, J. O. W. Robertson, E. A. Question so resolved in the negative. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Townley) —Is it the wish of the Committee to deal first with the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985? As there is no objection, that is so ordered. INTERSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT BILL 1985 The Bill. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.42) —In case any other impression is being put around by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), the Australian Democrats or anyone else, I would point out that the Opposition does support the concept of this matter and so do the States, but there is a lot of difference between what the Minister refers to as supporting the concept and supporting the legislation. I found it necessary to take a point of order against another Minister here the other night for reading a deliberately misleading document into the Hansard whereby he claimed that the Tasmanian Premier had given complete approval. What the Tasmanian Premier did was to say that he supported the inquiry and its results. Saying that he supports the inquiry and the points in the inquiry is a lot different from saying that he supports the legislation, and I think we must start from that premise. I read a few points into Hansard, indicating that the States were not satisfied with it, and we have had so much information from the industry which also follows that up. The Minister's second reading speech makes a tremendous amount of the Inter-State Commission inquiry and its findings, when they come; it talks a lot about the questions of cost recovery; it discusses an Australian road freight transport advisory council; it talks about agreements with the States-but not one of those items is listed in any way in the legislation. I am finding it difficult to ascertain how the matters raised in the Minister's speech will be dealt with in the actual legislation. The second reading speech makes much of these items, but there is nothing about them in the Bill in any way. I would like the Minister to be able to relate how matters of such importance in the second reading speech and other speeches by the Minister can be related to the legislation. If these matters of considerable importance alluded to by the Minister and mentioned so often are not in the legislation, what recourse is there on either the industry or the States to ensure that the undertakings he was giving at the time can be carried out? If the Minister is unable to advise me on that, I guess Senator Vigor will be able to do so because it obviously satisfies him. Clause 34 of the Bill outlines Federal legislation to cover what clearly are already State matters. These matters of safety, speed limits and graduated licences can all be dealt with under existing State legislation. All I can say is that if these matters are deemed to be important by the States, they either already have legislation to cover them, or they have the capacity to produce legislation to cover them accordingly if they still need them. Again, perhaps Senator Vigor may be able to put that one right, too, and say yes it is, or no it is not. The inclusion of these nice plums in the legislation makes it look slightly more credible than it would otherwise. The next matter on which I need a lot of information, as do the industry and the States, is cost recovery. Senator Tate —Filibustering. Senator ARCHER —No, this is no filibuster; let the honourable senator tell me about cost recovery. The cost recovery question is totally inadequately explained. For a start, nobody has said how much is to be raised. This is a money-making piece of legislation. How much money does the Government intend to raise by way of this legislation? There is no formula on how the amount to be recovered is to be ascertained. The Bill says that the costs are to be recovered. It does not say that the costs are to be recovered to the extent of 10 per cent, or 20 per cent, or 50 per cent, or 75 per cent; it says the costs are to be recovered. Who determines the figure of the damage to the roads? What is the formula for this? What is the formula for the distribution? What is the damage to the roads now? Let me see the figures that can demonstrate what the road cost damage caused by interstate operators is at present. How much are we trying to raise? The Minister says that owners will not have to pay more than $1,400. If we fix one of these pieces of equipment to a vehicle that has a mileage counter and various other things on it and if on the formula that is produced the fee should be, say, $1,600 or $2,000 and one is paying by the month, does one say that when one has got to $1,400 one pays no more? I do not think that that is the way it will work at all. I do not think that the undertaking to put a $1,400 limit on this is something that I would like to live or die by over the next few years. I trust that members of the Government and Senator Vigor would be happy to dangle by that. It is obvious that we are endeavouring to set up a tonne-kilometre rate. Even when I work it out on a minimum interstate mileage for the normal operator of, say, 150,000 kilometres a year, at 0.025c per tonne-kilometre it comes to about the $1,400 we are talking about. That is the easiest figure in the world to fiddle because at 0.03c it comes to $1,700, at 0.05c it comes to about $2,850 and at 0.1c-which is a minuscule figure-it comes to $5,700 per unit per year. That is the sort of openendedness that we have here. The Minister has said-and I would like an explanation of this-that no changes will be made until the Inter-State Commission report comes down. That gives us until 30 April next year, a period of five months. There will be no changes in those five months. But then, in one of the Minister's other statements, he says: I also indicated that these charges would be reviewed in light of the Inter-State Commission's recommendations. What happens if the Inter-State Commission recommends that the figure be $5,000? The Minister has committed himself to saying that the charges will be reviewed in the light of the ISC's recommendations. Which way is it? The Minister has said that this is not a tax, it is a charge for damage. Perhaps the Minister will explain the difference. I have the dictionary here if he wants to check it up. It is not a tax, it is a charge. These charges will be reviewed in the light of the ISC's recommendations, so whether or not this figure is included in the legislation is of no consequence whatsoever. For the Democrats to have been sucked into believing that to have $1,400 written into the legislation will make any difference at all, I find quite appalling and pathetic. What happens if the Government wants to change it? It will be an easy thing to do. The Government will simply put the change into next year's Budget and that will be that. The Democrats will still go along with it, they will go along with any change like that. The figure of $1,400 looks nice and easy at this stage and if it will keep the Democrats quiet and get the legislation through, that is all that matters. The Government can change the figure next year. On 20 August or thereabouts, it will just say `We have decided to increase this charge, we will double it, treble it, increase it five times or make it half as much again, whatever we like.' Whether the figure is in the legislation or in the regulations makes no difference whatsoever. That brings me to the question of the roads and who will determine the costs and the repayments. Will account be taken of the existing scale of construction, the weather or the climate generally? Who will produce the formula? Who will take these factors into account? No State will agree that it has been fairly treated. Will the fees be paid by government trading authorities? That is one of the things that I have been trying to find out for some time but I have not had an answer to that yet. If damage recovery is the Government's aim, as is stated in the actual documentation that we have, where is there any indication that anything less than full damage recovery is what the Minister seeks to achieve? I have seen figures suggesting that damage to roads caused by interstate transport operators may be of the order of $130m or $140m. In other places I have seen the suggestion that it might be twice that much. But $20m, which is what we are talking about at the moment on $1,400 for 15,000 units, is totally inadequate. Goodness, gracious me, how much damage on the Hume Highway could be restored with $20m? That sum would not do anything of any consequence whatsoever. What is the position? Are we going to recover or are we not? If I get answers to those questions I shall leave it at that for the moment and ask some more in a few minutes. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.57) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 5, clause 3, after sub-clause (10) insert the following sub-clause: `(10A) Notwithstanding sub-section (10), a prescribed fee shall not exceed $100.'. (2) Pages 20 and 21, clause 27, sub-clause (1), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: `(1) Subject to this Act, where a court, on application made to it by a Licensing Authority for an order under paragraph (d), is satisfied that- (a) a person has, after the commencement of this section, on one or more occasions, contravened, attempted to contravene, or been involved in a contravention of, one or more relevant safety provisions; and (b) it is in the interests of public safety to do so, the court may- (c) except where the person has been admonished under this paragraph on 2 occasions in the period of 10 years ending on the day on which the application was made-admonish the person; or (d) make an order disqualifying the person, either permanently or for a specified period, from participating in long distance interstate transport business.'. The first of these amendments is aimed at setting a ceiling on the licence fee for operators. On page 5, in clause 3, we wish to insert that the prescribed fee shall not exceed $100. The fee is set by regulation and all we are doing is setting a ceiling on it. I believe that the Government will support this. The second amendment is very much more significant. It deals with the penalty clause, clause 27 of the Bill. Under the Government's proposed legislation the draconian penalty was, to be applied by the courts, of removing an operator from the industry or in other words cancelling his licence if he contravened any of the safety aspects of the legislation. This seemed to be too harsh and we examined the possibility of introducing fines. However, there are reasons under section 92 of the Constitution why fines might not be seen as a way of offering a lesser penalty in this case because it would be an impost on interstate trade. Under advice we have moved that an admonishment be a possible penalty. However, that would be letting people off too easily, so the idea of the current amendment is that an operator shall be allowed no more than two admonishments in a period of 10 years and then the court must make an order for disqualification. I believe that these two amendments go some way towards getting rid of feelings in the industry that the licence fee might have been exorbitant or very large because it was not specified in the Bill. Our amendment states that the licence fee will simply be an administrative charge and that it will not exceed $100. In the other case, people will not feel that for a mistake or error of some kind, such as one of the safety standard monitoring devices falling off a truck, an operator can be pushed out of the industry forever. Basically, that is what would have happened with a disqualification. The disqualification could have been for a short period and I believe that larger operators might not have been charged by the courts. The admonishment system is like the demerit system that already exists and works in the States. I highly recommend these amendments to the Senate. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.00) —I wish to make just a few points. I would like to express regret that there is not some form of amendment before the chamber that would delay this legislation at least until 1 December. From South Australia's point of view, the impression that has been given to members of the industry by Senator Vigor is that it would be a clear possibility for him to arrange that so that industry people could come forward in a very reasonable way and put forward their concerns. The industry in South Australia does not regard itself as being informed of the details of this legislation. I quote what one member of the industry said at a public meeting that Senator Vigor attended. He said: I suggest that what we do is request for a deferment until we've all had an opportunity to have a look at it. As I've said, on our behalf, we got it Saturday. He went on to say that he represented approximately 500 truckowners and he outlined what he thought would be the cost to them. These people are not unreasonable. They are simply saying: `Please give us time to acquaint ourselves with this legislation'. I just express that regret. I have some questions that I hope can be answered. I understood, from comments made by certain public servants at a public meeting in Adelaide, that people who chose to register their trucks through the States rather than going for the interstate registration and wished to take loads interstate needed to get a very inexpensive form of licence. I would like to have that matter confirmed. I also ask: In what position would that put, for example, farmers around the borders of the States who have their trucks registered in their State and who want to take a load of their produce interstate and, in order to make their journey a little more economical, want to pick up a load of someone else's goods and bring it back on the return journey? As we all know, the rural industry is hard pressed enough without further imposts being put on it. I would also like to have clarified some matters with respect to the amendments that have been moved by Senator Vigor. In particular, I would like somebody to explain what the financial consequences will be for someone who pays $1,000 for the registration of a prime mover and $400 for the registration of the accompanying trailer. Although I am not an expert in the road transport industry, I am informed that a very significant number of people in the industry have one prime mover and two or three trailers to accompany that prime mover. They leave one trailer in one place while it is being packed and they use the other trailer to travel somewhere else. I understand that, under this legislation, there is an option for those people who believe that they will not travel interstate the average mileage that leads to the fee of $1,400 to fit a charge meter. If there is a different registration for a prime mover and a trailer, does that mean that people who wish to avail themselves of paying a lesser registration-obviously two trailers do not move with one prime mover at the same time-will have to put a charge meter on each of the trailers that they have? I would like also to draw honourable senators' attention to two reports of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I hope that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) will make a further comment on that Committee's concerns. The first report, the thirteenth report of 1985, which is dated 16 October, raises the Committee's concerns and the second report, dated 6 November, contains some of the Minister's answers. I appreciate that these reports are available to honourable senators and that those who are interested in this legislation would have already read them. Therefore, it is not incumbent on me to reread them simply to occupy time. But I draw honourable senators' attention to the fact that a couple of times in the second report the Standing Committee thanks the Minister for his answers. Perhaps I can use one example. On page 8 of the fourteenth report the Committee states: The Committee thanks the Minister for this response. For the purpose of my argument it does not matter which point the Committee was considering. The Committee goes on: In continuing to draw attention to the breadth of the power in the sub-clause 45 (1), together with the response, the Committee wishes to promote a fuller consideration of the issues involved at the Committee stage of the debate on the Bill. Using that as an example, I ask the Minister to respond particularly to each and every one of the concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committeed for the Scrutiny of Bills. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.05) —The questions that have been raised require some elaboration. It is clear that those Opposition senators who have participated in the debate do not clearly understand the strategy of the legislation and its attempt to establish some form of regulation, not for the purpose of regulation's sake, but rather to establish some influence on the way in which the industry should operate. For example, Senator Archer raised the question of establishing some form of a code without necessarily adopting some form of regulation. That raises the whole question of how the Commonwealth as a national entity without powers of regulation-unless we get the consent of the States-will be able to play the co-ordinating role which is essential if we are to have this industry functioning properly. I think every member of parliament accepts that the road transport industry is a very vital component of our economy. Every time governments, of all political persuasions-whether Federal or State-or even local government authorities impose some code or regulation, certain business interests are usually critical about the imposition of a cost on them for the purpose of reaching some degree of uniformity and say that it should be opposed on that basis alone. The Commonwealth is concerned to establish uniformity not only to deal with road safety but also to protect the operator and particularly the small operator. Often the operator is not able to perceive clearly that the Commonwealth's objectives are ones that he ought to support. We have no need to look further than the situation with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods. A code for the transportation of dangerous goods was developed more than five years ago. Yet that code has not been uniformly adopted in Australia. So because of the various attitudes that exist within States and because of the constitutional problems that exist not only in respect of this industry but also generally, we cannot leave it to the adoption of such codes. I fail to understand the reluctance of the Opposition to adopt a mature attitude to the legislation. Take Senator Lewis's contribution to the debate the other evening and his contribution today. After he had related all his experiences about road safety, speed and the state of the roads throughout Australia, he said: It . . . demonstrates the need for the sort of legislation which is before the Senate tonight. He talked about controlling the behaviour of truck drivers and he expressed great concern. This very piece of legislation is designed in the hope that it will solve that problem generally. The establishment of a regulated fee at the Commonwealth level will be implemented or assisted by complementary legislation in the States to reach the objective which the legislation seeks to achieve. That is why it has the support, as Senator Vanstone said, of the Australian Road Transport Federation. It recognises, as a responsible national body, the need to reach those particular objectives. In respect of the fees that will be collected, I would have thought that those who have contributed to the debate would know that there is nothing in it for the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is not proposing to retain the fees; the Commonwealth is proposing to return the revenues in full to the States and Territories for their expenditure on roads, That may not reach the objectives of those Opposition senators who said that when they were in government they urged more money to be spent on roads. Of course, the Government supports that. The Government has drastically increased the amount of funds to be spent on our major road transport system and given funds to State governments and to local government to improve the road transport system generally-both the national road system and the local road system. They are all important factors in the way in which a modern economy should operate. There is no doubt that the objectives that the Government has set in these matters are going to be partially met by the legislation and by the various regulations that the legislation will subsequently put into place. Clause 23 (3) makes it clear that these moneys are to be distributed between the States and Territories on the basis of the damage done to the roads by federally registered vehicles. There is absolutely no reason to fear that somehow or another we are setting up some incubus, some authority or some further bureaucratic control of the industry. Rather, by simply regulating the transport fees and the transport industry we will reach, we hope, the objectives which every member of the Senate seeks to achieve. The amendments proposed by Senator Vigor are acceptable to the Government. Here again, there has been extensive consultation and discussion and compromise has been reached. As I said this morning on the motion dealing with this matter going to a committee of the Senate, the Government has at all times sought to reach an agreed position on this legislation. We hope, therefore, that the chamber will agree to the passage of the amendments, which are accepted by the Government. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.13) —Apart from the fact that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) succeeded in not answering any of the points I raised last time, I take the opportunity to say that the Opposition will not be supporting the amendments, mainly because they say absolutely nothing. Of course the Government accepts them because they say absolutely nothing. I still ask the Minister whether he will please give me the information I have asked for as to the issues not in the legislation; the Federal-State overlapping question, the cost recovery figures, the actual amounts of money we are talking about, the position of the Inter-State Commission, the government trading authorities, this new organisation that it appears will be set up and things like that. I will go on with a few more questions. What about the position with the States at the moment? If the States are reluctant to agree, at what stage will the Minister say that he has substantial agreement and pronounce the legislation, which is what he said he will not do until substantial agreement is reached? How are we going to organise this legislation to cover rail charges? We have the problem in particular with the Australian National Railways; the Minister says that he is going to see that rail costs are raised. I understand that the ANR has reduced freight charges by 20 per cent between Adelaide and Alice Springs. Are we going to put it up by 20 per cent again, plus something, or are we just going to add a little bit to it? In particular I am interested, as Senator Grimes is, in what will happen in Tasmania where the State does not have control of the railways but depends on them entirely. It was the Federal Government that decided it wanted to buy the Tasmanian Government railways system. I want to see that the Government maintains its responsibility and that the railways system operates effectively. What about the States that have special arrangements over, say, coal, iron or timber, as in Western Australia, or wheat, as in New South Wales particularly? What about the particular requirements and arrangements there? Are these going to have to be changed? What happens if they are changed and what happens if they are not? I understand that there has been considerable consultation. I concede that there has been considerable consultation and that the Transport Workers Union is delighted. The Long Distance Road Transport Association has been well represented and has done its homework very well. It has done a very good job for its very limited membership, but what about the unaffiliated drivers? I am getting a considerable amount of communication from non-affiliated drivers all around Australia who say that they have not been given any information and that until the last couple of weeks in most cases they had not even had an opportunity to discuss it with one another at meetings. Certainly I knew, as those of us in the chamber knew, that this Inquiry into the National Road Freight Industry was carried out some time ago. Very few of the drivers, and the owner-drivers in particular, have had an opportunity to see a copy of the report or even to try to understand what it is all about. It is an occupational hazard with drivers. We have to accept the fact that they do need more help than if they were lawyers or parliamentarians. At this stage there has still been considerably less than adequate consultation. The non-affiliated drivers certainly agree that they would like to see some form of arrangements made but what they have said is that they would like to have a little time to think about it. Ideally they would like to have until they see what the Inter-State Commission recovery plan is all about. The Government desperately wants to see this legislation passed before the Inter-State Commission starts putting figures on the cost recovery question. However, the drivers want to see what the cost recovery question is all about before there is any legislation. They had a firm promise from Senator Vigor that nothing would happen until December, which would give them another four weeks at least, but that has not happened. I am sure that the Government-I am not sure about Senator Vigor-does not want to race blindly into another Razorback Green Dog situation because of a lack of consultation or a lack of understanding by these people. Has there been any form of impact projection? Has the Government been able to say what is going to happen to freight rates, what is going to be the effect on the small to medium operator, who is going to benefit and who is going to lose, what is it going to do to the failure probabilities of trucking businesses, what effects will it have on sub-contractors and what will it cost to operate? Surely the Government has done a lot of work on this already and it must have all this information available. When Senator Gietzelt answers my first list of questions, which he has not yet done, perhaps he will give me answers to those questions as well. Senator Gietzelt said that I had said that I was going to produce 50 amendments. I did not say anything of the sort. It would probably take considerably more than 50 amendments to make this into a reasonable piece of legislation. What I did say was that I had identified 50 clauses in the Bill which would require regulations; it would probably require considerably more than 50 regulations. I will not labour the Senate again by reading those but I would be prepared to incorporate them so that honourable senators can see which ones are relevant, but there are 50 areas where I can see that regulations are going to be required. Clearly the legislation is going to produce benefits for big government, big unions and big business, but will it get transport in Australia into better condition? I believe that there is a form of operation that will do that. When it is done it should be done in compliance with what the industry and the State governments feel is best. To put up legislation in this form at this stage really does not achieve that. Clearly the objective is to get the tonne-kilometre charge going in Australia and to get every truck fitted with a cash register to achieve that objective. We recognise that this is a revenue raising operation. Nobody is under any delusion about it. Throwing in the safety aspect and so on is done purely and simply to make revenue raising look more respectable. Obviously the Federal Government has in mind raising money in this form to release it from funding out of existing forms of revenue. This represents a transfer of funding from government to industry. We need to have a little bit of information from the Government on just how it sees this working and how long it will take to achieve. How much money are we talking about? How much is involved in this transfer? In clause 23, neither the amount to be raised nor its basis of distribution is stated, and they need to be stated. What is the Government's attitude? Who is to administer this? What staff will be required and whose staff? Nothing in the Bill tells us anything about that. I come to clause 34. How does the concept of Federal road safety standards relate to State standards? Whose standards predominate? Where is the preference? Who is to be responsible for it? Will this depend on State collaboration? Will the States have to withdraw some of their own legislation before they pass complementary legislation? What happens if even only one State does not go along with it? Clauses 36 and 37 relate to monitoring devices. Clause 37 is the best clause of all. It says: `The regulations may require'. It is absolutely, completely and patently clear to everybody in Australia but Senator Vigor that the word `may' will just disappear. It is totally and patently clear that the words `shall require' were meant to go in there. What will be the cost to the existing industry of the new system and the new charges? How much will the Government be up for in meeting all the requirements-equipment, bonds and goodness knows what? Clause 16 allows alternative methods of payment. Why do we allow alternative methods of payment when everybody knows that the first method is included only as a sham so that, as soon as possible, we can make the second method the only one? Senator Vigor is perfectly happy with that, though; so that is all right! He has bought his vote, so that is okay. Will the Federal Government be- Senator Mason —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. I find that an offensive statement. I call on the honourable senator to withdraw it. Senator ARCHER —I will withdraw anything the honourable senator wishes. What powers will the Commonwealth have if the States do not front up as required? Who will prosecute? Is this a Federal offence or a State offence? I want to know the answers to little things like that. Clause 51 deals with appeals. Is there any right of appeal, under clause 51, if registration is refused under clause 15 (4)? I do not think so. Is there a right of appeal under clause 51 for unfair allocation of funds under clause 23 (3)? If not, where is the appeal available? Under clause 23 (6), what limits are there to the powers of the Minister in the imposition of conditions? This clause states that the Minister may impose conditions as he sees fit. Goodness only knows what that would cover. It would depend on who is the Minister. Clause 27 (8) allows the Licensing Authority to revoke a disqualification imposed by the court. If a person wants a revocation, why should he not go back to the court for it? Allowing the Licensing Authority to do this leaves the matter wide open to corruption. Perhaps the Minister can give me some answers to those questions and then I will take the matter to the next stage. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.25) —I want to make a few comments in addition to the comments I made the other day on the Interstate Road Transport Bill. The main purpose of the Bill, as I see it, is to set up a framework for road distance taxes and the licensing of businesses. When we look below the surface, it represents a disguised attempt to introduce severe regulations into the industry. The Australian Democrats proposal certainly does not alter that. There are of the order of 50 clauses in the Bill, which gives the Minister the power to regulate. The Minister, at will and without consultation with the States or the industry, can make decisions that, undoubtedly, would not always be in the best interests of the industry itself. Senator Vigor —Come back to the Parliament. Senator JESSOP —I do not want the honourable senator to interject on me because I might be tempted to say something that should be said about his disregard for the small interests in transport. The United States of America has had a heavily regulated transport industry since 1937 and has only started to deregulate since 1981-82. The main reason for the deregulation in the United States was to eliminate graft and corruption from the big unions and big companies which controlled the transport industry there. It got to the stage where the little operators could not get a licence to carry freight, so the United States was forced to deregulate. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and the Transport Workers Union of Australia-big government and big unions-have said that people should have to prove their viability before entering the transport business. My office got in touch with the TWU Federal office in Melbourne the other day to ask it its opinion on this Bill. It said that the legislation represented a way of getting some control over people who enter the industry. Senator Robert Ray —Who said that? Senator JESSOP —The TWU office in Melbourne. Senator Robert Ray —Who said that? Senator JESSOP —I will provide the name for the honourable senator. He is an officer from the TWU, the big union spokesman. The TWU then used the excuse put forward by the Minister for Transport and the Australian Labor Party that truck manufacturers and finance companies entice people to buy expensive rigs and that it is the responsibility of the Government and the unions to protect these people against themselves. The TWU man said that these sorts of people end up cutting their charges in order to get work and pay their bills. The end result is that they go broke and cause some other operators to go broke in the process. Senator Aulich should not try to interject on me, coming as he does from Tasmania. The Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian people would be ashamed of Senator Aulich. Thank heavens that the Tasmanian senators on this side of the chamber recognise the importance of the transport industry to their State and have adopted a responsible attitude to it. If the honourable senator and his colleagues in the Government had any sense they would have supported the motion to refer this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources so that all these things could have been sorted out. Then we could have had the TWU up before us and could have got this fellow to substantiate his claim. I would have liked to have been there to ask him a few questions about it. Nevertheless, that is information from the TWU. The purpose of this legislation, as far as the TWU is concerned, is to gain some control over who enters and remains in the industry. This is all under the guise of protecting some people from themselves. The Minister is in total agreement with that attitude. As far as I am concerned, the trouble is that once big unions, big companies and big government obtain a means of getting more control over the industry the possibility of corruption entering the industry increases. Australia has already achieved the most cost efficient tonne per kilometre transport industry in the world. So why take a chance on introducing more regulation into the industry, with a threat of increasing corruption and power in the hands of a few and also of discriminating against the small owner-drivers? Another point which ought to be made and which is worth noting is about the initial reaction to the legislation by Mr Tony Hargreaves, the Executive Director of the Australian Road Transport Federation. In the Australian Financial Review on 13 September, Mr Hargreaves criticised the interstate road transport legislation, saying that it would be disastrous for small operators. He argued that there would be difficulties with administration and immediate cost increases. However, on 19 September, six days later-- Senator Tate —This is a second reading speech. We are in the Committee stage. Senator JESSOP —We are talking as the Committee as a whole. The Chairman has told me that my speech is in order. On 19 September, Mr Hargreaves came out in support of the legislation. One asks why. Mr Hargreaves had his wrist slapped after coming out with such a premature response. After all, his organisation, the Australian Road Transport Federation, has members such as the big freight forwarders. These companies stand to benefit from this legislation at the expense of the small operators. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.32) —I join my colleague Senator Archer in asking for replies from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) to the questions I raised the first time I spoke in the Committee stage. None of my questions have been answered. As a consequence of some of the things the Minister has said, I now have some more questions. When a truck operator chooses to register on the interstate system, will any stamp duty or State charges apply to that registration? I might be a bit confused in regard to the next point, so I ask the indulgence of the Minister to clarify my confusion. As I understand it, the Australian Democrats have just moved an amendment setting a ceiling on the charges contained in the Interstate Road Transport Bill. The report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills drew the attention of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) to clause 5 of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill and to the allegation that could be made that it involved an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. The report included part of the Minister's response, which was as follows: It would be inappropriate to specify a maximum charge in the legislation for a number of reasons. Senator Tate —This is filibustering. Senator VANSTONE —I do not want to filibuster, so I will not go on to give the reasons. If people are interested, they can read them in the report. However, I ask why the Minister would reply in that way to a Senate standing committee and, in a very short space of time after that, accept a Democrat amendment that does exactly what he thought was inappropriate. I would appreciate an answer to that question. It is a question I have consistently asked in all the debates on the matter. I have not yet had what I believe is an adequate answer. I understand the complaints about filibustering which have been made. I came into this place with the expectation that the Senate was a place where legislation could be reviewed and, accordingly, if people have concerns they are entitled to raise them and to have answers to those concerns. So I intend to continue asking why this Bill has to be put through now when the Government has acknowledged that it will not be proclaimed until much later-next year-and that it needs to go hand in glove with State legislation. I have heard the point made a couple of times this morning in response to other senator's speeches that this chamber has not passed any legislation this week. I do not see it as a good reason to rush a Bill through so that we can all go home heaving a sigh of relief and say that we have done something in that sense. There must be a substantive reason why this legislation should be put through now when there is obviously concern in the community. I also have a question in relation to clause 30 of the Interstate Road Transport Bill. I have had representations from a large number of constituents who are very concerned about it. They have pointed out to me that a large number of people in the road transport industry operate as family businesses, such as a husband, wife and a couple of sons, three brothers or whatever. We do not need to go through the whole variety of details. These people are very concerned about the provisions of the legislation whereby if one member of the family is disqualified the remaining members of the family, namely the whole business, are put at risk of being disqualified from holding operator's licences. I ask the Minister to provide the chamber with examples of where this sort of clause has been used in other legislation and where it has worked well. I believe that if I can provide those people with examples of where this sort of mechanism has been used in other legislation, if I can go back to them and say that it has been done elsewhere and it has worked, it may well put their minds at rest. I have a further question in relation to the option of fitting a charge meter rather than paying the set fee. I am led to understand that this option is for people who believe that they will travel less than the estimated distance interstate. I ask whether the charge meter alone will solve the problems of someone who, for example, carts some sort of primary industry product intrastate for half of the year and, in the remaining half of the year, wants to take up interstate work. Whilst I am not an expert on charge meters, I do not know of one that can be produced which has some sort of magic eye which can see when one is crossing a border and actually going interstate. Accordingly, I assume that a large number of log book details will need to be kept by people who believe that they are entitled to pay a lower registration fee and, therefore, choose the option of fitting a charge meter. I should add that I think very few people will do so because of the concerns that have been raised in the road transport industry about these charge meters. I ask another question. Will the Minister indicate in what way this Bill will assist owner-drivers? The view of a large number of people is that it will not do so and that it will cause the financial collapse of the small haulage contractors who are the biggest section of the road industry, the owner-drivers. The point has been made that this Bill will in no way assist those people. Certainly from my experience in South Australia-I know I keep harking back to it but that is where I have had most of my feedback on this Bill-owner-drivers are not aware of the nature of this Bill. They are not asking to be left to travel on the interstate system in the way they have done in the past. They are asking for time to acquaint themselves with this legislation. They had hoped from comments that Senator Vigor made that they would have that time. I ask the Minister to respond to the questions I raised the first time I spoke and also to the questions I have raised this time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.38) —One is entitled, perhaps, to draw the conclusion that Opposition senators are engaged in some form of filibustering and are endeavouring to achieve the objective they failed to achieve prior to the legislation being considered by the Committee of the Whole. It is certainly not my intention to spend the rest of today merely answering every query that has been raised by honourable senators opposite, some of whom come into the chamber, make their spiels and then proceed to leave the chamber before the questions they have raised have had any chance of being responded to. One is entitled to ask whether they really want answers or whether they want delay. Many of the questions that have been raised, for example, by Senator Archer, are identical to the questions raised by the Opposition in the House of Representatives, to which an adequate response was made. If honourable senators opposite were seeking genuine information and responses to matters that are of ideological concern to them, we would be entitled to debate those matters. The facts are that the Government has responded to those questions, particularly those raised by Senator Archer. Therefore one can only question the motivation that is involved. For example, Senator Archer said that many people had not had the opportunity to consider the Bill or to consider the report of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry chaired by Mr Tom May. My colleague Senator Jones, in debate earlier today, referred to the report of that advisory committee on the industry which was presented to the Parliament and to the industry in September 1984. Some 14 months has been available for the industry, if it felt it necessary, individually or collectively, to present a viewpoint to the Government. Even Senator Archer concedes that the Government has been involved in an extensive range of consultation. Surely, Senator Archer would never seriously concede that in an industry that has tens of thousands of operators every operator has to be personally seen and personally convinced that the course of action that the Government will take has to have his or her consent. Of course that is not the case. The Government and the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) have attempted to follow the most democratic process possible. The May report recommended that there should be uniform motor vehicle registration fees across Australia. That recommendation has been on the agenda for the road transport industry for 14 months. The legislation seeks now to take that proposal on board. One has to question seriously the tactics that are being employed in this Committee debate. For example, several Opposition senators, including one front bencher, when talking about regulations did not seem to understand that they are designed to have an impact on road safety. The charges levied will be used in improving road safety. Many Opposition senators have mentioned that issue in previous debate on this legislation and during the Committee stage. This clause relating to regulations is not a piece of economic regulation. That very aspect was rejected by the May inquiry, and the recommendation accepted by the Government. The Opposition, by raising the question of Commonwealth interference-I am using its emphasis and not mine-completely ignores section 92 of the Constitution which puts a restraint on any such interference. Senator Jessop seemed to think that somehow or other this legislation would affect numerous individuals. Any eligible person can get an operator's licence after seven days. That is the only restraint imposed in this legislation. Let me qualify that statement and also take up a point raised by a previous contributor to this debate. If a person has already been disqualified or declared an associate of a disqualified person, a licence may be refused. I am sure that any reasonable person would accept that qualification. Federal registration actually represents a plus because State stamp duty and registration fees will be superseded by the Federal charges. I cannot respond to all of the questions raised by Senator Archer. I have a document which I would be quite happy to have incorporated in Hansard. It sets out the response of the Minister for Transport to some 20 or 30 questions which were raised in the debate in the House of Representatives. If I attempted to respond to each one of those matters the legislation would not be determined today. The Government cannot accept that. The Government is reluctant to have to use the procedures of this chamber in order to get this legislation passed, but it will have to do that if the Opposition is to make a continuous attempt to raise issues. If honourable senators opposite had done their homework, they would have been able to satisfy themselves as to the integrity and the veracity of the Government when these questions were raised and, in my view, correctly answered in the other place. In order to satisfy the objectors to this legislation I am happy to incorporate the document to which I have referred. At least, it can be used by Opposition senators in replying to the various representations which they say have been made to them by those operators who feel that the legislation will be against their best interests in some way. That is not the intention of the legislation; in fact its intention is to bring in some co-ordination not only with regard to road safety and the improvement of the State of our roads but also to protect in particular the interests of the small operator. That aim was paramount in the report of the May inquiry and it is the substance and the major thrust of the legislation itself. I seek leave to incorporate the document to which I have referred. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Mr Bruce Lloyd, MP Member for Murray Parliament House PARKES ACT 2600 Dear Mr Lloyd, You will recall that during the debate on the Interstate Road Transport Legislation the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Peter Morris, MHR, undertook to respond to a number of the detailed points by Opposition Members. Accordingly, I have detailed responses to those issues where the Minister indicated further information would be provided. One of your colleagues did, however, query the scope of the Federal legislation, suggesting, I understand, that it should be more comprehensive. As of course you would appreciate, the Federal legislation adequately covers all the Federal initiatives forming part of the fast track package that require the introduction of legislation. The other major federal initiative, that of the establishment of the Australian Road Freight Transport Advisory Committee (ARTAC) within the Transport Industry Advisory Council, has already been announced by Mr Morris. This initiative can proceed without the need for legislation. Should you have any other queries or require clarification of the responses I have provided, you may wish to seek further advice from either myself or the Department of Transport. Yours sincerely, GORDON SCHOLES 1. OPERATOR LICENSING Issues How would Federal and State operator licences work? Who would receive an operator licence? On what basis would an operator licence be withdrawn? What effect would withdrawal of an operator licence have on a disqualified company and its employees? Could an organisation take steps to avoid losing its operator licence? For how long would an operator licence be valid? What information could be sought in the annual return required from operators? Has the Business Regulation Review Unit seen the legislation? What would happen to a State operator licence when a Federal licence was withdrawn? Response In a similar fashion to the Federal interstate vehicle registration scheme, it is envisaged that the system of Federal operator licences would complement operator licences issued by State Governments. Accordingly, the legislation provides that an interstate operator would require either a State operator licence or a Federal operator licence. An operator is defined as a person (or company) carrying on a long distance (i.e. over 100 km) heavy interstate road transport business as either a fleet operator providing vehicles for its own business, a haulage contractor providing vehicles for hire and reward, or a transport agent such as a freight forwarder who is engaged in the business of transporting goods or passengers, but without necessarily owning or operating vehicles. The legislation makes it clear that an operator licence may only be withdrawn by a court and only on the basis of a violation of road safety provisions. The court is empowered to disqualify an operator and the principals of the business from engaging in interstate road transport. It is intended that these provisions would usually be invoked where the operator was a repeated infringer of standards that seriously put at risk road safety. However one could not rule out the possibility of a single infringement being so serious as to warrant action being initiated. Section 29 allows the court to take into account any steps the particular operator may have taken before, during and after the particular incidents. It could, for example, decide that the steps taken after the particular infringements justify a decision not to withdraw the operator licence. On the basis of the court declaration, the licensing authority would then be empowered to declare other companies or persons to be associates of disqualified persons. Such a declaration would be subject to the usual avenues of appeals including those of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. An organisation disqualified by a court would be prohibited from engaging in an interstate road transport business. It could operate in other areas of the road transport industry. Principals and employees of disqualified organisations would not be prevented from working in a transport company engaged in long distance heavy interstate road transport. However, principals could not operate another interstate road transport business while disqualified. An operator licence would be issued indefinitely, subject only to submitting an annual notice to ensure that the register of operators is up to date. The information required to be provided in the annual notice would be related to safety. It would not be open to the licensing authority to seek non-safety related financial data. In addition, the Federal Government is committed to consult industry on such details and the Business Regulation Review Unit would examine all such proposals. This unit has reviewed the legislation. Where a Federal operator licence was removed by a court, Clause 27 (6) provides that a disqualified person be deemed not to hold a State licence for the purpose of engaging in an interstate road transport business. Such a person could not then use the authority of a State licence as the basis for engaging in interstate road transport which required an operator licence. 2. MONITORING DEVICES Issue What are the intentions with respect to monitoring devices? Can an operator be disqualified for tampering with a charge monitoring device? Will the States agree to introduce these devices? Response The legislation provides for two types of monitoring device, namely a charge monitoring device and a standard monitoring device. A charge monitoring device must be fitted where the owner elects to pay the Federal interstate vehicle registration charge on the basis of the actual distance travelled. Where there is separate registration of a motor vehicle and trailer, charge monitoring devices may need to be fitted to both. As part of the operator licensing arrangements, the legislation also provides for a standard monitoring device to be fitted to motor vehicles. Consistent with the Report of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry, standard monitoring devices would be required to provide records of the vehicle's speed and hours of operation. Clause 43 provides a number of protections for operators in the use of these records. In particular records from a standard monitoring device may not be used to prosecute individual traffic offences unless these are of an extreme nature. The legislation provides that courts may disqualify an operator relying, in part, on evidence derived from the standard monitoring device. A disqualification can only be made where safety provisions have been breached and a disqualification is in the interests of public safety. Accordingly, the courts power to disqualify an operator for up to three years for tampering with a monitoring device extends only to safety matters. This power of disqualification does not extend to tampering with a charge monitoring device, unless, of course, the particular machine also served as the standard monitoring device. The Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) which represents Federal, State and Territory Ministers responsible for Transport has endorsed the fast track package which includes provision for the introduction of operator licensing involving the use of standard monitoring devices. Arrangements for the introduction of monitoring devices are still to be determined in co- operation with the States. It is noted that there is growing acceptance within the industry and in government of the value of such equipment, particularly when compared with previous record keeping systems. 3. COVERAGE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION Issue Is it necessary for the Federal Interstate Road Transport Legislation to be self contained and provide for offences such as driving an unregistered vehicle? Are Federal road safety standards necessary? Response To be constitutionally sound the Federal road transport legislation should explicitly provide for offences which are implied in the Federal interstate vehicle registration scheme and the Federal interstate operator licence scheme. Clause 52 of the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 provides that State laws are not rendered inoperative where they do not directly conflict with Federal provisions. As a consequence, it is envisaged that the Federal vehicle registration scheme will rely to the maximum extent possible on existing State laws. However, where there are variations in State laws it is recognised that there will be a need for a uniform Federal code based on standards endorsed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council and developed in consultation with industry. Such standards would be required to ensure that incompatible State standards do not adversely affect the operations of Federally registered vehicles. 4. ADMINISTRATION FEES Issue Will the States and Territories be permitted to recoup minor administration costs for performing certain functions under the legislation? Can the States and Territories use this fee to tax interstate road transport operators? Response The Interstate Road Transport Legislation makes provision for the administration of both the vehicle registration and operator licensing schemes to be undertaken by the States and Territories under formal agreements between the Governor-General and State Governors. Under these arrangements the States and Territories will be able to charge a prescribed fee to recover the costs of registration and operator licensing functions. The costs of the interstate vehicle registration scheme will be minimised by using existing State/Territory machinery. Vehicles presently engaged solely in interstate trade and commerce are already registered by most States where they pay only a relatively small fee based on administrative costs to the States of registration. It is envisaged that the fee will be used to recover the marginal costs of States administering the scheme. The Federal Minister for Transport will, through regulations, set an upper limit on such fees to ensure they remain reasonable in relative terms to comparable State fees. If there was any suggestion that the States were attempting to use these fees as a means of taxing interstate trade and commerce then such fees could be subject to challenge. 5. UNIFORM REGISTRATION Issue The May Report recommended uniform motor vehicle registration fees across Australia. How is this going to occur now a Federal registration charge is to be established? Will State charges be increased? Response The Federal interstate road transport registration scheme to apply to interstate registered vehicles will bring their charges closer to those of intrastate registered vehicles. The Federal charges have been set having regard to existing State charges. This is a first step towards uniformity. The Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) which brings together Federal, State and Territory Ministers responsible for Transport, has endorsed the thrust of the May recommendation for uniformity and rationalisation in road cost recovery. ATAC has set up a special advisory committee to examine this matter as part of its program for implementation of those follow-on May recommendations not included in the fast-track package. In the end, however, it will be up to the decisions made by individual States and the finding of the Inter-State Commission that will determine progress towards a uniform fee structure. Clearly, Federal charges could not be increased beyond the level justified by cost recovery considerations. 6. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING Issue Will all of the funding raised by the Federal registration charge be spent on roads? What is the formula for distribution of the funding to the States? On what category of roads will the money be spent? Response There is separate provision for fees to cover the administrative costs associated with the registration scheme. Therefore all of the funds raised by the Federal registration charge will be paid into the trust fund. The requirement of the legislation is that all of the money available from the trust fund will be spent on the maintenance and upkeep of roads. Whilst the legislation does not specifically provide a formula for the distribution of funds between the States it establishes principles that require the Minister to allocate funds on the basis of the use of State road systems by the Federally registered vehicles. All categories of roads will be eligible for funding from the Interstate Road Transport Trust Fund provided that the road is used by Federally registered vehicles. 7. OPERATION OF 100 KM DISTANCE LIMIT Issue What is the connection between the Federal vehicle registration and operator licensing schemes in regard to the operation of the 100 kilometre distance limit? Response Federal registration scheme applies to motor vehicles engaged solely in interstate trade and commerce, regardless of actual distance travelled per trip. All vehicles must have a valid Federal or State registration. On the other hand, not all operators engaged in interstate trade and commerce will be required to hold an operator licence. Those either operating vehicles with a gross vehicle mass under 12 tonnes or only engaging in limited cross border interstate trade and commerce (i.e. not extending beyond the 100 km between origin and destination) will not be required to obtain an operator licence. As with vehicle registration a valid State operator licence will be sufficient to allow that operator to engage in interstate trade and commerce. 8. FORMAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMMONWEALTH AND THE STATES/TERRITORY Issue Will the memorandum of understanding between the Federal and State and Territory Governments on the fast track package be made public? Response There is no such document. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.47) —I rise to answer some of the points which have been addressed to me. I do not wish to prolong the debate for too long, but I support Senator Gietzelt's statement that the Government has been completely free, as has the Department of Transport, in providing information. That was the case with every inquiry that was made of my office. As I said during the second reading debate, my office received during the last month between 10 and 20 inquiries a day from people within the trucking industry. A number of answers from the Minister have been sent out by my office to the various organisations which represent truckies, and they will be distributing to their members. In the process, we have received about four quite lengthy sets of answers which go well beyond the answers which were given in the House of Representatives. We have studied them in detail. We do our homework before coming into this place. If it is the wish of the Committee and leave is granted, I am prepared to have a couple of documents incorporated in Hansard. One of those documents is dated as late as 7 November and it is the result of meetings in South Australia with the very people whom Senator Vanstone has mentioned and with whom I have continued to consult. That meeting reported various problems in the Bill. With every one of those problems I went straight to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and I got very open and frank answers which have satisfied me. I passed them on to the people in the industry who had actually asked me questions. I refer to people including Mr Barry Lewis, who has received facsimiles of some of these documents. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard answers given to me on 30 October 1985 by the Minister's Department to most of the questions which were raised by Senator Vanstone, because exactly the same questions were asked of me. I make these available to the Senate. I believe they were not in the document which was dealt with in the other House. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Dear Senator Vigor, Further to our telephone conversation of 30 October 1985, please find attached responses to the queries you raised concerning the fast-track package for the national road freight industry. Should you require any further clarification please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, Peter Reece (Senior Private Secretary) Senator Vigor Democrat Spokesman on Transport Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 CALCULATION OF COST RECOVERY FOR TRUCKS Issues How are road maintenance costs for trucks assessed? What payments by truck operators are taken into account in cost recovery calculations? What cost recovery levels are trucks achieving? On what basis did the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry recommend that vehicles registered as solely engaged in interstate trade and commerce, should pay a registration charge equal to State charges? Response Most cost recovery studies undertaken in Australia, including the report prepared for the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry, are based on experiments designed to measure the effects of loaded vehicles travelling over different road surfaces. The principal study in this area was performed by the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) and have been verified by a number of subsequent experiments. The most notable result of this study was the ``fourth power rule'' which relates the damage caused by a particular axle group in direct proportion to the weight on the axle raised to the fourth power (x 10,000) These results were utilised in the report of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry and underlie the allocation of road maintenance costs between different vehicle classes. On the revenue side, the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry recommended that Government, classify as road user charges appropriate portions of the yields from prevailing fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and driver licence fees. These fees are directly related to road use and do not, in full, represent general revenue taxes. Other payments made by road users such as payroll tax or sales tax are either common to other industries, or raised for general revenue purposes. In the case of the crude oil production levy the decision is related to preventing a few oil producers gaining windfall profits from the introduction of import parity pricing for domestic crude oil production. Decisions of this nature are unrelated to transport issues. In comparing costs and revenues, the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry found that in 1981-82 the average articulated 38 tonne vehicle caused road damage of $4,250 and made road user payments of $3,360. However, vehicles registered as being solely engaged in interstate trade and commerce avoided the payment of full registration charges and therefore contributed less in revenue than the above quoted average. Against this background the Road Freight Industry Inquiry recommended vehicles solely engaged in interstate trade and commerce should pay a reasonable registration charge to cover road damage costs consistent with the user pays principle. The Inquiry examined equivalent State charges for similar vehicles and recommended that a charge of $1,400 per year (excluding third party insurance) would be appropriate. This charge is broadly in line with the average State registration charge. Treatment of Primary Producers Issue Will farmers get special concessions under the Federal legislation? Response Primary producers are eligible for a rebate of excise on fuel used for off road purposes. With regard to registration charges the Federal legislation does not provide for any special concessions for any class of road user, including primary producers. The Interstate vehicle registration charge is designed to recover road damage costs and it would not be appropriate to distinguish between vehicles on the basis of the purpose for which they were used. However there are provisions to allow federal vehicle registration to be surrendered with an entitlement to a rebate for the period for which the registration would not be used. So if a farmer surrendered the vehicle registration half way through its registered period he would be entitled to a refund of half the registration fee. Constitutional Issues Issue Does Section 92 of the Constitution or legal precedence require two methods of collecting interstate vehicle registration charges? Response The Interstate road transport legislation before the Senate has been drafted following advice of Federal law officers and is consistent with principles laid down by the High Court in interpreting Section 92. However, these principles could be met in a number of ways. The advantage of the present approach is that it offers a flat annual registration charge which minimises administrative complexity and allows interstate vehicles to be treated in the same fashion as vehicles on full State registration. At the same time the existence of an option for a vehicle owner to pay a charge based on the actual distance travelled ensures that the legislation conforms with the principle that the charge should be calculated with reference to the distance travelled by the vehicle. Our understanding is that the actual distance charging mechanism could operate without the flat fee charging mechanism but that the flat fee could not be the only method of charging. Road Trains Issue What would it cost to register an interstate road train? Response The schedule of charges set out in the attachment to the Second Reading Speech on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill cuts out at 38 tonnes at a fee of $1400 which is the maximum weight permitted for a semi-trailer in the eastern States. For a multi-unit vehicle, such as a road train, with a mass in excess of 38 tonnes the prime mover and each of the trailers would, in essence, be charged separately. On this basis the fee for a typical triple bottom road train would be of the order of $2600. The actual level of fees would depend on the load carrying capacity of each of the trailers. Rate Setting Issue How are rates between owner-drivers and prime contractors determined? What role is played by Rate Regulation Tribunals in NSW? What did the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry recommend? Response There are a variety of mechanisms through which rates for owner-drivers are determined. In the main, interstate freight rates for owner-drivers are settled as a result of negotiations between either the ultimate customers or an intermediary such as a freight forwarder, and individual owner-drivers. These negotiations take place in the context of an agreement on interstate owner-driver freight rates between the Australian Road Transport Federation and Transport Workers Union of Australia which has been authorised by the Trade Practices Commission. However, these negotiations also take place within an environment where there are significant variations between States. In NSW, the Industrial Commission through Rate Regulation Tribunals determines owner-driver freight rates between places in NSW and other major centres in Australia. Other State industrial relations systems do not generally cover long distance owner-drivers. The National Road Freight Industry Inquiry strongly recommended against any form of rate regulation. It argued that owner-drivers would not benefit from administratively determined freight rates because they would either be difficult to enforce effectively, or would be capitalised into the value of a truck and thereby impose an additional burden on the owner-driver and the general community. It concluded rate regulation would offer little benefit to the owner-driver. Rather, the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry recommended a series of measures which would improve working conditions in the industry including operator licensing, graduated truck driver licences, improvement in finance and in insurance arrangements, and improved railway cost recovery (all measures included in the fast-track package). The Road Freight Inquiry concluded that such measures would benefit both owner-drivers and the general community. Industry Consultation Issue What specific steps have been taken to inform industry of the fast-track package. Response The Federal Government has a longstanding program of consultation with the road freight industry which has focussed on: maintaining contact with industry associations and unions concerned with the road freight industry developing contacts with individuals in the industry at every opportunity participation in seminars, workshops and other forums distribution of information at appropriate locations operation of toll free phones and inviting all interested parties to ring in and discuss their queries. Associations and unions were consulted on the terms of reference for the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. These groups generally made submissions to the Inquiry and have also provided continuing comment to the Federal Government on the implementation of the Report's recommendations. In an unusual step, the major associations and unions were also consulted on the text of the Interstate Road Transport Bill, currently before the Parliament. Contact has also been developed with individuals in the road freight industry through: extensive reporting of the results of the National Road Freight Transport Industry Inquiry through general press and industry media acceptance of invitations by the Minister and Department to talk at numerous seminars, conferences and public meetings throughout Australia and to travel major highways talking to all who are interested at truck stops etc. production of fact sheets summarising the fast-track package which have been distributed to most truck stops in Australia continued operation of a toll free telephone number to answer queries. Road Investment and Industry Consultation Issue How can the road transport industry influence road funding priorities and programs? Response The National Road Freight Industry Inquiry saw a prime role for the proposed Australian Road Freight Transport Advisory Committee (ARTAC) in this area and recommended that, amongst other things, this representative body should: `comment on and propose road expenditure priorities'. The Federal Government has announced that it will establish ARTAC and it is anticipated that this will provide an effective arrangement for industry to comment on road funding issues. ARTAC will also be able to bring to the attention of the Federal Minister road construction and maintenance needs where it believes priority should be accorded. At the same time, application of the user pays principle will encourage industry at all levels to actively seek to put their views forward on expenditure priorities and road construction techniques. Senator VIGOR —There were two queries about the last area: One was about the bond system for operators that was proposed in the report of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry chaired by Mr May. There was extreme worry that the bonding system would be used as a method of raising revenue by the Government and that enormous bonds could be imposed which would put operators out of business. I have obtained from the Minister an undertaking that no bonding system in which the bond is more than $10,000 will be introduced. I have communicated this fact to Mr Lewis. Senator Vanstone also raised the problems of what would happen if charging devices were tampered with and this resulted in disqualification from the industry. That matter was raised earlier-- Senator Vanstone —Not by me. Senator VIGOR —This is a question which we have looked at; the honourable senator may not have looked at it but I believe it was raised by someone in the Opposition. The answer from the Minister was that if charging devices are tampered with the penalty will be a fine rather than disqualification. I seek leave to incorporate this letter from the Minister in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT Parliament House, CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Vigor, During recent discussions concerning the Interstate Road Transport Legislation you asked what the situation was with respect to the establishment of bonds for agents and brokers and penalties for tampering with monitoring devices on trailers. The National Road Freight Industry Inquiry recommended that freight forwarders, agents and brokers be required to post bonds of not less than $10,000 with a suitable Government agency where they wished to engage in the long distance interstate transport business. The Inquiry saw such action as being appropriate to deal with ``fly-by-night'' operators and others who can leave the industry whilst still owing considerable sums to sub-contracting owner drivers, etc. This recommendation was not one that was included in the fast track package announced in March 1985 and endorsed at the June 1985 meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC). Consequently, there are no provisions relating to that recommendation contained in the legislation currently before the Senate. Those National Road Freight Industry Inquiry recommendations not contained in the fast track package are to be further considered by ATAC. However I can assure you that in the event it is agreed that a system of bonding should be introduced, I would not see a bond in excess of the initial level identified by the Inquiry, that is $10,000, being introduced. With respect to monitoring devices fitted to trailers, the situation is not different from that relating to monitoring devices used elsewhere. Penalties relating to tampering with such devices on a trailer would not enable an application to be made for disqualification under Section 27 of the Bill unless the actions were related to matters of safety. If the tampering was undertaken to try to avoid payment of the registration fee then Section 27 does not apply. Under Section 42 provision is made for a court to impose a fine and a further penalty of up to twice the registration fee that would have been payable. Therefore under these circumstances the penalty would be purely financial and not involve consideration of whether an operator could be disqualified from the industry. I trust this advice provides the clarification that you sought on this matter. Yours sincerely, PETER MORRIS Senator VIGOR —I believe that letter answers the last of the industry's queries. I hope that over the next few months we will be able to get that information to people in the industry and that it will allow them to start lobbying State governments and State Oppositions in order to get the complementary parts of the fast track package into place as fast as possible so that we can start saving lives. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.53) —I am disappointed at the reaction of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). He knows that we support the principles behind this legislation. I am disappointed that he chose not to answer the very real questions that are being raised. I am sorry that the Australian Democrats will also be left as can carriers in this enterprise. Over the next 12 months the number of amendments, regulations and so on that will come forward-without exception this is the worst legislation I have seen come before the Parliament in 10 years-will be absolutely phenomenal. It would have been much better to wait until much more information was available or let the legislation go before a Senate committee. At least, this would have got people's views on it, done something about its drafting and provided information. However, if this is the way the Government wishes to see this legislation pass and if, along with Senator Vigor and his colleagues, it is prepared to carry the can, so be it. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.54) —I regret that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has chosen at this stage not to answer some of the questions I have raised. I thank the Minister for incorporating in Hansard a document which the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) provided. It answers certain questions. I trust that it is not the document I have had in front of me for some time covering eight points. I trust it is a document which answers some of the 30 or so questions that have been asked and not the one which answers only eight points which I have read with interest. I do not think that document answers any of the points that I have raised. Being a South Australian senator I feel it is necessary to defend the position of a Mr Lewis whose case has been raised in this debate by a number of honourable senators, in particular Senator Vigor. On 6 November Mr Lewis in a telex to Senator Vigor stated: Two things we wanted was caution-delay the Bill till December 1 and that we could brief you in greater detail regarding the matter. Having considered the amendments and being informed by you that you are not prepared to delay the Bill surprises and disappoints me. As a consequence of some of the comments that Senator Vigor has made I think it is fair that the Senate be made aware of that point of view. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.55) —In answer to what Senator Vanstone has said, there were subsequent telegrams and considerable communications between Mr Barry Lewis and my office. I believe that the current state of affairs is quite amicable. Last night there was a meeting and I talked to Mr Lewis as late as this morning. I believe that Mr Lewis has acted in the best interests of the people whom he represents. He has actively put forward his views. Last night I sent him a document for his meeting through the facsimile system which answered his latest round of queries. It is based on the Minister's letter and my recommendations and conversations. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that document, which is the last written communication. Senator Archer —It is not. Senator VIGOR —It is the last one that I have had. Leave granted. The document read as follows- From: Senator David Vigor, Parliament House, Canberra To: Mr. Barry Lewis Professional Transport Drivers Association. 7th November 1985. Following several telephone calls with you, I wish to record the answers and actions that I have taken on behalf of your members. 1. I facsimilied to you yesterday copies of the Minister's undertaking not to introduce a bond system with a bond value greater than $10,000 for operators in line with the recommendations of the May Committee. This is not included in the current Bill. 2. The penalties for interfering with the charge meters will be financial, and not disqualification. 3. A ceiling of $1,000 for registration of a prime mover, and $400 for a trailer, indexed for inflation, is set in the Bill. 4. I confirm that State registered prime movers may haul I.S. registered trailers, and vice versa. 5. I confirm that we will be passing the Bill with the amendments and assurances that I have extracted from the Government. These answer all of the worries that you have so far put to me. 6. I note you still want to delay the Bill, but suggest it is in your interests to accept the current framework to pressure State governments to design their complementary legislation to suit the industry. If the Bill is delayed past the State elections in S.A., Tas. and W.A. you will lose enormous leverage. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. INTERSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT CHARGE BILL 1985 The Bill. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.58) —by leave-I move that the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Page 3, clause 5, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clauses: `(4) The amount of charge in respect of the registration of a motor vehicle shall not exceed $1,000. `(5) The amount of charge in respect of the registration of a trailer shall not exceed $400.' (2) Page 3, after clause 5 insert the following new clause: Indexation `5A. (1) In this section- :`index number', in relation to a quarter, means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number, being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities, published by the Australian Statistician in respect of that quarter; `relevant amount' means- (a) the amount specified in sub-section 5 (4), being the amount that the amount of charge in respect of the registration of a motor vehicle is not to exceed; or (b) the amount specified in sub-section 5 (5), being the amount that the amount of charge in respect of the registration of a trailer is not to exceed; `relevant year' means the period of 12 months commencing on 1 July 1987 and each subsequent period of 12 months. `(2) Subject to sub-section (3), if at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section, the Australian Statistician has published or publishes an index number in respect of a quarter in substitution for an index number previously published by the Australian Statistician in respect of that quarter, the publication of the later index number shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section. `(3) If at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section, the Australian Statistician has changed or changes the reference base for the Consumer Price Index, then, for the purposes of the application of this section after the change took place or takes place, regard shall be had only to the index numbers published in terms of the new reference base. `(4) Where the factor ascertained under sub-section (5) in relation to a relevant year is greater than one, this Act has effect as if for each relevant amount there were substituted, on the first day of that relevant year, an amount calculated by multiplying by that factor- (a) in a case to which paragraph (b) does not apply-the relevant amount; or (b) if, by virtue of another application or other applications of this section, this Act has effect as if another amount or amounts were substituted for that relevant amount-the substituted amount or the last substituted amount. `(5) The factor to be ascertained for the purposes of sub-section (4) in relation to a relevant year is the number (calculated to 3 decimal places) ascertained by dividing the index number for the March quarter immediately preceding that relevant year by the index number for the March quarter immediately preceding that first-mentioned March quarter. `(6) Where the factor ascertained in accordance with sub-section (5) in relation to a relevant year would, if it were calculated to 4 decimal places, end with a number greater than 4, the factor ascertained in accordance with that sub-section in relation to that relevant year shall be taken to be the factor calculated to 3 decimal places in accordance with that sub-section and increased by 0.001.'. The two requests for amendment ask for a change in monetary arrangements and hence have to be referred to the other House. The first request sets ceilings for the registration fee of interstate trucks. This has been found to be necessary and very useful for the industry. I thank the Long Distance Road Transport Association for bringing to the notice of both me and the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) the fact that a number of people run prime movers separately from trailers. We have set a ceiling of $1,000 on the registration fee for a prime mover and a ceiling of $400 on the registration fee for a trailer. It was with some reluctance that the Australian Democrats agreed to the Government's condition that we index these ceilings using the comsumer price index. Most of the content of the requests handles that indexing process, which is identical to the process used in indexing customs charges and which has been acceptable to the Senate in the past. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.00) —The Opposition does not support these requests for amendments because they are more nonsense amendments. The point has been made that some people with one prime mover have several trailers. It is a ridiculous imposition on those people to try to do it in this way. The Government's legislation clearly shows the exact sort of charging it intends. The Government wants it to be open ended. If the Government wants cost recovery, it has to be in the form it is in. The Minister has said over and over again that cost recovery is the aim. He is not prepared to put any limit on it in that respect. The $1,400 charge may operate until next April next year, as he has said, and then will be subject to amendment, but the Opposition will not support the requests. Requests agreed to. Bill agreed to with requests. Bills reported with amendments and requests; report adopted. Interstate Road Transport Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(12.03) —The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill is aimed chiefly at correcting some difficulties in the Government's original legislation to introduce a tax on lump sum superannuation. It may be recalled that in May 1983 it was announced by the Hawke Labor Government that in future all lump sums received as termination or superannuation payments would be subject to a tax of 30 per cent. That conflicted with the promise given during the previous election campaign in March 1983 when the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, promised the Australian people that there would be no tax on lump sum superannuation. Of course, we have become used to frequent breaking of promises. That solemn promise, given during an election campaign, was immediately followed by a breach of a promise to pensioners that no assets test would be introduced on pensions. In the 1983 Budget the Government broke that promise and accordingly introduced an assets test on pensions. Just recently we have again had reason to doubt the veracity and trustworthiness of the Prime Minister. In the 1983 election campaign he gave a solemn promise to the people of Australia, seeking to obtain their support in the election, that there would be no capital gains tax. From the announcement of 19 September this year we now find that that promise also has been broken and that we will have a capital gains tax in this country. In all respects we have come to have very little faith in this Labor Government's promises about what it would seek to do in the areas of taxation and retirement income security for Australians. Let us remind ourselves what this particular tax on lump sum superannuation is all about. Since 1916, when legislation on income tax commenced at a Federal level, a tax was applied to lump sum superannuation by including 5 per cent of the lump sum received in the taxable income of the recipient in the year in which it was received. That seems to have been quite a reasonable approach, because at that time there was no capital gains tax, so that lump sums received as superannuation were treated in exactly the same fashion as other capital gains. The inclusion of 5 per cent of the amount in the taxable income for the year was reasonable because little income would have been generated as a result of investment of that lump sum in that financial year, so that notional amount was included in the tax income of the recipient; hence the logic for the inclusion of 5 per cent. The Government has said that we are stepping forward to a totally new tax regime where the whole of the lump sum received by someone who may have worked in an occupation for 20, 30 or 40 years will be taxed as though it were an income item in one year, as though it were a one-off pension payment or a pension received in one year. We objected to that at the time the legislation was proposed and campaigned very strongly for the repeal of that legislation at the election campaign a year ago. It remains a promise of the Liberal and National parties that we will seek to repeal that legislation upon our election to government. We believe that it is inconsistent to have a situation where a capital gains tax is not applied to various kinds of capital gains, but lump sum superannuation payments are singled out as being subject to a special form of capital gains tax. We believe that is wrong in the context of the past. As the Opposition is committed to the repeal of the capitalgains tax, we believe that it is consistent to repeal this tax also. Let me go over the Government's arguments in favour of taxing lump sum superannuation. Firstly, it has said that a tax subsidy of approximately $2.6 billion is given to superannuation funds and those who contribute to superannuation funds, whether they be employers, employees or self-employed persons. That amount has been included in the Budget Papers for two or three years. Of course the Government has put a lot of store in the fact that the ordinary taxpayer is contributing to the superannuation benefits of others to that extent. I say right now that that is an incorrect measure of the contribution of the taxpayer to superannuation. The reason is simple. It overstates the matter substantially, because that figure does not take into account tax which the Commissioner of Taxation would collect as a result of the investment of lump sums and the generation of income therefrom. If that $2.6 billion is a base figure from which we ought to work, it ought to be substantially reduced by the amount of taxation that would be collected from the income generated from those lump sums. When we consider that those lump sums have been in existence for many years and continue to generate income year on year, the amount of tax that would be collected therefrom would be very substantial indeed. There can be no justification for saying that the figure of $2.6 billion that this Government throws about is in any way a reasonable figure with which to scare the people into thinking that they are getting no value for money. The other side of that argument is that if people are receiving lump sum superannuation and are investing their money appropriately in investments, they are taking themselves out of the social security system and, therefore, not costing the taxpayer social security age pension payments, and in that way there are even more savings to the community. The other argument is quite basic: That what we need to do in this country is to encourage people to build up their own superannuation investments so that they can retire without being dependent upon the government in the long run. The Liberal and National parties' retirement income policies stand for making people independent of government, not dependent upon government. Dependency is what the Labor Government seeks to achieve, by making sure that people become more and more dependent upon the social security system by taking away their incentives to generate their own financial security for the future. As I have said, we stand for the repeal of the lump sum superannuation tax. This taxation was imposed in legislation back in 1983, I think, and it was introduced in such a rush that it was pretty clear that there would be some problems with it in setting down a few new ideas. One of the parts of the legislation was the introduction of a new scheme called an approved deposit fund. This was to provide that people who were moving from job to job, but with superannuation benefits accruing at the point that they left their jobs, could pay in the lump sum that they received upon leaving their firm, in a tax free way, to an approved deposit fund. There it would lie, perhaps until the person found another superannuation fund of which he would become entitled to be a member, and then those moneys could be transferred into the new fund. Alternatively, a person might choose to leave his lump sum in that approved deposit fund for the rest of his working life and so use that as a superannuation benefit. Specifically, the law provided that people would be required not to draw that amount until they reached the age of 65. Apparently, in the rush to get legislation through the Parliament, the Government overlooked one particular point-and that is the subject of this legislation. It is a loophole that would have developed whereby people who were putting their money into an approved deposit fund could have avoided tax altogether because of pre-existing service. This amendment seeks to correct that situation, and the Opposition has no objection to that-although I again point out that the Opposition objects strenuously to the legislation on lump sum superannuation altogether and we oppose it very strongly. It seems amazing that 90 per cent of lump sum superannuation payments are about $30,000 or less. Certainly one could not claim that that is anything like a princely sum. Yet the Government claimed when it introduced this legislation that there were literally hundreds of people getting away with hundreds of thousands of dollars tax free as a result of superannuation arrangements that existed previously. It is clear that that is absolutely untrue. In fact, this tax is a tax on little people, those who have had the opportunity of joining superannuation funds or, perhaps, of receiving a lump sum at the end of their working life from their employer in recognition of their service. Those little amounts of money will now be subject to the lump sum superannuation tax. The tax is not applying to the high fliers, the high rollers, those whom Senator Walsh and others in this place claim to be ripping off the tax system through superannuation; rather, the major thrust and effect of the tax on lump sums is against little employees who have very little opportunity, other than through superannuation or the sweat of their brow at work, to develop any kind of capital nest-egg on which they can rely in times of trouble. Yet this Labor Government is seeking, through that legislation, to tax the incentive and initiative of little Australians in putting aside small amounts of capital through lump sum superannuation. I find it absolutely amazing that a government that claims to support the little working man should seek, through this tax, to so damage the incentive of those who want to work harder and build up their retirement capital. The end result of many of the Government's present moves is to encourage the concentration of superannuation funds in the hands of the trade union movement, where control is landed in the hands of the Australian Council of Trade Unions or of the office-bearers of particular unions. We have already had substantial debate in this Parliament about legislation on the Commonwealth employees superannuation fund. It was pleasing that on that occasion the Australian Democrats joined with the Liberal and National parties to defeat the Government's legislation on that matter which would have placed virtually the whole of the control of the vast resources of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust in the hands of the ACTU. It was that point of principle on which we stood, and we were pleased that Senator Siddons stood with us on that point to force the Government to reconsider very critically its policy in that regard. But that is not the only area of superannuation that is causing more and more trouble in the community. We are finding that many trade unions are establishing their own so-called superannuation funds these days. They go by that name but, generally, they are only camouflaged deferred wage schemes. They lack proper preservation of benefits, portability and proper vesting procedures. Those benefits, of course, have been winkled out of employers through industrial action. I refer to the builders unions superannuation scheme, the Australian scheme and others which have been put into force by various trade union action. In the end, those kinds of union-based schemes which apply to workers in particular industries are, as I have said, only deferred wage schemes, but they are also, very importantly, schemes aimed at enforcing a de facto compulsory unionism upon workers in the industry, because the only people who can join those superannuation funds in respect of particular industries are those workers who have the union ticket. Consequently, it is discriminatory on the part of unions to conduct these kinds of superannuation funds because they exclude people who do not wish to become members of a trade union. The superannuation schemes currently being propelled by unions in that way are not genuine partnerships between employers and employees, and because they demand contributions only from employers they are not proper superannuation. Furthermore, such schemes are not based on enterprises that would have a capacity to set up superannuation schemes. Rather, they are imposed upon various employers right across an industry. They are imposed because of the pressure and the coercion of the trade union that is involved in that particular industry. They are the facts of life in this area. I am rather pleased to see that in recent days the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, apparently has been laying down the law to the Transport Workers Union in respect of this kind of activity, and has been seeking to obtain changes to superannuation schemes in order to put them on a more reasonable and proper basis. We support him in that. I might say that it comes as something of a surprise, as only 12 months ago the same Minister was imploring the unions to go outside the then famous accord on wages to seek extra benefits from employers by putting pressure on them to implement trade union-type superannuation arrangements such as the ones he is now decrying. I am glad that he has had his conversion on the road to Damascus. However, the Government now has to face up to the fact that the fish is getting away very fast and it has to move quickly to control the development of those superannuation schemes. If they are allowed to continue to develop and expand in the way that they are and are left in the hands of trade union controllers, if the Government takes no action to control the situation, there is likely to be a disaster a few years down the track in terms of the Government's capacity to develop an appropriate national superannuation scheme. I hope that Senator Walsh acknowledges that point and I do hope that the Government is moving quickly to do whatever it can to control this unruly development in the trade union movement. It is clear that the Government is going to have significant problems, bearing in mind that it has its roots in the trade union movement, is beholden to it and consequently is the puppet of the trade unions themselves. So it may be very difficult for the Government to control these developments. It is in the great and most important interest of this country that the Government move quickly to control superannuation arrangements of this kind and put them into a proper form of superannuation scheme where there is proper preservation of benefits for employees, at least until the age of 65 years, where there is vesting in the name of employees, where there is portability and where there is proper control over the management and investment of superannuation funds, and it is not handed on a platter to the trade union movement for it to dispose of in its own ideological manner. It is vital that the Government address those points at this time. It ought to be taking action to stop the kind of developments that we are seeing at the moment throughout the building industry and the transport industry, among the timber workers and so on. It is absolutely vital that this Government, which claims to be interested in introducing a comprehensive system of retirement income support, grab the opportunity right now and stop this unruly development in our community. One other aspect of the legislation that concerns me is the fact that, intentionally or not, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 created last year a situation whereby funds derived from legitimate superannuation funds but put into an approved deposit fund or other roll-over facility are in fact taken into account together with other kindred payments, such as redundancy payments, in assessing the maximum benefits allowable for the purposes of taxation deduction, exemption and so on. That situation has been brought to my attention by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and I understand that it has corresponded with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in this regard. I do hope that we will be able to get a positive response from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) at the end of the second reading debate and that he indicates whether or not he would seek to amend the legislation to ensure that this situation changed. The reason that we are concerned about this is simple. It seems as though in this situation, where moneys are derived from a superannuation fund but the maximum benefit level is set by the Commissioner of Taxation and does not require that other kindred payments are put into a roll-over facility, people will tend to take those other payments, redundancy payments or whatever they might be, in cash and so they are lost from the system and principle of roll-over. That means that there is a positive incentive for people to destroy the principle upon which the Government established its lump sum superannuation arrangements; that is, to seek to preserve benefits throughout one's working life to the date of retirement. I had hoped that the Government would have a response to ASFA's letter to the Treasurer, dated 27 September, on this point so that we may have been able to conduct a debate about it. It seems to be perfectly reasonable for the Government to seek to amend the existing legislation in order to overcome what I see as a very real loophole in its own legislation. I do acknowledge, however, that this may be offset by the recent announcements by the Taxation Commissioner, through the Treasurer, that there are to be increased levels of maximum benefits allowable for any assessment of the taxation exemptions and deductions. That is a worthwhile step forward; one which we are glad to see. It may well alleviate the general problems to which I have just referred. Nevertheless, the Government ought to acknowledge that there is a loophole in its legislation which could cause a leakage to something other than what it intends. It is not for us to tell the Government what to do, but I hope that it will sponsor an amendment to take care of that situation. I believe that we ought to continue to look at the position of self-employed people and the way in which superannuation taxation laws discriminate against them. Self-employed people are now allowed a tax deduction of $1,500 a year. Of course that has to come only from their own sources. Other people who are in employment and who are members of superannuation funds do have generous contributions made by employers for their benefit over many years by virtue of the formula that applies in the calculation of the maximum benefits to which we have just referred. But self-employed people are continually discriminated against. In our policy on taxation and social security we have clearly in mind trying to alleviate that position of self-employed people so as to make sure that they have a far greater chance of gaining superannuation benefits similar to those received by people who are in employment. It does need urgent reform. We were pleased to see in the recent Budget that the Government announced that it would increase the contribution, in a fairly minor way, from $1,200-a level which of course was introduced by the Fraser Government in 1980-to $1,500. That is a very worthwhile step but the Government needs to do more and to consider the very gross inequity that affects self-employed people. The iniquitous lump sum superannuation tax is at the core of this legislation. I believe that the Government has gone down entirely the wrong track in its whole approach to retirement income security plans by seeking to tax people's incentive to look after themselves. In that way it has failed to address the problems of retirement income in this country. There has been great concern in the community about the imposition of not only this tax but also the capital gains tax and, more particularly, the assets test on pensions. All of those measures are destructive to incentive and seek to work against the interests of those who are planning to look after themselves and so make themselves less dependent upon the social security system of this country. It is certainly the intention of the Liberal and National parties to encourage the kind of development which, through appropriate incentives both in the taxation system and in the social security system, will give people the opportunity to lift themselves out of the depressing state whereby they become mere dependants of the Government. Debate interrupted. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —by leave-Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to make a personal explanation. This morning I gave the following notice of motion: That the Senate- (a) notes with deep regret the demise of the Camelia restaurant, Brisbane's oldest licensed restaurant, which will close its doors at 12 noon today, may it `rest in peace'; (b) condemns the Federal Labor Government for its callous disregard for all small business, but in particular the restaurant and catering industry, whose members are suffering extreme financial hardship due to the Federal Government's taxation attack on the restaurant and catering industry; (c) notes with concern the many jobs lost from the restaurant industry and that 1,500 young Queensland men and women employees have already been forced to join the dole queue; (d) congratulates the Queensland restaurant and hospitality industry for their hard-fought campaign against the Federal Government's total disregard for restaurant owners that will be forced into bankruptcy and restaurant employees who will lose their livelihoods; and (e) urges all small business organisations that have been affected by the Government's draconian tax legislation to take similar action to the Restaurant and Caterers Association-- Senator Walsh —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I ask you to rule on whether this is a personal explanation or just an attempt to get under the Standing Orders to indulge in a bit of vulgar propagandising. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! Senator Boswell, I do think it might be more appropriate for you to do this once the Bill has been dealt with. Senator BOSWELL —Mr Acting Deputy President, I will cease my reading of that notice of motion, but there is something very important that I wish to explain to the Senate urgently. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Chair will listen to you for a short time. Senator BOSWELL —After that notice of motion was put down Senator Jones rose and put down a notice of motion that pointed to mine being wrong. I have since received a vocadex from Mr James Allen, the proprietor of the Camelia Restaurant, which states that he has been misrepresented by the Parliament and the Senate and asks for the Senate's permission to set this matter straight. I have the message here. Senator Walsh —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. As I understand it, the making of a personal explanation allows a senator who has been misrepresented, or who alleges he has been misrepresented, and not some private citizen, to explain how. If Senator Boswell is really worried about the restaurant industry in Queensland he should look at the legislation the Queensland Government proposes to pass, which would keep a lot of people-and possibly even some from this Parliament-outside restaurants which have a licence. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Senator Boswell, I do not think this is the appropriate time for you to deal with this and I suggest you do it after Question Time. Senator Boswell —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to state that it is my notice of motion and my personal explanation. I am the one who has been misrepresented. Senator Tate —There is an appropriate time for it. What are you challenging the Chair for? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Senator Tate, the matter is quite under the control of the Chair. Senator Boswell, I now rule that you should continue your discussion later in the day. Debate resumed. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.35) —Regarding the matter Senator Messner raised, which he described as a loophole, I inform the Senate that I am not familiar with the letter he referred to, nor am I familiar with the facts. From the short briefing I have had, I think there has been some misunderstanding. If the circumstances were described completely correctly by Senator Messner, I think I would have to agree that there is a loophole. I will refer his comments to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and see whether the Treasurer will respond to him directly. In reply to the other matters, I have noted the Opposition's stated intention to provide incentives to take people out of the social security system. I note also that the incentives specifically supported by the Opposition are that payments into superannuation funds should be deductible from tax at the time they are paid in, that income earned within funds should not be subject to tax in the funds, and that the lump sums, when drawn, should be virtually tax exempt or taxed under the present rate schedule at a maximum rate of only 3 per cent of the lump sum. I have noted all that, including the fact that `incentives' in that context is a euphemism for a tax haven and that the degree of benefit which individuals may gain from it is directly related to the amount of money they can either put in themselves or exhort others to put in on their behalf. I have also noted the Opposition's repeated renewed undertaking to repeal the assets test, which of course is quite inconsistent with the view previously expressed. The Opposition proposes this package: A tax haven should be made available ostensibly to provide a retirement income to get people out of the social security system. They would, however, be able to take almost entirely tax free a lump sum which they could then invest in some way which would yield little or no income and still come back into the social security system for a pension. The only people who would be excluded from the social security system under the Opposition's policy when it is looked at as a package are those who would be required to take genuine superannuation benefits as a pension instead of a lump sum. Indeed, the totality of what the Opposition proposes provides an incentive for people not to take themselves out of the social security system but to leave themselves in by converting a pension entitlement into a lump sum payment either tax free or virtually tax free. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill can be summarised, I think, in a couple of sentences. It removes some minor restrictions now adjudged to be unnecessary and it closes off an artificial scheme which has developed, through which approved deposit funds can be used as a means of avoiding future tax on the payment paid into them. I draw attention particularly to the warning given by the Treasurer on 22 August not only that that loophole will be closed but also that any future similar artificial schemes will be legislated against with effect from 22 August this year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.41) —I seek leave to make a statement. Leave not granted. Sitting suspended from 12.41 to 2 p.m. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that both Senator Button and Senator Gareth Evans are absent from Question Time today. Any questions that would normally be directed to Senator Button in relation to his portfolio or those he represents in this chamber should be directed to me. In the case of Senator Evans and his portfolio, questions should be directed to Senator Walsh. Senator MESSNER —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he recalls saying, in reply to a question from Senator Chaney yesterday: . . . the Government intends to stick with the decision to float the Australian dollar and allow the exchange rate to be set by market forces . . . What action in the money and foreign exchange markets was undertaken by the Reserve Bank of Australia yesterday to put a floor under the value of the Australian dollar? What further action is being contemplated to be taken today and in the future? Do these actions represent substantial qualification to the Minister's strong support for a freely floating Australian dollar referred to previously? Senator WALSH —I do not know what the Reserve Bank did yesterday or today and if I did know I certainly would not tell Senator Messner. Of course, the Opposition has a long and lamentable history of economic sabotage in the area of the exchange rate, going back to the period prior to the demise of the unlamented Fraser Government when it forecast definitively a devaluation of the dollar if the Australian Labor Party were elected. Since everybody knew that Labor would be elected and some people were silly enough to believe the sorts of things that the then discredited Treasurer and his leader were saying, there was a run on the dollar and this finished up costing the Australian taxpayers, via the Reserve Bank, something of the order of $400m to $500m. I regret to note that the Opposition is still committed to a policy of economic sabotage. As to the earlier part of Senator Messner's question, the Government has decided to float the dollar and that is a decision which will stick. We will not go back to the regulated currency regime which was a feature of the previous Government's policy. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question. I fail to see why the Minister will not tell us what the Reserve Bank has been doing in the markets. Surely that is the key point. The misleading answer that the Minister has just given us is obviously a subterfuge because it is clear that the Government is involved, via the Reserve Bank, and I ask for his comment on that. Senator WALSH —I have already said that I do not know and that if I did I would not tell Senator Messner. There are very good reasons for that because in telling Senator Messner one would be telling the whole world and thereby playing into the hands of currency speculators by giving them foreknowledge of what, if anything, the Reserve Bank was going to do. I note again, with great regret, Senator Messner's eagerness to collaborate with foreign currency speculators who are trying to undermine the Australian economy and rip off the Australian people. Senator COATES —Is the Minister for Community Services aware of the reaction to the Government's announcements on child care funding arrangements? Is he aware in particular of certain reported statements of Senator Peter Baume, particularly his claim that the changes support long day care centres at the expense of family day care? Will the Minister put the position straight for the Senate? Senator GRIMES —I suppose it would be fair to say that, in general, the reaction to the changes in child care announced yesterday has been a much more muted one than some of us would have expected in light of the fact that, as I said yesterday, in most cases, people will have to pay more for child care. I think Senator Peter Baume's statement probably resulted from a misunderstanding of the charges that I announced yesterday. Under the revised funding system which we announced the methods of funding long day care will change. I think even some members of the Opposition acknowledge that the new system will have greater fairness and equity and will allow more places to be created with greater ease. However, operational assistance to family day care has been untouched by these changes. Fees for family day care schemes will not rise as a result of changes in operational funding and when the raised fee relief arrangements are taken into account no user of family day care will have an increase of more than $2 a week as a full time fee. I do not think that is much of an impost on family day care. It certainly does not indicate that we are being harder on family day care than we are on long day care in child care centres in general. Last year, as a result of an across the board subsidy, the Government provided an increase to family day care of 20 per cent for each full time place and, as a result of introducing a $3 a week subsidy for each part time place, we increased the amount of support. Under the previous scheme the subsidy had not been increased for many years. These increases were made because we recognised the importance of family day care and the importance of family day care co-ordinators in administering fee relief and the scheme in general. Users of family day care schemes are also eligible for income related assistance in paying their fees. I share the concern Senator Peter Baume expressed for the number of child care places available, as I think everyone else in the chamber does. Under the Government the number of child care places has increased from 37,500 in 1982 to 63,000 in 1985. Full time family day care places have increased from 21,000 to 30,000 and an additional 4,000 will be created by 1988. Expenditure will be increased from $15m in 1982-83 to $40m this year. I think our record in this area speaks for itself. We are committed to improving child care places generally; we are committed to maintaining the quality of child care; we are committed to maintaining the flexibility of child care, which includes maintaining support for family day care, and we will continue to do so. The changes I announced yesterday will allow even more families access to affordable quality child care, including family day care. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Will the Minister for Finance give the Senate an unequivocal assurance that low interest bearing housing loans made to special deserving groups of Australians, especially through government agencies, loans such as war service home loans, will not be subject to the so-called perks tax under the Government's ill-considered tax package? If the Minister is unable to give that assurance can he at least give an undertaking, firstly, that any such taxes will only be on new loan arrangements and not on those entered into on the basis that such taxes did not exist and, secondly, that where governmental agencies are involved the Government will pay the perks tax to itself, so demonstrating the farcical nature of much of its tax package? Senator WALSH —At no stage was there ever any intention to apply what Senator Baume chooses to call the perks tax to war service housing loans, either past or prospective. I can give an assurance that that has never been contemplated. I can also guarantee that that assurance is more reliable than the Patrick Partners prospectuses that he used to write in 1970. Senator TATE —Is the Minister representing the Mnister for Foreign Affairs aware that Australia signed the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty on 8 August this year and that it prohibits the acquisition, stationing, manufacture or testing of nuclear explosive devices in Australia? Will the Government give an undertaking to introduce into the Parliament legislation which fully embodies the obligations undertaken in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty? Will the Government bring such legislation forward in the autumn session next year? Senator WALSH —I must say that until a few minutes ago I was only vaguely aware of the fact that that Treaty was signed on 8 August. In my new and exalted capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs I have been supplied with a note on this question. That note says that it was signed on 6 August-and not 8 August, or so it says here-and that seven other members of the South Pacific Forum signed the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Since then Papua New Guinea has also signed that Treaty. Parties to the Treaty undertake, among other things, not to manufacture explosive devices and not to permit them to be stationed or tested on their territory. It also prohibits the dumping of radioactive waste at sea within the zone and includes restrictions on the export of nuclear material in line with Australia's existing strong safeguard requirements for uranium exports. The Treaty also recognises the unqualified sovereign right of countries in the zone to decide for themselves such questions as security arrangements and access to ports and airfields by vessels and aircraft of other countries. It also fully respects the principles of international law with regard to the freedom of the high seas. The prohibitions in the Treaty will be binding on Australia when it has verified it and the seven other countries have also done so. The Government is currently considering what implementing legislation will be required before Australia can ratify the Treaty. Preliminary advice is that legislation will probably be required to implement the Treaty's provisions on radioactive waste dumping and on verification, particularly access rights and privileges and immunities of inspection. No decision has been taken about the timing or form of the implementing legislation. Consideration is, however, being given to amending the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 to cover the Treaty's prohibition on the dumping of radioactive waste. Senator TATE —I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister convey to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the need for the full embodiment of all the obligations of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty in legislation and not merely those which are technically necessary? Senator WALSH —I will certainly convey that message to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government considering its obligations under the ANZUS Treaty in the event of an insurrection in the Philippines by the New People's Army? Will the Government give a positive undertaking that under no circumstances will Australian troops be sent to oppose an internal rebellion in the Philippines, and inform the Governments of the United States of America and the Philippines of this decision now? If the Government will not do that, will it concede that its indecisiveness may well result in another tragic involvement of Australia in a Vietnam-type situation, but on a far greater scale than in Vietnam because of the many fronts on which such a war would have to be fought in the individual islands of the Philippines? Senator WALSH —This question is a bit tough because I do not have a bit of paper on it. Therefore, for a definitive answer I will have to refer this question to Mr Hayden. May I say that I would be extremely surprised if, under the hypothetical circumstances outlined by Senator Mason, Australian troops would be so committed. Senator Mason also drew on the analogy of Vietnam. The Australian Labor Party's record on Vietnam, of course, is well known. I trust that the record of the Liberal Party of Australia is equally well known. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of a claim made by Senator Sanders in a speech on 11 October on the Qantas Airways Ltd Bill that Continental Airlines Inc. has a return airfare for Los Angeles-Melbourne-Los Angeles of $US467 and that, in his words, Australians are getting a raw deal from Qantas Airways Ltd? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether Senator Sanders's claims are correct? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that during the debate on the Qantas Airways legislation several weeks ago Senator Sanders did make a critical statement in respect of the fare schedules that operate from Sydney to Los Angeles and return. He suggested that a very much lower fare was available through Continental Airlines than the fare provided by Qantas. I think that was the basis of his criticism of Qantas Airways. I am advised that Continental Airlines in a telex has said that it has absolutely no knowledge of the fare of $US467 for Los Angeles-Melbourne-Los Angeles which Senator Sanders allegedly claimed it was offering. That information is from the General Manager of Continental Airlines. One can only assume that Senator Sanders has wrong figures, or was just indulging in a little bit of rhetoric in the debate on that particular piece of legislation. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance, both in that capacity and as Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: In light of the information which was given to the Senate by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, on 17 October which for the first time revealed the truth about the then state of the Government's so-called inquiry into gold tax-a response which, incidentally, exposed misleading statements by both the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance-can the Minister say whether the inquiry has yet been set up? If so, when was it set up? Who constitutes the inquiry? What are its terms of reference? Senator WALSH —I understand that Senator Durack's office-if not Senator Durack personally-was advised on 5 November, which was last Tuesday, by the Treasurer's office that both the membership and the terms of reference of the inquiry have been largely agreed by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. They have not yet been announced-at least that was the case on 5 November; I think it is still the case-but are awaiting the agreement of the proposed members and the required declarations of interest; that is, those declarations of interest to ensure that there is no conflict of interest, a policy which has been consistently followed by this Government in respect of such appointments. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr Deputy President. What are the terms of reference of the inquiry? Senator WALSH —I understand that Senator Durack's office was advised about the terms of reference also last Tuesday. Senator BLACK —Has the Minister representing the Special Minister of State seen recent Press reports relating to phantom voters on the State electoral rolls in Queensland? Can the Minister assure the Senate that electoral rolls administered by the Federal Government in Queensland are not in a similar appalling condition to those State rolls used in the seat of Redlands last weekend, where between 500 and 1,000 voters were incorrectly on the roll and yet up to 500 voters were forced to claim section votes because they were not on the roll? To what extent do these problems arise in Queensland because Queensland is now the only State to maintain separate State and Federal rolls? What success has the Federal Government had in negotiating joint enrolment procedures and joint rolls with the phantom Ministers of the Queensland Government? Senator WALSH —Yes, I was broadly aware of the reports to which Senator Black has referred, which indicate a deplorable condition of the State electoral rolls in Queensland. Whether that is the result of negligence or design is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. Senator Black asked for an assurance that the electoral rolls administered by the Commonwealth Government in Queensland are not in a similar condition. I can give such an assurance because the Commonwealth regularly conducts habitation reviews. The last habitation review in Queensland was carried out just prior to the 1984 election. Another is due to be commenced about the middle of 1986. I also know for a fact that Queensland is the only State which refuses to accept a common roll with the Commonwealth within a State boundary. Again, one can only speculate on why Queensland insists on being the only State to do so, therefore wasting its own money, and on whether it has an irresistible compulsion to waste its own taxpayers' money or whether there is a more sinister motive. I understand that recently an arrangement was negotiated with the Queensland Government whereby joint enrolment cards will be made available but that such cards will be separately processed. The legislation for that is currently before the Queensland Parliament. Although the provision of joint enrolment cards is a sensible move, it does not provide any assurance or, indeed, opportunity for the Commonwealth to guarantee that the Queensland electoral rolls are in order because the processing of those application cards is outside the control of the Commonwealth. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Is the primary school designated to be built in the suburb of McKellar still to go ahead? If it is not, when was the decision not to proceed taken and have the residents of the surrounding area been advised of any change of decision? Senator RYAN —I am not aware of any change in the schedule for the development of schools in new areas that was announced by the Government at the time of the Budget. If such a decision has been taken, it would have been taken by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. However, I am certainly not aware of it. I will ask the Authority to give me advice and let Senator Reid know. Senator MORRIS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation aware of the inordinate delays which often occur in flights to Sydney, caused by air traffic congestion at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport? What progress is the Government making in resolving the growing air traffic problems at Mascot? Senator GIETZELT —All Sydney passengers and, for that matter, Brisbane passengers who have to use Sydney Airport will be aware of the delays that continually take place in traffic leaving Canberra for Sydney and Brisbane, largely brought about by the traffic congestion occurring at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Such congestion is a result of the indecision over many years of the Commonwealth Government regarding whether to build a second airport or to extend the existing airport at Mascot. It has to be said that Prime Minister Whitlam sought to advance that decision-making process by supporting the establishment of a second airport at Galston. That was not acceptable at that time. In the subsequent seven years of Liberal Government in Canberra no steps were taken to expedite a decision about whether the existing airport at Mascot should be extended and developed to accommodate traffic movement or whether a second airport site should be chosen. This Government has made a definite commitment to make that decision. I believe that the decision will be to locate a second airport in the Sydney region. The decision is currently under examination. An environmental impact statement is being prepared in respect of the two principal sites, Badgerys Creek and Wilton on the outskirts of Sydney. Depending on the outcome of that statement, the Government hopes to be in a position to make a decision about the siting of Sydney's second airport before the end of the year. I think that it is a matter of public record that the councils in and around Mascot, whatever their political complexion, have all expressed opposition to any further extensions. Public opinion is overwhelmingly of the view that a second airport should be constructed. When the environmental impact statement is finalised, the matter will be discussed with the State Government, and a decision is expected to be made in a very short time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, concerns the devaluation of the Australian dollar. I note that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, has been quoted in today's Age as having said yesterday: . . . the Government would consider changing its wages policy only if the devaluation of the dollar became entrenched. He is further quoted as saying: If there is some substantial deterioration built into the system that looks like lasting we will have to consider our position. How long will the Government wait before considering its position on wages policy and has it already taken any steps to discuss the seriousness of the position with the Australian Council of Trade Unions? Senator WALSH —I have not seen that report in the Age that was attributed to Mr Willis, although yesterday I did say something similar in a public situation. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked how long it would be before the Government would consider changing its position on wages policy. Since it is not my primary responsibility, I could not give a definite answer. I will see whether Mr Willis has anything to say. Likewise, I will see whether Mr Willis has held any tentative or preliminary discussions with the ACTU on this question. Senator DEVLIN —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation analyse recent figures released by Qantas Airways Ltd on the level of industrial disputation which has occurred? Those figures show an increase in the number of man hours lost in the 12 months to 31 March 1985 when compared with those of the previous 12 months. Given these trends, has the Minister any views as to the future direction of industrial relations in Qantas? Senator GIETZELT —Over the last half a dozen years there has been a considerable improvement in the employment position and in the number of man hours lost with respect to Qantas employees. While one report just recently published in the Press has suggested that as a result of industrial action there has been an increase in the number of man hours lost, nevertheless that increase represents a very considerable reduction in the man hours lost when taken on a comparative basis with those lost in 1978-79 and 1980-81. In those years the man hours lost were, respectively, 385,438 and 486,372. The very small amount of 6,896 man hours was lost in the year ending 31 March 1985. Approximately one-third of those hours were lost because of a stoppage by members of the Transport Workers Union to discuss a log of claims, which is always a fairly legitimate activity, for the introduction of a 38-hour week. Although a suggestion has been made in the media that there has been a deterioration in industrial relations because of the increase in man hours lost, the large number of man hours lost under the previous Government bears no comparison with those lost under the industrial relations policy of this Government. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister for Education to a recent decision of the United Kingdom's Economic and Social Research Council to blacklist, for the purposes of funding for social science doctorates, 14 universities and polytechnics because their students take so long to complete PhDs. In light of the 1983 report on the Commonwealth post-graduate award scheme published by the Minister's Department, which found that the situation in Australia with respect to the completion of PhDs is worse than that criticised in the United Kingdom, I ask the Minister: Firstly, has any inquiry of the nature of the British Swinnerton-Dyer Committee been conducted or planned with respect to the duration of higher research degrees in Australia; and, secondly, what steps have the Government, the Tertiary Education Commission and/or the Australian Research Grants Committee taken to monitor and discourage poor completion rates in post-graduate research degrees? Senator RYAN —I am not aware of any research projects similar to the one referred to by Senator Vanstone as having taken place in the United Kingdom. However, there are a number of ways in which the performance of post- graduate students can be monitored. In the first instance it is the responsibility of the institution awarding the degree and, in particular, the supervisors of post-graduate students to monitor their work and to ensure that they are performing satisfactorily. The primary responsibility for the management of post-graduate students ought to remain with institutions. Where post-graduate scholars have awards given to them from sources other than the institution, there is some monitoring of their progress. I am not aware of any specific new proposal to add to the existing means of monitoring the performance of post-graduate students with respect to the time they take to comeplete their degrees but in line with the Government's determination to achieve better outcomes in education generally at all levels, including that of post-graduate scholars, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission is undertaking a series of discipline reviews within institutions which will move discipline by discipline to ensure that standards of performance of students gaining those degrees-that will include post-graduate degrees-are satisfactory and have the collective support of institutions and scholars throughout Australia. This is a very constructive move because it will reveal any areas where there has been a lowering of standards and it will provide a way in which individual departments and institutions can be assured that students are maintaining standards. Also, the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee is embarking upon an investigation into standards of performance of students at different levels. Both CTEC and the Vice-Chancellors Committee are taking steps which should ensure that the performance of students at all levels, including the post-graduate level, is satisfactory. Senator VANSTONE —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Accepting that primary responsibility for monitoring rests with the individual institutions, will the Government nonetheless examine the United Kingdom's move to penalise institutions which have poor PhD submission rates to ascertain which institutions do not fulfil their responsibility in this regard? Senator RYAN —That kind of punitive approach is not the first one that springs to mind in our relationships with institutions via the Tertiary Education Commission. If a large number of students were failing to complete their courses or were taking far too long to complete them some steps would have to be taken. However, at this stage I certainly have no evidence that would prompt the use of very severe penalties such as reducing grants. Given the growing pressure for places within tertiary institutions and the rise in standards as demonstrated by the increasing number of marks required to get into certain courses, there is a great deal of competition for places in institutions and post-graduate places. There is certainly a very great deal of competition for post-graduate awards. I would think that this highly competitive atmosphere would militate against institutions tolerating a poor performance by their post-graduate students. In answer to Senator Vanstone's supplementary question, I will ask CTEC to advise on any information it has which suggests that further action may be needed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of members from the New South Wales Public Accounts Committee, led by Mr John Aquilina. I welcome them to the Senate. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator REYNOLDS —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to a proposal announced this week by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for the construction of a railway between Alice Springs and Darwin? In particular, has the Minister's attention been drawn to Mr Tuxworth's intention to seek Commonwealth funding for that railway? Can the Minister say whether the Government is likely to support Mr Tuxworth's presumptuous request for up to $100m of Commonwealth funds for this somewhat extravagant project? Senator WALSH —I have indeed seen the reports of the proposal to which Senator Reynolds refers. An extract of a speech delivered by Mr Tuxworth last Wednesday referred to the pie in the sky railway in these terms: Ladies and gentlemen, construction of Australia's first private railway will begin by . . . 1987. As a point of history, it is by no means the first private railway on which construction has commenced in Australia. I recall at least two in my own State and in other parts of Australia as well. In most cases they were commenced by private enterprise and taken over by governments when the private firms went broke. Mr Tuxworth went on to say: When I say private, I mean that it will be privately designed, constructed, financed, owned and operated. This should tell you something straight away. This railway will make money. Governments are the only organisations that accept losses as a normal state of affairs. I welcome Mr Tuxworth's implicit assurance that there will be no call for Commonwealth funds for the construction of this railway, since he has said that it will be an entirely private affair. However, I am somewhat disturbed to see a report in the Canberra Times of yesterday which reports Mr Tuxworth as saying that in the national interest it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to have some capital input. So this railway, which will be privately designed, constructed, financed, owned and operated-to quote the Northern Territory Chief Minister-will, it appears from other sources, be expected to have a Commonwealth capital input. That, of course, is typical doublespeak: The privately owned railway, financed by free capital from the Commonwealth Government. I invite Mr Tuxworth to clarify whether in fact he is talking about a privately owned, financed, built, designed and operated railway or whether this is just another subterfuge to try to bleed the Commonwealth taxpayers for another enormous financial contribution towards the financial irresponsibility and incompetence of the Northern Territory Government. In the same speech Mr Tuxworth referred also to Sir Charles Court saying at the same conference in 1979 that railways are forever. I do not think that railways are quite forever, but leaving that aside, I can say that some things are forever. Those things include the debts lumbered on to the long-suffering Western Australian taxpayer by Sir Charles Court, with such pie in the sky projects as the Ord River irrigation scheme, the North West Shelf gas contract-out of which the Western Australian Government was bailed by the very generous treatment from the Commonwealth Government-not to mention such minor Court white elephants as the `portable' sorghum handling installation at the port of Broome. It is marginally more portable than a reinforced concrete silo with foundations sunk 50 metres into the ground. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask the Minister for Finance: Was a centralised wage system in existence in the period 1973 to 1975? Senator Ryan —Don't you remember? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It is the Labor Party that wants to forget. Was a Federal Labor Government in office in that period and was Mr Hawke President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and of the Federal Labor Party in that period? Did wages rise 37 per cent in a period of 18 months and 52 per cent in that three years period? Did inflation rise to 16.8 per cent in 1975? Were not those wage and price rises under the centralised wage system of the Labor Government of record size and far greater than any in the period of the Fraser Government? Senator WALSH —There was a centralised wage fixing arrangement between 1973 and 1975 but there was no prices and incomes accord. There was also from May of 1975 an agreement on wage indexation which could be regarded as a rough prototype of the prices and incomes accord, and as a result of that indexation decision, wages growth slowed down very, very substantially. Indeed, the fact that that had happened and that a prototype of the accord had been established in 1975 was, I suggest, a major reason why the then Federal Opposition was determined to truncate the term of that Parliament and that Government, which ultimately led, of course, to a corrupt Chief Justice giving advice to a corrupt Governor-General to dissolve the Parliament because they both knew that the Senate would cave in and pass the Appropriation Bills before the end of that week. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. The expression `corrupt' should be withdrawn. Senator Grimes —The Standing Orders are quite clear in this area, I suggest, and I do not believe that the term `corrupt' applied to someone who is no longer Chief Justice or the term `corrupt' applied to someone who, thank heavens, is no longer Governor-General, should be withdrawn under any circumstances. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Standing Orders do not protect retired members of the judiciary; only good taste does. Senator WALSH —Senator Carrick asked whether wages increased by 35 per cent in 18 months. I do not know for certain, but there was certainly a very high rate of wage increase. He asked whether inflation peaked at 16.8 per cent in a 12-month period. I think it was the 12 months ending September 1974. Yes, that is correct-and that is two-thirds as much as the record rate of inflation that Australia ever had inflicted upon it in a 12-month period, which was under the Menzies Government for the 12 months ended December 1951. As for the other implications of Senator Sir John Carrick's question, he asked whether the present Prime Minister was then President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I am not sure of the relevance of that or what inferences should be drawn from it, but in view of comments that various members of the Opposition have made in recent days, from which it appears that they use that fact in some attempt to discredit the present Prime Minister, I shall ask the Prime Minister for his view on that, but I think it is likely that the Prime Minister, between 1974 and 1983 or 1982, became convinced not only of the value but probably of the essentiality of a prices and incomes accord in establishing the framework for non-inflationary sustained high rates of economic growth. I think that is probably a fair description of the Prime Minister's attitude and one with which he would agree. He was probably led to that conclusion, as many of us were, by the empirical evidence, both abroad and in Australia, which showed that the common denominator for all those countries which had maintained growth rates throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s sufficiently high to hold unemployment down to levels of the 1960s and which had simultaneously held down inflation rates was the existence of an effective wages policy. The Australian experience, conversely, showed that in the absence of a wages policy, from 1981 onwards we had a wage explosion of 11 per cent in one year and 14 per cent in the other. If that is all correct, the essential difference, I think, between the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party was that the Prime Minister, like the Australian Labor Party in general, has learnt from experience and absorbed, in an unpreju- diced and unbiased way, the empirical evidence from Australia and abroad. I regret that the Liberal Party and particularly its Leader still fail to do so. His attitude is that he wants to have a re-run of the debacle of 1981 and 1982. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr Deputy President. I ask the Minister again: Were not the wage and price rises of those three years under the Labor Government far greater than any during the period of the Fraser Government? Senator WALSH —I am not sure what the wage rises in that three-year period were and I am not sure either what point Senator Sir John Carrick thinks he is making, as I said in the beginning that, yes, there was a centralised wage fixing arrangement in place in 1973-74 but there was no prices and incomes accord, or anything remotely resembling a prices and incomes accord, until May of 1985. I have already conceded that wages growth, in an 18-month period at least, if not a three-year period, was higher than it was in the final years of the Fraser Government. But the unique distinction of the Fraser Government, of course, is that it managed to preside over double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, plus double digit wage increases, in its final two years. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the speech made on Wednesday in Adelaide by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, in support of South Australian Liberal Party candidates for the State election. In that speech Mr Howard attacked the prices and incomes accord of the Commonwealth Government. What is the Government's response to Mr Howard's claims about this key Government policy? Did Mr Howard put forward privatisation proposals similar to those advocated by the Opposition in South Australia? If so, are they more likely to work at a State level than at a Federal level? Senator WALSH —In reply to the last part of the question asked by Senator Maguire, I understand that so-called privatisation proposals similar to those being advocated by Mr Howard are also advocated by the South Australian Opposition Leader. Senator Robert Ray —Who is he? I've never heard of him. Senator WALSH —Someone called Olsen, I think. About half as many South Australians approve of him as approve of the Premier. Senator Maguire asks whether privatisation proposals are more likely to work at a State level. I would think that that is unlikely because they would run into the same fundamental problem as other natural monopolies in Australia. The Commonwealth Government owns the natural monopolies of post and telecommunications; State governments tend to own natural monopolies such as water and electricity supply. In all of those cases there are cross-subsidies within the system, under which innately unprofitable services provided in remote parts of the country are cross-subsidised within the organisation from revenue received from other quarters. For that reason neither State nor Commonwealth privatisation is likely to succeed unless these innately unprofitable services are closed down. That would mean withdrawing, in the Commonwealth sphere, postal and telephone services from almost the entire country, with the exception of the capital cities. Perhaps that is what Mr Howard proposes to do, and perhaps it is what Mr Olsen proposes to do. Perhaps, for example, Mr Olsen proposes not to supply water or electricity to the Iron Triangle or to the rural parts of South Australia. Mr Olsen would have to be asked about that. As for Mr Howard's speech and his criticism of the Government's policies, particularly the key Government policy of the prices and incomes accord, Mr Howard pontificated about the current account deficit and linked that to the existence of the prices and incomes accord. It is difficult to see the logic involved there unless he has adopted the principle of retrospective causation because the greatest current account deficit ever recorded occurred in 1981-82 when Mr Howard was Treasurer. The current account deficit then equalled 6.1 per cent of gross domestic product. Whether or not one agrees with the prices and incomes accord, it is difficult to see that it could have caused retrospectively that record current account deficit over which Mr Howard presided as Treasurer. I presume that Mr Howard's attempt to link the present current account deficit, which is much less than the one over which he presided, to the Labor Government is related to the fact that he seems to be completely bereft of policies to deal with the current account deficit. Indeed, I understand that the Liberal Party is going to oppose a policy of this Government to recover a higher level of costs from overseas tertiary students, which would help to bridge the current account deficit. Mr Howard seems to be without any policy at all for bridging the current account deficit, other than perpetuating the free lunch. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer him to two events that occurred 24 hours after the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission granted a Government supported pay claim of 3.8 per cent to Australian workers- Senator Robert Ray —Are you going to take your 3.8 per cent, or not? Senator WALTERS —These are the immediate crash of the Australian dollar and the Minister's statement in the Senate that only some ill-informed people overseas would think the wage increase would affect the dollar. I ask: If the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance cannot bring themselves to concede publicly what the money and foreign markets are spelling out-the fact that the Australian economy is in a parlous state-will they at least refrain from making statements that will further weaken our credibility around the world? Senator WALSH —I think it should be put on the record that an interjector was unkind enough to ask Senator Walters whether she was going to accept her 3.8 per cent wage rise and Senator Walters has not answered. I do not have the verbatim record before me, but if I did say the other day that only ill-informed people overseas would have been surprised that the 3.8 per cent wage increase was awarded, I was perhaps remiss or wrong because on reflection I am willing to believe that ill-informed people in Australia, of whom Senator Walters would be a prime example, also may have been surprised. The fact is that anybody, at home or abroad, who was at all familiar with the Australian scene would have known, or ought to have known, at least from 19 September that the probability of the 3.8 per cent wage award being made or approved was overwhelming. Therefore, any effect that may have had on the exchange rates, at least to informed people, would have been felt on or about 20 September rather than on 4 or 5 November. Since Mr Howard seems to have adopted the principle of retrospective causation, we should not be too surprised if other and lesser members of the Liberal Party adopt equally sloppy logical processes when reaching their conclusions. Senator CROWLEY —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to a letter I have received from the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia-the letter in which he was wrong about Medicare-in which he claims: . . . if present trends are allowed to continue, half our economy soon will be listed as Government expenditure, and under Labor our taxes just keep going up. Can the Minister clarify what percentage of expenditure is listed as government expenditure, what trends are expected and what are the facts about taxes under Labor so that I can send the answer to the Leader of the South Australian Opposition for his information and edification? Senator WALSH —I have seen a copy of a letter written or signed by one John Olsen who, as I have said before, is apparently the Leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia. It says the sorts of things to which Senator Crowley has referred. I do not think I should take up time to deal with all of them, but I will deal with the most important. In the letter-which I assume was written by Mr Olsen and not by some lunatic who is going around signing his name-it was asserted that if present trends are allowed to continue, half our economy will soon be listed as government expenditure. That is, of course, nonsense. Not only is it absolutely wrong; it also misdescribes the present direction not only of Commonwealth expenditure but government expenditure in toto. In recent years total Commonwealth, State and local government outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product have been just over 40 per cent, which is extremely low by the standards of many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, and indeed ranks us at about seventeenth in the table of 24 countries in public expenditure as a proportion of GDP. Leaving that aside, however, in very recent years and particularly last year and again in the forecasts for this year, Commonwealth outlays as a proportion of GDP will fall and State and local government expenditures have not been rising as a share of GDP. It follows axiomatically, therefore, that total government expenditure as a proportion of GDP must be falling, although that has more to do with the rapid growth of GDP, which has been sustained since this Government came into office, than it does with actual or absolute reductions in the amount of public expenditure. In the case of South Australia it should be added that some $40m in tax cuts were also announced by the South Australian Government-that is, State tax cuts-a few months ago. The Commonwealth proportion of GDP for this year is, from memory, 29.9 per cent as estimated in the Budget Papers, which is down very substantially from the 30.8 per cent recorded in the previous year. It is true that it has been lower within the past decade in some years, but it should be borne in mind that Commonwealth outlays as a proportion of GDP are related to, other things being equal, the level of unemployment. Even though the level of unemployment has fallen very substantially since this Government has been in office, if by some miraculous formula we could return overnight to the employment levels of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s Commonwealth expenditure as a proportion of GDP would automatically fall by about another 2 per cent-that is, to around 28 per cent of GDP. Senator SHORT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will bonus issues and rights issues on shares held on 19 September 1985 be subject to the proposed capital gains tax? Senator WALSH —I do not have a definitive answer to that question but, subject to further advice from the Treasurer, I understand that that question is being considered. Senator SHORT —May I put a supplementary question to the Minister? Do I take it from his answer that the decisions in relation to issues such as this, which will be affected by capital gains tax, have not yet been taken? Senator WALSH —On all conceivable details, no, decisions have not yet been firmly taken. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Attorney-General been drawn to Queensland State Government legislation which virtually prohibits everyone from doing anything, sexual-wise or any otherwise, that annoys the concept of the non-democratic, non-freedom of thought or action presided over by the guru of Queensland, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, and his lackey, the so-called Justice Minister and Attorney-General, Neville Harper? Have any attempts been made, or will any attempts be made, to have Federal Ministers, members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voluntarily submit themselves to a sex test and an AIDS investigation and gain a list of gay bars to avoid before they enter the State of Queensland on official business? What action, if any, can be taken to halt the practice of discrimination against persons or minority groups in the community by the Queensland Government? Senator WALSH —Senator Jones has asked whether all members of the Federal Parliament will voluntarily submit to these tests. I do not think that is a question that I could answer. It is up to them. Neither do I know whether Sir Joh will require all members of the Queensland Parliament to submit to the same sorts of tests, although I understand that there might be some surprises if he does. Whether Commonwealth parliamentarians travelling to Queensland will be required to undergo the same range of tests as a point of law, I do not know and I certainly would not claim to have any expertise in that area. However, there are some economic consequences I suppose. For example, I understand that under the Queensland legislation all deviants-that is using Sir Joh's definition of deviants-are to be banned from all licensed premises. Using the same definition of deviants as the Queensland Premier uses, I understand that that will encompass about 10 per cent of the population. Senator Boswell should be particularly interested in this; it is a pity he is not here. Given his concern about the economic health of the restaurant industry in Queensland and the fact that most high class restaurants are licensed, he should realise that that means that 10 per cent of the potential customers will not be able to go to restaurants in Queensland. It may be argued that there are not any such deviants in Queensland. Sir Joh might well say that; in which case, of course, there would be no need for his legislation or regulations anyway. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.02) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to a question asked by Senator Crowley without notice this day relating to Government expenditure. I do not wish to abuse the leave which has been given to me by making a speech at this stage but I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that under this Government public sector outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product have grown to very high levels and, if one examines the tables which are contained in this Government's own Budget Papers-- Senator Grimes —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: Senator Chaney has said that he does not want to abuse the privilege that has been given to him by the Senate so I suggest that you stop him from doing so, which is exactly what he is doing. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Chaney has been given leave, he can handle it how he likes. Senator CHANEY —I simply draw the Senate's attention to the table published in the 1985-86 Budget Paper No. 1 which shows public sector outlays as a proportion of GDP. That table shows that the Commonwealth sector in 1984-85, took 32.1 per cent of GDP, which is the highest in the 10-year period shown in the table. The State sector took 22.9 per cent, the highest shown in the table, and the total public sector took 44.1, the highest shown in the table, which covers the period from 1975-76 to 1984-85. The Government of which this Minister is Minister for Finance has been responsible for the highest spending, highest taxing Budgets in Australian history and that is the simple fact which lies behind the statements which were made in South Australia. Whatever attempts to fiddle with figures and predict the future might be made by the Minister for Finance, the Government's Budget Papers make it quite clear that the Government has achieved the distinction of being the highest spending, highest taxing government in our history. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.04) —If Senator Chaney had bothered to listen to the answer I gave to that question, he would have noticed that I drew attention to the linkage, other things being equal, between the level of unemployment and the level of government outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product. The higher the rate of unemployment on a no policy change basis, the higher the rate of government outlays for two reasons. With no policy changes, welfare payments, particularly unemployment benefit payments, automatically increase, and the gross domestic product automatically shrinks because of the high rate of unemployment. Therefore, because of a squeeze from both directions, other things being equal, outlays as a proportion of GDP rise. Outlays as a proportion of GDP finally came out at 30.8 per cent in 1984-85. It is true that that is the highest they have ever been. So also was the rate of unemployment average throughout the whole year the highest it had ever been. That rate of unemployment was inherited from the discredited former Treasurer, who was the only Treasurer in Australia's history ever to bring off the big trifecta: Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and double digit wage rises, in the final case for two years in succession. Only Mr Howard managed to bring off that great trifecta two years in a row. In the last Budget Mr Howard brought down, outlays as a proportion of GDP were 29.9 per cent. Granted, that was lower than the 30.8 per cent outcome of last year. However, the full effects of the disastrous recession of 1982-83, engineered by Mr Howard because of his first flirtation with the fantasy of a deregulated labour market, were not felt throughout the entire 1982-83 financial year. As I remember it, the level of unemployment peaked in April 1983. So the effect on Budget outcomes was not felt until almost the end of that financial year and, therefore, on average for that financial year it had little impact. Since Senator Chaney is particularly interested in the subject I will have a calculation done for him to show what the outlays as a proportion of GDP would have been if the peak level of unemployment had prevailed throughout the entire 1982-83 period. It would certainly have been well above 30 per cent. Moreover, outlays as a proportion of GDP, and as conventionally recorded, take no account of tax expenditures. The last Budget that the discredited former Treasurer produced is remembered for two things: Firstly, it had absolutely no economic strategy and, secondly, all it had was a political strategy. The political strategy was to see how many pressure groups and vested interests could be bought off with a tax bribe in a desperate attempt for the Fraser Government to survive the impending election which it had originally planned for the end of 1982 and which it ultimately deferred to the beginning of 1983. The reason why it was forced to defer the election it had planned for the end of 1982 was that one-third of the finance committee of the Western Australian Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia, along with a number of other prominent Liberals from all around the country, were caught up in the McCabe-Lafranchi report and the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and they were shown to have flogged off companies to the convicted criminal Brian Maher, who then promptly sunk them to the bottom of the harbour. That is the reason why the former Government did not have the election at the end of 1982 and it was forced to postpone it until 1983. Let me tell honourable senators about the effects of those tax bribes on Budget outcomes. All tax expenditures of that nature have a deferred cost. Therefore, the cost of tax deductibility for housing loans, the cost of private health insurance and a host of other things which I cannot remember but which in total amounted to in excess of $1 billion of those tax expenditures announced in the 1982 Budget, which had a full year revenue cost in excess of $1 billion, was not recorded at all in the 1982-83 Budget either on outlays or on income. The bill was sent to the next financial year and was picked up by this Government. If we examine in finer detail the irresponsibility and opportunism of the discredited former Treasurer during his last ignominious year in that position, we find that the tax policies announced on, I think, 25 July 1982-I refer principally to the three-year and five-year depreciation rules, although there were others-were never enacted by the Fraser Government. Nor were most of the additional tax expenditures announced in the 1982-83 Budget enacted by the Fraser Government, even though it survived in office for another six months. None of them were introduced in the Budget session in 1982 and, indeed, in order to keep faith with an electorate which had had an expectation for at least eight months of the financial year that these tax concessions would apply, that legislation was ultimately enacted by the Hawke Government in the autumn of 1983. Through a variety of subterfuges the discredited former Treasurer concealed and understated the true extent of public outlays in comparison with previous years and in comparison with subsequent years. I also mention that the same discredited former Treasurer concealed the true size of the public sector borrowing requirement by entering into a shonky loan-back arrangement with Telecom Australia. Telecom's capital requirements normally had been provided either off the Budget or through borrowings within the public sector borrowing requirement. A shonky arrangement was worked out by the discredited former Treasurer under which surplus contributions to the superannuation fund made by Telecom were loaned back to Telecom without interest, without any formal obligation to repay and without parliamentary approval. I find that particularly incongruous given the poseurs and the humbugs in the Opposition who a fortnight ago rejected a machinery Bill to provide a standing appropriation for the Loans Bill. It is no more than a machinery Bill. They did that on the spurious grounds, and the factually inaccurate grounds to boot, that the Parliament was losing control of appropriations and expenditure. Those same people elected as Leader a shonky accountant who artificially deflated the level of the public sector borrowing requirement, devised this subterfuge to understate the true level of the public sector borrowing requirement and loaned back to Telecom without interest, without repayment obligation and without parliamentary approval, payments made to the Commonwealth Government for superannuation. There are some other matters relevant to the question of Budgets and Budget outcomes which in the next two or three minutes I would like to deal with. During the period of the Fraser Government in general and the period in which Mr Howard was the Treasurer in particular, there was a sustained decline in real terms of Commonwealth capital expenditure off Budget. Going through the Budgets that Mr Howard presented, in 1978-79 in round figures there was a 15 per cent decline in capital purposes off the Budget, a 13 per cent decline the next year, a 2.3 per cent increase the year after and a 3.9 per cent decline the year after that. One of the ways in which Mr Howard, in his early years as Treasurer, managed to reduce outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product was by running down capital expenditure. One thing he never did get right was his Budget estimates. In every year that he was Treasurer outlays exceeded the Budget estimates. The system was to bring in Budget estimates that showed that outlays had been controlled under this Budget and then to let them creep out throughout the rest of the financial year and hope that at the end of the year nobody noticed that in fact a couple of billion dollars more had been spent in the financial year than was forecast in the beginning. I shall cite some figures, in dollars of the day, on Mr Howard's five Budgets. In the first year outlays exceeded Budget estimates by $175m. The next year he got it almost right; it exceeded it by only $2m. It exceeded it the next year by $244m and in 1981-82 by $463m. In his final year as Treasurer, 1982-83, outlays exceeded the Budget estimates by $1,915-almost $2 billion. Expressed as a proportion of GDP, that is of the order of 1.3 per cent of GDP. That was an increase in outlays, not over those for the previous year, but over those which he had estimated in July. No wonder he failed arithmetic at school. His record on Budget deficits, in terms of actual outcomes compared to estimates, was marginally better. In his first year the deficit was $665m higher than he had estimated. I ask the Senate to bear in mind that all these figures are in dollars of the day. Converted to 1985 dollars they would be considerably higher, due very substantially to the double digit inflation over which the discredited former Treasurer presided during his last ignominious year in that position. In his second Budget he did manage to bring the deficit in below target by $160m and to $437m below target the next year. That was the zenith of his period as Treasurer. From then on it was a period not only of decline but of rapidly accelerating decline. In his second last Budget the deficit exceeded the estimate by $452m and in the final year it exceeded the estimate by $2,799m-a $2.8 billion increase in the deficit as against his estimate and a $1,915m increase in outlays as against his estimate. As I mentioned before, that does not count the tax expenditures which he hid away in the 1982 Budget and which did not show on either the outlays or the income for 1982-83. That was a subterfuge to buy off sufficient pressure groups and vested interests, hopefully to him to allow the Fraser Government to scrape through one more election. The deferred cost of that bill was sent to this Government. I would be quite happy, any time Senator Chaney wants to have a debate about the economic performance of this Government compared to that of its immediate predecessor, to oblige him. Motion (by Senator Messner) proposed: That the debate be now adjourned. Question put. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Missen, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Sanders, N. K. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Siddons, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Knowles, S. C. Vigor, D. B. MacGibbon, D. J. Walters, M. S. Macklin, M. J. Watson, J. O. W. Mason, C. V. J. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Grimes, D. J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Rae, Peter Coleman, R. N. Boswell, R. L. D. Button, J. N. Kilgariff, B. F. Evans, GarethLewis, A. W. R. Robertson, E. A. Baume, Michael McClelland, Douglas Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed: That the resumption of the debate be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(3.25) —I move: That the words `the next day of sitting' be omitted and be replaced by the words `a later hour this day'. I have moved this motion because this is an important matter. Senator Chaney sought leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of an answer by Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance. When Senator Chaney was given leave, he said that he did not wish to abuse the privilege which had been given to him by the Senate, but he then proceeded to make a speech attacking Senator Walsh and pointing out the reasons for his moving that motion. Senator Walsh, as was his right and, I believe, as was his duty as a Minister in this place, replied very cogently and effectively to Senator Chaney's motion. Senator Messner then moved the gag. The Opposition did not want to go on with the debate. It did not want to debate the issue that had been brought up. Senator Messner took the coward's way out and moved the gag. To my surprise, the Australian Democrats, who say that they will never or will rarely vote for a gag in this place, voted for the gag. I have moved an amendment to Senator Chaney's motion to give the Australian Democrats the opportunity to reconsider their position, because the only Australian Democrat senator who was in this place at the time was Senator Sanders, and he is a very inexperienced senator, as we know. It was on his advice that Senator Macklin and the other more experienced Australian Democrat senators supported the gag. As Senator Chaney thought it was sufficiently important to abuse the privilege that was given to him by this House to raise and debate this matter, I think it is important that we should debate it properly. We should not allow Senator Messner to take the most extraordinary action in this place and to gag a motion that Senator Chaney moved for the Opposition. The most important reason for the Senate supporting my amendment is that when Senator Walsh was speaking all of us heard Senator Walters say: `I want to speak'. Senator Chaney said, `No, you cannot speak', and we had a big altercation on the opposite side. We want to hear Senator Walters. We want to hear what she has to say, because she is such an effective and terrific debater on economics. Therefore, I have moved the amendment that this debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day, and that will give us the chance to hear Senator Walters speak twice. We will hear her speak once on woodchips, and maybe we will get a chance to hear her speak later on economics, and that would really be something. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.28) —The Opposition supports the amendment which has been moved by the Manager of Government Business (Senator Grimes). It will be more than happy to continue the debate after we have heard Senator Walters. Amendment agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave of the Senate to make a brief personal explanation to correct the Hansard. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —The Senate Hansard of 6 November 1985, at page 1,680, attributes to me behaviour which is the near ultimate in schizophrenia, duplicity or plain confusion, because it has me listed as having voted on both sides-for the ayes and for the noes. I would like the record to be corrected to show that I voted with my colleagues for the ayes. In fact, it was Senator Robert Ray who voted with his colleagues for the noes. So that any judgment made about schizophrenia, duplicity or confusion can be made on a factual basis, I ask that the record be corrected. Senator RYAN —During Question Time Senator Reid asked a question regarding the future of a proposed primary school at McKellar. I am now advised by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority that at a meeting on 21 October a decision was taken not to build a primary school at McKellar. Children at McKellar will be accepted into nearby schools, primarily the Evatt Primary School. I have been advised that the major factor in the Schools Authority's decision is the relatively small size of the suburb of McKellar and the proximity of first class education facilities nearby. The Authority informs me that a pre-school unit will operate in McKellar from the beginning of 1987. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Walters proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The economic, social and constitutional implications of proposals by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment concerning the renewal of Tasmanian woodchip export licences. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.31) —I have submitted the following matter of public importance to the Senate for discussion: The economic, social and constitutional implications of proposals by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment concerning the renewal of Tasmanian woodchip export licences. The advice and recommendations of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, to the Government concerning export licences for Tasmanian woodchips, if implemented, would be nothing short of disaster for the development of my State. The recognition of this situation is underlined by the reception that was given to Mr Cohen's visit to Hobart today. Two thousand forestry workers, 60 trucks and hundreds of cars lined Holyman Drive, the entrance to Hobart Airport, to make sure that Mr Cohen understood their feelings. What did this brave Minister do? Did he have the courage of his convictions? He snuck off down a track over the sand dunes so that he would not have to face the men whom he is prepared to put out of work. Not only was this action cowardly but also his advice to the Government is typical of the thinking of a Minister from a centralist government. Senator Coates —Do you think it was his decision? Senator WALTERS —Of course it was his decision. It represents the most extensive land grab the Federal Government could undertake. While Mr Cohen's recommendations start off basically by agreeing with the environmental impact statement commissioned by the Federal Government, they end up departing radically from it. He recommends that there be no logging or forestry operations in 24 vital areas, a recommendation completely opposing the intention of that environmental statement. These areas have already been logged, are in the process of regeneration or it is planned that they be logged. These 24 vital areas chosen by the Minister have been either registered, listed or nominated for listing on the National Estate. Let us get it quite clear. The Minister has recommended that in return for issuing a 15-year woodchipping licence by the Federal Government large tracts of land must be set aside for wilderness areas over which the Federal Government will have sole control. They will be locked away from the industry for future development. Already the Hawke Government has, through constitutional changes brought about by strange interpretations from just three of the current High Court of Australia judges, grabbed much of Tasmania's south west and refused to allow us to build the Franklin Dam. All honourable senators will remember the way the Government went about that travesty of justice. We all remember the part played by the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, which resulted in his demise as the first law officer of Australia. This matter is of no less importance. It is a further attempt to grab land but by a different method. It would set a precedent which would allow any Federal government to blackmail a State into handing over control of its land in return for an export licence that, for its very survival, must be granted. Let us look at what would occur if these recommendations were accepted. The Tasmanian timber industry is the most efficient timber industry in Australia. The timber millers in my State have been operating for over 140 years. Concessions first issued over 60 years ago to establish and maintain viable industries would be dismantled. It has been estimated that 3,000 people would lose their jobs and most of the efficient industries would be closed. Two veneer factories certainly will close, along with three major hardwood saw-mills. Many of the smaller saw-mills will go to the wall, followed by the larger companies. The areas chosen by the Minister, in his advice for locking away the wilderness areas, contain 20 per cent of our total long term resources of top quality saw logs. It is estimated that 40 per cent of our planned resource areas is needed for saw logs over the next 30 years. The areas represent all of the remaining significant stands of virgin forests. These are mature eucalypt forests which, unless they are harvested as planned, will be lost to the industry forever. This is because the trees in those areas are approaching the end of their life and will be replaced by other varieties. Anyone who argues with that does not have a clue what he is talking about. The need for these top quality logs by the saw-millers is paramount in keeping their companies viable. They must have access to top quality logs as well as lower quality logs. They must have top quality logs in sufficient numbers, otherwise the balance of their industry will be upset. I would now like to explain the effects that the Minister's recommendations would have on our paper industry. Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd is the company most affected by Mr Cohen's recommendations. Firstly, while the bulk of ANM's operation is for domestic use-that is, mechanical grade pulp wood for newsprint and saw logs for milling and veneer manufacture-a small component is destined for overseas markets in the form of woodchips. This is derived from chemical grade pulp wood, mainly harvested as a by-product of the mechanical grade pulp wood. Prior to the export of woodchips, this low grade timber traditionally was wasted-burnt in the forest-because no other market was available for it. As the market for woodchip exports developed, the efficiency of the total industry increased substantially. It is obvious that the company needs the Federal Government's permission for a woodchip licence for a totally efficient and viable industry, yet the Minister is blackmailing the company, saying that there will be no export licences unless 40 per cent of ANM's concession, which is covered by the areas he has designated for no logging or forestry operations, is locked up for wilderness. The suggestion is preposterous. It is not just that ANM would lose 40 per cent of its concession, but 50 per cent of the mature forests of that concession are to be found in that area. Half of the mature forests which are ready for harvesting, supplying top quality saw logs in Tasmania-the report says-should be denied Tasmania's most efficient companies. Australian Newsprint Mills, Australia's only manufacturer of newsprint, is a company which produces 70 per cent of Australia's newsprint needs, has never sought subsidies, competes on the open market without help from government, and asks only to be left alone and not interfered with by Big Brother, but allowed to go ahead and make a business that Tasmanians can be proud of. The company directly employs 1,500 men, not counting the hundreds of families who rely on their living through indirect employment. That company, along with Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd-our other paper company-and the rest of our timber industry are a group of the most efficient companies, but how can they cope when governments grab half of their resources, resources which the companies have used and planned on over the past 50 years? It is quite unreal for any government to expect them to do other than close down. To explain the stupidity of the Minister's recommendations, I turn to the legislation passed by the Labor Government, the Australian Heritage Commission Act. While the Act has no direct influence on domestic use of areas on the National Estate register, section 30 of the Act gives power to the Commonwealth Minister to refuse to issue export licences for materials that have come from such areas-an overriding power that can and would in this situation render the areas not viable. Moreover, there is a considerable indirect pressure on the company or individual whose private property or concession is listed by the Commission. Once it is listed, conservationists apply considerable pressure to add it to the areas of wilderness. This pressure is what the Minister has succumbed to. We must bear in mind that over 31 per cent of Tasmania is already listed or nominated for listing on the Register of the National Estate, nearly a third of our State has been nominated. How do these nominations come about? I will deal only with those affecting land areas. Any individual can nominate an area of land for any reason at all. The broad guidelines cover social, historical, aesthetic or scientific grounds. Indeed, one area of ANM, the Snowy North area, was approved for listing on the following spurious grounds: Minor boundary rationalisation to shorten boundary length and make it basically convex in the vicinity of Snowy North . . . It goes on to say that it is `free of major intrusions, and forms part of this area's zone of remoteness'. These are absolutely idiotic grounds-just to straighten a boundary. It is said that it is remote. It is within two kilometres of areas that have been recently logged. It is absolutely ludicrous. Yet this is an area that Mr Cohen is recommending be locked up. Let us have a look at some of the other areas. For the Mueller-Tim Shea extension area the general reason given is that that area is heavily timbered with wet sclerophyll forests. That is certainly not unique in the area, nor is it an endangered forest type. We have 23 per cent of that in our State already locked away. Again, the area nominated from the south of Tim Shea is mainly young forest growth, forests that were destroyed in the fires of 1934. Moreover, logging operations have been undertaken in recent years up the Mount Mueller Road, a road right through an area that the Minister is recommending be returned to the wilderness. It is a road to service the transmission line that runs through the centre. The boundary of this is immediately next to areas of developed farmland. Remote? The Minister does not know what he is talking about. Let us have a look at the Beech Creek extension area. The description of that is very much the same. It is stated that it contains a mixed rain forest and wet sclerophyll-hardly unique in the area. The fact is that it has been extensively logged, and is currently the subject of major logging operations, particularly in the area around Glow Worm Creek and Coles Creek, and also west of Wayatinah and the Heels Spur area. There have been substantial alterations of that through man-made movements in the area. Yet these are exactly the areas that the Minister is suggesting we return for wilderness. He just does not understand it. Nothing could be more contradictory. Heaven knows, we in Tasmania ought to know what a wilderness is. It is an area that has not been logged, an area that has not been clear-felled. It is country which, to quote the conservationists, is still in its natural state, not spoilt by the action of man. How can areas with roads and transmission lines going through them, areas that have already been logged, be classed as wilderness? As I have said, 23 per cent of our State is already wilderness. What is wrong with the Minister? Has he not understood anything? How can he suggest that 40 per cent of a company's concession, much of which has been logged should go to the wilderness areas? Apart from anything else, it is no longer wilderness, and nothing he can do can make it so. He has not understood what the heritage is all about. He obviously believes that any area listed by any greenie in Tasmania should be handed over for their sole use. It is no use the Australian Labor Party trying to placate Tasmania, and it is no use Senator Coates, who will follow me in this debate, saying that none of this will occur. He may not know that at this very moment the Australian Democrats are doing a deal with the Government to change their vote on legislation for cash bidding for off-shore oil exploration. Let us get it very clear. They are offering to change the way they voted in April on legislation for cash bidding for off-shore oil exploration. They have promised to change their vote on that issue, and as long as the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, comes down with Mr Cohen's recommendations the deal will be sealed. I do not know whether Senator Coates realises it, but there is no point in Mr Kerin coming to our State and debating the matter with our Premier, as he did, saying that not a job will be lost and that he will make sensible recommendations to Cabinet. There is no possibility of that occurring if the Government succumbs to the deal being offered by the Democrats. Senator Sanders, with Senator Chipp, has already said that the deal is on as long as the Government accepts it. Senator Sanders is terrified that the Cohen recommendations will not be accepted by the Government. If they are not accepted it will be for only one reason-that the Liberal Party in our State has made it very clear that there will be no Labor Party members left in Tasmania if the Federal Government destroys any further property that is rightly the property of the State. If the Government takes away 3,000 jobs from Tasmanians it should not expect a vote from us. The Government has already lost all its votes on the west coast; in the future it might not get any votes from Tasmanians. In conclusion, let me reiterate what Mr Cohen has recommended to the Government because it is important that we get this clear. In return for issuing woodchip licences for a period of 15 years, 24 vital areas of forest concession will be locked away from future development by Tasmanian industry. The recommendation is a disaster. It is nothing but blackmail. It would force 3,000 men and women to join the dole queue and would set Tasmania's economy back to a peasant economy. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.47) —I hope that the Senate and people generally will excuse the Tasmanians for having their debate about woodchips today, brought on by Senator Walters, but I emphasise that it is a crucially important issue not only for Tasmanians but for all Australians. I will correct some of the rubbish that Senator Walters gave us, and I hope I will do so in a more dispassionate way than she did. She spent most of her time objecting to the Australian Heritage Commission and National Estate listing. She seemed to think that the only reason for National Estate listing was that something was a wilderness area. Of course, that is one of the reasons for listing, but there are lots of other reasons as well. So all her supposed debating points about roads and power lines being adjacent to an area-while we might regret that-are not sufficient reasons not to list an area if it is worthy of listing. I emphasise also that listing on the National Estate register does not ensure that nothing happens or, to use her emotive term, that the land is locked up. It merely means that if a proposal involving a Federal Minister arises, that Minister has to justify any action that affects that area. It does not ensure that nothing happens. It is purely a matter of listing to ensure that consideration is given. She also mentioned that 31 per cent of Tasmanian land was already listed. In many ways we should be proud of that fact that we have so much that is worthy of national and international recognition. I resent the fact that Senator Walters keeps talking down the wonderful things we have in Tasmania. I suppose it was to be expected that Senator Walters would attempt to generate some political heat at about this time in relation to the Tasmanian woodchip issue, but it has to be said that she has provided no light whatsoever. She has just trotted out her usual prejudices against this Government for doing the correct thing. She is merely being the agent of the Tasmanian Premier in repeating the misrepresentations that have become well known recently and ignoring the facts. The point that needs to be emphasised is that the Federal Government has not yet taken a decision on this matter. Mr Cohen's statement as Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment is advice to the relevant action Minister-the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin-on the environmental considerations of this matter. It is not a proposal, as referred to in the terms of the matter of public importance; it is advice, and it is advice that is required by an Act of this Parliament, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. Other factors as well as the environmental issue have to be taken into account, such as economic and social issues, and they will be. Whether we like it or not, the wood chip industry has become important to Tasmania. It is a significant part of the forest based industries, but it is by no means the major part. It does not employ a great number of people directly but is indirectly a substantial employment generator. Perhaps 1,800 people are involved, not the 4,000 people referred to by Senator Walters. One has to acknowledge that it earns a large amount of export income. But there are arguments against all of those points. Senator Walters keeps ignoring the fact that it is an export industry, which means that the Commonwealth is involved. It must be, as the Constitution says so. Senator Walters can rant and rave all she likes but there is no open slather right of anyone to expect anything he likes. An export permit is required and the Federal Government is the government which issues such permits. The Premier of Tasmania and Senator Walters have every right to attempt to influence the granting of an export permit but it is the Commonwealth's responsibility and the Commonwealth has the right to impose appropriate conditions. In the last week or so, following the release of Mr Cohen's advice, we have had to put up with the scare tactics from Mr Gray, including an amazing advertisement in today's Tasmanian papers. If I have the time I will deal with that later. As Ken Wriedt, the Leader of the State Opposition and soon to be Premier, said, it was a ridiculous over-reaction by Mr Gray that was designed to produce fear and confusion in the Tasmanian community. I do not think either Mr Gray or Senator Walters has the right to mislead people so blatantly and they certainly have no right to pretend that they are the only ones concerned about jobs. In determining the approval of export permits and of any conditions to be attached to them the responsible Minister, in this case Mr Kerin, has to take into account a wide range of factors-economic, social and environmental-and anything else that is relevant, including, as he has said, the question of Commonwealth-State relations, and he will do that in coming to his decision, which he has said will be made by 16 December. He has received environmental advice from Mr Cohen and he now has to weigh that up with the other factors, including employment. Senator Walters well knows that environmental advice is not the only thing to be taken into consideration. I agree that that is a very important aspect. We are talking about some of the most environmentally sensitive areas of the world. But it is not the only matter. I am not going to pre-empt the final decision of Mr Kerin and the Government as a whole. There still has to be the promised consultation with the State Government, the Forestry Commission and the companies. There still has to be this Government's internal decision making procedures; consideration by the relevant Caucus committees and so forth. Mr Kerin had assured the companies and the Japanese industry that buys the wood chips that licences will be renewed. Despite the wild assertions of some, no one has suggested that the industry is to be stopped or that there would be no exports. It is a question of volume and conditions-sensible conditions. Let me quote Mr Kerin's Press statement of 29 October: Now that the EIS has been studied and recommendations have been received, the way is open for Mr Kerin to balance them against the economic and social perspectives of the Government, and their relationship with international trade and Commonwealth/State relations matters. Mr Kerin said that he had pointed out previously export licences would be renewed, but what was of concern to the Government was to ensure the industry operated in an environmentally sensitive manner and that the public could be assured of this. Mr Kerin has since given clear assurances that jobs will not be lost by his decision when it is made. I now turn to the consideration of the environmental issues. The Commonwealth not only has the right but the obligation, the duty, to give due weight to the environmental matters. The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 prescribes the environmental impact statement process which has been followed over the last two years on this matter dealing with the Tasmanian woodchip export industry. That Act, as with the Australian Heritage Commission Act, is now more than 10 years old, and I am proud to have been part of the Whitlam Government which introduced those Acts to ensure that proper procedures were followed where the Commonwealth was involved. Senator Walters might reflect that the Fraser Liberal Government kept those Acts in operation. In fact, the Liberal Government used those Acts for the Fraser Island decision, which did not just impose conditions on the export of mineral sands but totally stopped such exports. What does Senator Walters think about that, or is it just okay if her own side does the right thing? Let us look calmly and rationally at what Mr Cohen's advice and recommendations to Mr Kerin on the proposed export of woodchips from Tasmania actually involved. Let me emphasise in regard to what has been suggested as not being universally approved or totally approved by the conservation movement that anyone would think that that was so judging from the way Senator Walters has performed. The advice is the culmination of a long, detailed and serious process. The EIS into the effects of the woodchip industry on Tasmania was published by the proponents, the Forestry Commission and the companies, in February, and it was open to public scrutiny until May when the comments closed. There were 450 or so submissions in response to that EIS. Then, in September, the final EIS was published by the proponents and, as again is required by the law, the advice from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, followed from that. This is all evidence of the Federal Government taking seriously its responsibilities in respect of the licence decision making process. I do not think Senator Walters can expect the Federal Government to do otherwise. I think the Opposition would be screaming, and legitimately so, if the procedures prescribed under an Act of this Parliament were not followed. One cannot expect that legitimate concerns about the woodchip industry in Tasmania would be completely ignored by a responsible government. So what does the advice from Mr Cohen to Mr Kerin actually involve? Any objective analysis would lead to the conclusion, as Mr Kerin said, that Mr Cohen's recommendations are balanced and fair and attempt to place reasonable environmental and conservation control, yet allow the industry to continue to plan for its future and to continue to employ Tasmanians. I think it is a great relief that reasonable environmental conditions can be imposed while allowing the industry to continue operating at its present level. I emphasise that if one looks at the terms of the advice one sees that at every stage Mr Cohen has recommended full consultation and co-operation with the State Government and Mr Kerin is insisting on this. Officials from both governments are in the process of conferring on this issue right now. The Tasmanian Government is involved in the advice that Mr Cohen has given to Mr Kerin. It is suggested that the woodchip export companies have got what they wanted. They have got their licences and they have got them for 15 years-a very long period and perhaps longer than they might have expected. That avoided the need for a public inquiry for which there was a great deal of pressure. Very reasonable conditions are suggested in Mr Cohen's advice including such things as improved forest management practices to ensure that there is sustainable yield and that there be a review of boundaries. Senator Walters objected to a minor review of a national estate boundary because she did not think it was worth bothering about. Let me emphasise the sentence that follows the one that Mr Gray and others have been prone to quote. They quote Mr Cohen as saying that it has been recommended that no logging or forestry operations be permitted in the areas listed in schedule A-that is the 24 or so areas that Senator Walters referred to. Mr Cohen went on to say: These areas should be reviewed to establish more precise and workable boundaries in the light of the results of the recommended consultations. It may be appropriate if I seek to incorporate in Hansard the advice of Mr Cohen, so that those who follow this debate in Hansard will know what we are talking about. I seek leave to incorporate those six pages in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON TASMANIAN WOODCHIP EXPORTS BEYOND 1988 The following advice and recommendations are made in accordance with paragraph 9.3 of the Administrative Procedures under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. (The Act). The final environmental impact statement (EIS) submitted by the Tasmanian EIS Study Group has complied with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures. It provides a sufficient basis for examination of the environmental effects of the proposal such that, taking into account the recommendations below, a public enquiry under Section 11 of the Act is not considered necessary for the purposes of achieving the object of the Act. The assessment of the final EIS indicates that there is no overriding environmental reason for not granting licences for the export of woodchips from Tasmania, providing that due account is taken of the recommendations in this document in establishing conditions to be placed on the licences. It is recommended that the Commonwealth provide a formal indication to the companies that, subject to their continuing to meet their obligations and to the reservations below, there will be no impediment to the issue of licences for a period of 15 years. It is recommended however that the Commonwealth reserve the right to: upon 5 years notice terminate the obligation to renew the licences upon 2 years notice vary the resource conditions at approximately 5 yearly intervals review rigorously the progress of response to the environmental conditions attaching to the licences at any time suspend or terminate the licences for environmental breaches vary the conditions of the licence to accommodate changing circumstances, such as implementation of the recommendations of various studies. It is recommended that the licences require operations to be in accordance with management principles and operational practices described in the EIS or as modified in accordance with recommendations and commitments expressed or implied in the EIS and provision be made for appropriate changes to be implemented in accordance with improved knowledge. It is recommended that a schedule of significant environmental conditions be drawn up in consultation between appropriate Tasmanian and Commonwealth authorities adherance to which should be a licence condition. It is recommended that mechanisms be developed in conjunction with the Tasmanian Government to ensure public reporting on an annual basis of: progress in implementation of environmental conditions attaching to the export woodchip licence issue; progress in implementation of recommendations of studies referred to later in this document progress in undertaking further studies to identify and or ameliorate the impact of forestry operations on the environment including those listed later changes in forest practices with an environmental impact; and incorporation of improvements in forest practices in the Forest Practices Code. It is recommended that the Minister for Primary Industry in consultation with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment establish a permanent Commonwealth Advisory Committee to evaluate developments in forestry practices and the annual reports on environmental conditions-the Committee to report to both Ministers. The development of a Forest Practices Code by the Tasmanian Government is an important initiative and will provide a most important mechanism for environment protection associated with forest operations on both Crown and private land. It is recommended that completion and implementation of the Forest Practices Code be given high priority attention. It is recommended that the substantial improvements in forest practices which have been developed and applied since the commencement of the woodchip industry, and the proposed further improvements in relation to streamside reserve guidelines, roading standards guidelines and restoration standards for landings should be included in the Forest Practices Code. It is recommended that improved methods be developed by Tasmanian authorities, in consultation as appropriate with CSIRO, the Australian Heritage Commission and Commonwealth departments, for the pre-logging identification of archaeological sites, rare or inadequately reserved species or vegetation types and other special geological or natural features. The EIS refers to a number of current studies expected to provide the basis for the development of particular guidelines or standards for inclusion in either management prescriptions or the Forest Practices Code. These include: a survey of the application and effectiveness of soil erosion control measures, guidelines for operations in karst landscapes, guidelines for the identification of archaeological sites, surveys of species distributions for the preparation of proposals for forest reserves to protect rare species, and the Forestry Commission study of wilderness areas. It is recommended that these studies be completed as soon as practicable and the results applied as envisaged in the EIS. There is a need for further studies, for similar purposes, into: fauna habitat protection requirements, including retention of habitat trees, the effectiveness of the Visual Management System, co-ordinating recreation planning of public lands with the development of forest management plans, linking corridors between unlogged areas to facilitate fauna movement, the use of machinery, including cable logging equipment, on steep slopes and erosion control in such areas, Methods of increasing the utilisation of wood felled in current operations, including the use of in-forest chipping and shorter logs, soil fertility maintenance, genetic diversity maintenance, and fire management. The rate at which these studies can be completed is important for further development and application of improved environment protection measures. It is recommended that these studies be commenced and the results applied in forest management as soon as practicable. It is further recommended that the Commonwealth consider methods by which early completion can be assisted, including collaborative arrangements involving Commonwealth authorities. It is recommended that the Commonwealth consider ensuring further funds are directed to research into matters affecting, and programs related to, the woodchip industry and associated forest operations, for example by an export levy. The research and programs should be directed particularly to areas associated with the environmental effect of the industry, the further development of intensive forest management and measures for the promotion of forest based industries. The resource estimates given in the EIS have been calculated by an acceptable method and relate to the areas described in the EIS as available for logging, the cutting strategy and level of utilisation proposed, and the data available from forest assessment and inventory surveys. Should any of these variables be changed, the resource estimates would change accordingly. Provided that the Forestry Commission continues to routinely revise its resource estimates on a regular basis related to its planning cycle for preparation of forest management and logging plans, the estimates of sustainable yield given in the EIS may be accepted as a basis for consideration of the woodchip exports which may be approved at this time. Some public submissions on the draft EIS cast doubts on the resource estimates but did not give a better basis for estimation. The environmental assessment has been based therefore on the figures given in the EIS. It is recommended that the volume of exports approved be reviewed in the light of any major changes to the sustainable yield or circumstances envisaged in the EIS, and that the volumes be based on a comprehensive assessment of available wood sources and utilisation practices, with a view to ensuring that at all times the approved cut is consistent with the best available assessment of sustainable yield. It is recommended that, should there be any new proposal, arising out of the Tasmanian Government's pending decision on the utilisation of pulpwood from the Southern Forests, which would require a significant variation to these parameters in such a way as to increase the environmental impacts described in the EIS, a further formal examination of the environmental effects of the total proposal be required. The proposal does not involve the logging of significant rainforest areas on Crown land. It is recommended that no approvals be granted for export of material taken from rainforest areas as defined by Jarman and Brown. Of the original 53 National Estate places identified in the draft EIS as having forestry significance (subsequently consolidated to 37 when places wholly included within others were eliminated), the Australian Heritage Commission has advised that for 12 places forestry operations are judged not inconsistent with National Estate significance. For three further places, the Commission advised that, subject to certain conditions, forestry operations would not adversely affect National Estate significance. These three places are shown on the attached Schedule B. The remaining 22 places are listed in Schedule A. It is recommended that consultations be established between appropriate Commonwealth and Tasmanian authorities to examine all areas on the Register of the National Estate where there is apparent conflict between National Estate values and the requirements of the sawlog and pulpwood industries. These consultations should aim at defining precise boundaries for parts of the National Heritage areas which might be affected, those areas where National Estate values should be fully preserved, and options for the protection of environmental values in areas where forestry activities are anticipated. It is recommended that the consultations take account of the current Tasmanian rainforest and wilderness studies and the other relevant investigations referred to in the EIS. It is recommended that no logging or forestry operations be permitted in the areas listed in Schedule A. These areas should be reviewed to establish more precise and workable boundaries in the light of the results of the recommended consultations. It is recommended that logging in the three places listed in Schedule B be permitted only in accordance with conditions specified by the Australian Heritage Commission in consultation with appropriate authorities. AHC LIST OF PLACES WHICH, ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE EIS, MAY BE AFFECTED BY LOGGING Place AHC Reference No. Schedule A Registered South West Tasmania... 6/1/101/4 Central Plateau Region... 6/1/80/36 Great Western Tiers... 6/1/80/40 Mole Creek Caves... 6/3/32/48 Woodbridge Hill... 6/1/5/5 Listed Western Tasmanian (includes South West Tasmanian and Central Plateau Region)... 6/1/101/18 Norfolk Range... 6/2/31/41 Sumac Rivulet... 6/2/31/43 Savage River... 6/2/31/42 Tinderbox Hills-Mt Louis... 6/1/5/10 Snug Tiers... 6/1/5/13 Back Run Hills... 6/1/7/9 Douglas River... 6/1/91/40 Cherry Tree Hill... 6/1/91/41 Lower Marsh Creek... 6/3/51/31 Mount Vulcan-Simmons Hill... 6/3/50/80 Bluemans Creek-Brushy River... 6/1/91/42 Harding Falls... 6/1/91/43 Mount Victoria Rattler Range... 6/3/51/32 South Esk River Headwaters... 6/3/51/33 Ben Nevis Foothills... 6/3/51/29 Nomninated Jacky's Marsh-Quamby Bluff... 6/3/32/56 Mount Tooms... 6/1/91/45 Snow Hill... 6/3/81/59 Schedule B Tasman Peninsula... 6/1/7/2 Tooms Lake Conservation Area... 6/1/91/45 Ben Lomond National Park &C.A.... 6/3/51/3 (Conservation area only) Senator COATES —I thank the Senate. I did not want to read all the advice, but I wish to highlight some of the points raised in it. For example, it is recommended that mechanisms be developed in conjunction with the Tasmanian Government to ensure public reporting. It is also recommended that a schedule of significant environmental conditions be drawn up in consultation between appropriate Tasmanian and Commonwealth authorities, adherence to which should be a licence condition. So it goes on. In so many places there is a requirement for consultation. Nothing could be more reasonable. I turn to the national estate areas that have been referred to by Senator Walters. Four are not relevant because there is no available timber there. There are eight where forestry operations can continue without any effect on the national estate significance. Three major areas have been given the okay and are listed in schedule B on the basis that conditions be applied to forestry operations so that there is no adverse effect on national estate significance. These are the Tasman Peninsula, the Tooms Lake conservation area and the Ben Lomond conservation area. There are 22 areas in schedule A where there is to be no logging. That seems to be a large number, but let me emphasise that 14 of these contain less than 0.2 per cent of the available timber resource. Of the other eight, one is merely deferred, pending more information; three are primarily rainforest which does not come into this issue at all and another one contains less than 0.1 per cent of the available timber resource. So Senator Walters can talk about 24 areas, but that is obviously an exaggeration. The national estate listings do not and cannot limit the industry by themselves. As I explained earlier, they affect only Federal ministerial decisions and the Government has recognised simply that in the absence of prudent and feasible alternatives, it has a duty to do what it can to protect sensitive and unique areas for the future. There should be recognition by the Opposition that the Government takes seriously its obligations under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. There also should be recognition that the woodchip industry has not been perfect. There are problems that need control and the industry has not solved Tasmania's economic problems. I refer to Mr Gray's advertisement in todays Press. He ends his open letter to Mr Cohen by saying: There should be no further federal interference in the right of Tasmanians to manage their land and their resources, and to determine their future for themselves. What he is ignoring in that advertisement is the Federal Government's responsibility because we are talking about exports. There is a legitimate interest by the Federal Government in doing the correct thing about this matter. I do not have the time to answer all the points that were raised in Mr Gray's advertisement. It is just ridiculous for him to talk about 25 per cent of Tasmania's forest resources being closed and then to go on to say that 3,000 Tasmanians will lose their jobs. Even if this exaggerated figure of 25 per cent is right, how can a loss of 25 per cent of Tasmania's forest resources affect three-quarters of the jobs? I could go on to rebut those points in Mr Gray's advertisement. I just finish by emphasising that there has been no final decision. The Federal Government will take account of economic and social factors as well as the environmental advice from Mr Cohen and, of course, the further environmental advice that is required under the Australian Heritage Commission Act from the Australian Heritage Commission, I emphasise-as Senator Aulich would have emphasised but for earlier altercations that obviously will not allow time for him to do so-that what we want, in consultation with the relevant Tasmanian authorities, is to have the least disruption to legitimate forestry activities while taking into account sensitive environmental values in the national estate areas which should be protected. Obviously the Opposition would ignore environmental conditions. This Government will not do that. We have a duty to future generations which we must fulfil. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(4.07) —We have the Tasmanian devil, we had the Tasmanian tiger until it was completely exploited and wiped out and we now have the Tasmanian troglodytes-politicians who still have the same views as their ancestors had when they arrived in Port Arthur in 1835. These people are completely out of touch with the twentieth century. We now have this matter of public importance. It is a matter of public importance but, unfortunately, a bobtailed debate as usual. Everything that is important in this Senate seems to be cut down in size to a very short debate. Why has this matter of public importance been brought on for debate? An election will be declared in two days time in Tasmania and Opposition senators are trying in every way they can to get attention for the Gray Government. What is the Gray Government doing? The Gray Government is giving away-in fact it is paying the Japanese to carry away-our forests. The Gray Government is paying the Japanese $25m a year in subsidies. Senator Watson —Where did you get that from? Senator SANDERS —The Centre of Environmental Studies at the University of Tasmania has done a study which shows that the Japanese are being paid $20m in direct and indirect subsidies to haul our forests away. It makes no sense at all. We have heard talk about mainland interference. Our friends in Tasmania, the Gray Government and Senator Shirley Walters have all talked about mainland interference. Who owns the woodchip companies? Tasmanians? Not on your nellie. No way. North Broken Hill Holdings Ltd owns Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd and the Tasmanian Pulp and Forest Holding Ltd, the woodchippers. The Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd owns 50 per cent of Petersville Industries Ltd, which owns Forest Resources. Are these Tasmanian firms? No, they are not. If Tasmania does not want mainland interference why does it not kick out the mainland firms that are milking Tasmania's economy, skimming the cream? Woodchipping was intended to take the saw- mill waste. It has ended up now taking the best timber. Talk to any saw-miller in Tasmania. Can he get the best logs? No. They go to the woodchippers. It was intended to be a pilot program and then pulp mills were going to be built. No way! That has not happened. What has woodchipping really done to the State? What has it done to the roads? There have been a number of articles in the Press. I have one from the Mercury which members of the Liberal Party of Australia should like to read because, of course, it is a Liberal newspaper. The article, which is headed `Council Seeks Compensation for Log Hauling Damage: Threat to Close Road in Circular Head' states: The Circular Head Council has threatened to close roads in the municipality unless it can get some compensation for damage caused by log trucks. What about the tourist industry? Again the Mercury under the heading: `Fears about State Logging' states: There is growing uneasiness in the Tourist Industry about increasing logging activity in Tasmania, the chairman of the Tourist Council, Mr Spencer Logue, said yesterday. What about the logging industry itself? In the Burnie Advocate there is an article headed `Woodchip Companies Criticised'. Who is criticising the woodchip companies? Is it the greenies? No. The article states: The Tasmanian Logging Association has blamed the attitude of some of the woodchipping companies for the severe financial problems faced by many of the State's logging contractors. The logging contractors are even against woodchipping. Let us consider jobs. The woodchip industry came in in about 1973 and since that time more than 4,000 jobs have been lost in the forest industries in Tasmania. One-third of the jobs which existed in 1973 have been lost. That was the first year of full scale woodchipping. Jobs were lost in all sectors-1,300 jobs were lost in saw-milling and wood products, 700 jobs were lost in pulp and paper making, 100 jobs were lost in woodchip mills and 1,900 jobs were lost in forestry and logging. This is in spite of a situation of complete open slather on Tasmania's forests. Why does this happen? Why do we have this open slather? For instance, what about the Tasmanian Forestry Commission? How much does the Forestry Commission control industry? Not an awful lot. An article which appeared in the Australian Forest Industries Journal of February 1980 contains an interview with the Chief Commissioner of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission, Mr Paul Unwin. It is a candid view-an overly candid view from the Commission's standpoint-of how the Minister and the Forestry Commission view the forest industry in Tasmania. That article refers to how the Forestry Commission is protecting industry. This question is asked by the editor: So if you have a Minister or a Cabinet not deeply interested in forestry this could cause a lot of trouble for the industry? The Chief Commissioner replied: Exactly so, the Commission could be forced to accept the amendments. So, to overcome this problem we have introduced into the Bill a clause which says that the Minister cannot-quite categorically-cannot make an alteration to a Forest Management Plan unless he has received a certificate from the Forestry Commission stating that the proposed amendment will not in any way affect the rights of the forest industries. To achieve acceptance of an amendment the industry has to approve it in writing. This is the Commission which prepared, in conjunction with the industry, the woodchip environmental impact statement. It is obviously committed to woodchipping. What about the people? What do they really think about this industry? They think about woodchips in a reasonable and common-sense way. A recent Spectrum poll in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney showed that around Australia 82 per cent of people are opposed to wood chipping. In Tasmania a Wilderness Society poll in February this year showed that about 50 per cent were opposed. The Tasmanian Australian Labor Party branch had a secret poll which showed that over 50 per cent of the people interviewed in Tasmania were opposed to woodchipping in Tasmania. Even in Tasmania where people are subject to this propaganda by the State Government and brainwashing by the woodchip companies, they are opposed to woodchipping. One thing that very rarely gets any attention is the harm and damage to the animals who live in the trees that are chopped down in woodchip areas. They live in the hollows of the old trees which Senator Walters said are unproductive and which should be got rid of. When the trees are chopped down the animals either fall to the forest floor where they are crushed or stay in the hollows in the trees, in which case they may get woodchipped. If they survive on the forest floor the felling operation and the heavy equipment used, they will no doubt die in the burning operations that follow. The Forestry Commission burns every area. If the animals manage to survive the burning operation or if they are burnt and weakened, having lost their habitat, the Forestry Commission comes in once again with guns and 1080 to eliminate the rest. The loss of animals is pathetic. A very conservative estimate is that over 250,000 animals are killed every year in Tasmania. The only logical approach for this Government is not only to adhere to the suggestions of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) but to strengthen them to preserve Tasmania's forests for the future, in terms of the environment and also to preserve jobs in Tasmania because to do less will lead us down to economic disaster. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., under sessional order, I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.15) —I would like it to be noted that I am making this speech during the adjournment debate so that I am neither wasting broadcast time nor wasting important time of the Senate. Shortly after 5 o'clock this morning I was listening to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation breakfast show in Canberra with the excellent Mr Ralph Bain. He explained that at two minutes to nine today the ABC would commence to broadcast the Senate proceedings and he made reference to the effect that would have on the ABC ratings. Too late to do anything about it today, I wondered whether we could assist ABC ratings when we next broadcast at 9 a.m. eastern summer time, which is, of course, 6 a.m. in Western Australia. Most radio programs intersperse talk with appropriate music. I wonder whether we could follow that precedent. Perhaps after prayers the Senate could sing the hymn All Things Bright and Beautiful-All Creatures Great and Small. How pleasant it would be to have Senator Walsh interrupt one of his lengthy tirades by singing I've Got Sixpence to Last Me All My Life. We know that Senator Gietzelt is a great admirer of the United States of America, and he might be prepared to give us a personal rendition of I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy. Senator Gareth Evans, of course, would be a `Monty' for That Amazing Young Man in His Flying Machine. Perhaps the Australian Labor Party women senators could form a group to be called `The Senate Sisters' and render for us Thank Heaven For Little Girls. Then the ever vocal Senator Ryan, with her great enthusiasm for private schools, might give us a solo rendition of Forty Years On. No doubt that silver tongued orator, Senator Button, could finish off for Government senators with his own version of Little Things Mean a Lot. We could not expect the Australian Democrats and Senator Vallentine to sing, but we know that in the mornings there are young children who listen for Kindergarten of the Air and young children love scary stories. There is the solution. There is no problem at all in getting Senator Chipp and Senator Vallentine to compete with each other to tell the best scary tale about a nuclear holocaust that will destroy the world, about deformed babies and children who slowly perish as the world suffers a nuclear winter. I am sure that they could outdo the Brothers Grimm. We would have volunteers from our side and to show the way I could recite Billy Joel's Angry Young Man to Senator Sanders and Senator Gareth Evans. Because our side is in such good voice and we are such an effective and cheerful team, we could give a stirring choral rendition of Land of Hope and Glory and end the day with God Save the Queen. I am sure that this variation of our proceedings would, on the first occasion, improve the ratings of the ABC. Thereafter, and this is the point of what I am saying, it might be better if we were to grant the ABC an additional channel for the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.18) —I rise in the adjournment debate because of a misrepresentation by Senator Walsh at Question Time today in relation to inquiries I had been making from the office of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in relation to the alleged establishment of an inquiry by the Government into the taxation of gold. I am taking the opportunity of raising this matter on the adjournment simply to have it on the record, but it is really in essence a personal explanation. The position is that after the Treasurer had brought down his tax statement on the so-called tax package on 19 September I noted it contained a statement that the Government would not, at this stage, proceed with the White Paper proposal to tax gold. It stated that the Government had established an inquiry to consider this matter and that that inquiry would be reporting in the first half of 1986. Of course, that would be very convenient to attempt to defuse this issue in Western Australia before the State election which will certainly be held early in 1986. One of my staff made inquiries from the Treasury in relation to this statement that a gold tax inquiry had been established and learned that it had not been established as far as the Treasury officer to whom he spoke was aware. When the Senate resumed for its two-week sitting period in October I asked Senator Walsh on two occasions about this inquiry. Instead of receiving an answer to my questions I received the abuse which Senator Walsh gives in answering so many questions, particularly those which relate to Western Australian issues. As a result of the strange conduct by Senator Walsh, I thought I may have been able to obtain some further information about this matter from the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, who presumably has a passing interest in the gold mining industry. The question I decided to ask Senator Evans was, I am sure, very truthfully answered by him. At least he made an attempt to answer it with such information as he had. Senator Evans's answer clearly indicated that the inquiry had not been established, despite the statement of the Treasurer and statements that had been made by Senator Walsh to that effect in the tirades I received from him in answer to the questions I have just mentioned. Senator Evans indicated that, in fact, he had seen a recommendation from the Treasurer to the Prime Minister about the personnel for that inquiry and he thought it would be processed in the near future and that therefore the inquiry was still in the process of being established. He could not tell us anything about the inquiry's terms of reference. Earlier this week-on Tuesday, 5 November-the member of my staff who had made earlier inquiries spoke to a staffer of the Treasurer in the Treasurer's private office and asked again about the progress in the establishment of this inquiry. He was advised by one of the Treasurer's staff that recommendations on the proposed membership of the inquiry had been made, that confirmation was delayed pending conflict of interest inquiries and that the terms of reference of the inquiry had been finalised. Quite properly, he did not tell my staff member what the terms of reference were, what the proposed membership was or what was the problem involving conflict of interest, if that was the case. That is the only further information I have received. Senator Walsh has attempted to indicate that I have been given answers to all the questions I asked, which is totally false. As I said, I asked the questions today because in nearly six weeks since the Treasurer's statement I have not been able to get any clear answers about the establishment of this inquiry into the taxing of gold, despite the firm statement by the Treasurer on 19 September that the inquiry had been established. In any event, even if that member of my staff had been told by a member of staff of the Treasurer's office what the terms of reference of the inquiry were, who was on the inquiry, whether it had met and so on-the sorts of questions I have been asking-that is absolutely no reason why Senator Walsh, if he had the information or if the Government had processed the inquiry to that extent, would not be expected to give that answer to the Senate. The fact that it might have been given privately to me is absolutely no reason why it should not be given to the Senate. However, as I said, that is not the fact of the matter. My questions today were a genuine attempt to get information which I have been seeking from Senator Walsh and the Government without success for the past six weeks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.24 p.m.