Wednesday, 13 November 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. 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 422 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 intention 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 will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 534 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 244 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 five citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 91 citizens), Chaney (from 135 citizens), Puplick (from 115 citizens), Richardson (from 100 citizens) and Sibraa (from 84 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we urge that the Australian Government express 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 Decolonisation Committee makes its report; and that steps be taken to initiate UN conducted negotiations between Indonesia, Portugal and representatives of the East Timorese people, including Fretilin. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Puplick (from 48 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 programs, (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 47 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's `White Paper' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as `Capital Gains Tax after death' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of the assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned taxpayers of Australia, respectfully show that we deplore the use of taxation funds to allow privileges and travel entitlements for homosexual staff members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, on the same basis as legally married couples. As taxpayers, we humbly request that this decision be reversed immediately and our taxation contribution be used for more urgent needs, such as defence, housing, education, roads, transport and social security benefits. by Senator Boswell (from 39 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, and pursuant to Standing Order 109A, I give notice that it is my intention at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 2 standing in my name for the next day of sitting, relating to disallowance of the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations (Amendment). I seek leave to make a statement of explanation. Leave granted. Senator COATES —Since May this year the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has been scrutinising regulations concerning extradition to South Africa of fugitives in Australia. The Committee obtained undertakings from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to amend the original regulations to ensure that they were more protective of personal rights. I reported these matters to the Senate on 31 May 1985 at page 2905 of Hansard when, in light of the undertakings, I sought leave of the Senate to withdraw the notice of motion of disallowance. When the amended regulations were scrutinised by the Committee last month, it was discovered that they did not incorporate one of the Attorney-General's undertakings. This related to a proposal not to extradite to South Africa a fugitive accused of a revenue offence. Since leave to withdraw the original notice of disallowance was given on the basis that the full package of undertakings from the Attorney-General would be implemented, the Committee asked for an explanation for the inclusion of revenue offences. The Attorney-General explained that originally his Department had thought that under South African extradition law there could be no extradition to Australia of a revenue offender and that therefore there should be no countervailing discretion to extradite to South Africa for revenue offences. The Attorney- General's Department later discovered that there was no such limitation on extradition from South Africa and the Attorney-General considered that Australia should permit reciprocal extradition to South Africa for revenue offences. The Committee has accepted the Attorney-General's reasons for retaining a discretion in extradition to South Africa of revenue offenders, although it would have preferred to have been expressly informed at the earliest date that it was proposed, for understandable reasons, to depart from a significant element of a ministerial undertaking. The Committee has also resolved with the Attorney-General doubts which the Committee entertained concerning his apparent discretion to extradite to South Africa when it might be unjust, oppressive or inhumane to do so. The Committee has been advised by the Attorney-General that his apparently wide discretion is not as wide as it appears and is, in the particular circumstances of this case, adequately subject to judicial control. Finally, senators may not be aware of the fact that as a result of the Committee's scrutiny of these Regulations the Attorney- General has introduced, in the recent Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1985, amendments to the extradition Acts to protect the rights of persons who may be subject to extradition. The amendments are at pages 18 and 22 of the Bill and concern the definition of an extradition crime. When the Committee identified certain flaws in the new definition of an extradition crime the Attorney-General readily agreed to correct them at the earliest date. The Committee thanks the Attorney-General for his assistance with all of these matters and commends him for his readiness to protect personal rights and liberties. Motion (by Senator Coates)-by leave-agreed to: That Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, standing in my name for the next day of sitting under be postponed until three sitting days after today. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the decision to hand over the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Schools Authority media services film and sound recording studio to Film Australia: (i) without fully investigating other alternatives; (ii) without consulting with Australian Capital Territory teachers who will be affected, and (iii) without taking the needs of the Australian Capital Territory students into consideration; and (b) calls upon the Council of the Authority to provide the Senate with the reasons for the decision and a financial statement detailing the cost of maintaining the studio and the cost to provide the same service by Film Australia. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that because of an Industrial Court decision in Queensland some 3,000 members of the Electrical Trades Union are now without representation; (b) notes that in its judgment the Industrial Court blamed the activity of the Queensland Government in sacking some 1,100 employees of the South East Queensland Electricity Board as the basis for its decision saying that the workers then had no chance to comply with its order to return to work; and (c) Therefore condems the actions of the Queensland National Party Government for its obvious failure to observe the terms of a court order by sacking the men before they had a chance to be re-employed. Motion (by Senator Vigor)-by leave-agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 7 standing in his name for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of a section of an ordinance, be postponed until 3 sitting days after today. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses its concern at the fundamental weakness in the Australian dollar arising from- (a) the worsening current account deficit evidenced by its 25 per cent rise to $5,000m in the first four months of the current financial year; (b) the rising rate of inflation which now appears certain to exceed 8 1/2 per cent this financial year-double that of our trading partners; and (c) the failure of the Federal Government to genuinely discount wage rises for devaluation by offsetting next year's nominal and partial discount with a tax cut paid for mainly by business, particularly small business, and the farming community; And calls on the Government to replace its present policies of effective full wage indexation under the Accord, excessive Government spending and consequential record high interest rates, with policies that will restore Australia's international competitiveness and therefore its economic health. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) commends the independent report commissioned by the United States (U.S.) State Department which notes that French colonialism and some American policies are the main sources of political tension and instability in the South Pacific; (b) agrees with the response of New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr Lange, in endorsing the report's contention that the only threat to the region is great power rivalry; (c) in accord with the Report, urges the French Government to immediately recognise the legitimate and strongly felt aspirations of the South Pacific peoples for a nuclear-free and independent Pacific; (d) calls on the US to change its rigid aid practices, import quotas, hardline attitudes on unrestricted access to island fisheries and the increased presence of nuclear weapons in the region; and (e) endorses the Report's view that it is very much in the interests of the West to maintain continued political, economic and social stability in the South Pacific region and that this can only occur through a recognition by the US and France that such changes must take place, otherwise, the as yet unrealised `Soviet threat' they so much fear will eventuate. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for presiding over the worst ever performance of the Australian dollar on world markets. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Federal Government's proposed fringe benefits tax will cost Queensland mining companies $20m per year; (b) condemns the Federal Labor Government for adding unwarranted costs to mining companies at a time when international mineral markets are extremely competitive and Australia's balance of payments in November 1985 is $1,600m `in the red'; and (c) expresses concern that this tax will act to reduce the living standards of people in the isolated and decentralised areas of Queensland. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list that has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Dairy Research Committee-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 16 of the Dairying Research Act 1972. 2. Financial assistance to Victoria for urban and regional development-amending agreement between the Commonwealth and Victoria-pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974. 3. Financial assistance to Western Australia for urban and regional development-amending agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australia-pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974. 4. Remuneration Tribunals-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to section 12AA of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. 5. Academic Salaries Tribunal-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to section 12G of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. 6. Australian National Railways Commission-Report on accident statistics for the period 1 January 1984-30 June 1985. 7. Remote commercial television services for the north-east region-Second Report. 8. Department of the Special Minister of State-Annual Report 1984-85. 9. Royal Military College-Annual Report 1984-pursuant to section 147 of the Defence Act 1903. 10. Aussat Pty Ltd.-Annual Report 1984-85. 11. Tobacco industry Trust Account-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to section 7 of the Tobacco Industry Act 1955. 12. Department of Housing and Construction-Annual Report 1984-85. Included in this report is the home deposit assistance annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 64(2) of the Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982, and the first home owners annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 41(2) of the First Home Owners Act 1983. *13. Department of Community Services-Annual Report 1984-85. *14. Papua New Guinea Superannuation Scheme-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to section 21 of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973. * 15. Industries Assistance Commission Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to section 45 of the I.A.C. Act 1973. * 16. Curriculum Development Council-Report 1 July to 31 December 1984-pursuant to section 14P (1) of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973. * * 17. Steel Industry Authority-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 31 of the Steel Industry Authority Act 1983. * Not available prior to tabling. * Limited copies of the report are available from the Senate Records Office. When further copies are available they will be forwarded to all honourable senators. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That paragraph (1) of the Resolution agreed to by the Senate and the House of Representatives on 28 February 1985 and 27 February 1985, respectively, relating to the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, be amended to read as follows- ``(1) That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon- (a) all aspects of the conduct of elections for the Parliament of the Commonwealth and matters related thereto, including: (i) legislation governing, and the operation of, the Australian Electoral Commission, (ii) the provision of `free' radio time for political messages during election periods, (iii) the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 concerning the defamation of candidates for election, (iv) tax deductibility of political donations, and (v) the establishment of fixed formulae for determining the number of Senators and members of the House of Representatives to which the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and other territories are entitled; and (b) such other matters relating to Australian electoral laws and practices as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament.''. ``(2) That the foregoing Resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by Message requesting its concurrence in the Resolution. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: (1) That the following matters be referred to the Committee of Privileges for urgent investigation and report: (a) the circumstances which led to Senator Georges's bail being conditional upon fingerprinting for identification purposes; and (b) the failure of Queensland authorities to notify the President of the Senate of the detention of a Senator in accordance with paragraph 17 of the Fifth Report of the Committee of Privileges entitled ``Imprisonment of a Senator'', tabled in the Senate on 25 October 1979. (2) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the Committee of Privileges, for the purposes of its inquiry and report, shall have power to send for persons, papers and records. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That consideration of committee reports, pursuant to Sessional Order, be not proceeded with this day. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.15) —Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Mason moving a motion to give precedence over all other business to the Order of the Day relating to the Commission of Inquiry (Chamberlain Convictions) Bill 1984 [1985]. As honourable senators will know, the Northern Territory Government yesterday decided not to hold a further inquiry into the Chamberlain case. At this stage I do not propose to examine in any detail the reasons for that decision because I have not had time, nor have other senators, to look with due reflection and consideration at the material which has come forward to us from the Northern Territory in support of that, and especially the lengthy report of the Northern Territory's Solicitor-General, Mr Brian Martin. But the reasons for that decision will ultimately become a matter for public debate-I suggest quite soon-and properly so. I think it is fair to say, too, that the Northern Territory Government has over the last five months conducted what has been in effect and with all respect to those concerned-this is not a criticism of them-a secret inquiry into the new evidence presented to it by the Chamberlain Innocence Committee, instead of the judicial inquiry open to the public and the media as was requested. In these events lies the seed of my motion to suspend Standing Orders. Basically, the crux of the matter is that while there was an opportunity for the Chamberlain case to have a further judicial in the Northern Territory, that should reasonably have been allowed. I know from conversations I have had with honourable senators that it has been their view that, if possible, the Northern Territory Government should deal with this matter. On that basis we have the Bill to which this motion relates and which I do not propose to debate, other than to say it has been there for 18 months in order to give the Northern Territory just the kind of opportunity which honourable senators who have spoken to me had in mind. That no longer exists. So we in this place are confronted with a situation which is serious, important and goes very much to the heart of our responsibilities and duties because the ball is now in our court. We have a situation where if one takes any account at all of a vast mass of expert legal opinion and of public opinion in this country, there is a strong case that two Australian citizens have been convicted of the most serious crimes and that those convictions might now be disallowed if indeed that evidence could be produced at a judicial inquiry. So the matter cuts deep and is urgent for that reason. It is a serious matter to say in this place or in any other place-I am sure that no honourable senator would contribute to it-that one should allow a person who may well be innocent to spend a single day longer incarcerated in a prison. That is the reason we are considering this motion. I raise this matter not in any unreal spirit. I know that honourable senators have not had time to study the material from the Northern Territory and I know that it would be less than responsible of me to expect them to pass this Bill or commence such an inquiry until they have done so. Therefore, I would not resist an adjournment of the Bill today if it comes on for debate. But it is very important that it does come on and that the Senate commences its task, which I suggest is indeed its task. When one looks at Mr Martin's material, one finds two remarkable statements which bear very greatly on this motion. Fundamentally. Mr Martin said on page 3 of his report: Mr and Mrs Chamberlain have reached the end of the processes available under the law applying in the Northern Territory and seek to have the verdict set aside. In my opinion, in the absence of any new legislation, either Northern Territory or Commonwealth, touching upon the subject, the verdicts against them can never now be set aside nor can the penalities imposed upon them. Mr Martin, in words more eloquent than my own, has confirmed the point I am making to the Senate; the ball is in our court. On page 106 of the report one finds similar statements by Mr Martin who has devoted an entire section of his report to possible review tribunals. He mentions this matter specifically. He says: Senator Mason has introduced a Bill with the Senate which if enacted would establish a judicial tribunal to inquire into this matter. Honourable senators who have studied this report will have found it fairly heavy going. It is very lengthy, but I found those references among the most interesting of all because I see in them something of a strangled cry for help. One can read between the lines and say that possibly there is a feeling in the Northern Territory that this is a matter which is too big for local consumption. In saying that I am not criticising anybody. It is not right that an inquiry on this matter should be held in Darwin, a small community where there are so many bitternesses, so many superstitions, where so much has built up over the last three years concerning the Chamberlain case. In saying that I do not intend to be critical of anybody; I merely say that this matter needs to be taken out of that setting. It needs to be put into a setting where, first of all, certainly it can be given a judicial hearing to which the media and the public have access. It also needs to be away from what might be an overheated atmosphere in Darwin. I am concerned, from my reading of the situation so far, that apparently the Northern Territory has not made any attempt to commission the appropriate experts to look at the forensic matters raised by the Innocence Committee. No scientific evaluation at all seems to have been made of the material raised. The report is mainly legalistic; I think that is a valid criticism, and it bears on my motion on whether or not we should proceed urgently to take our own steps on this matter. Although I said I would accept an adjournment of the Bill, I think we ought not to sit on this matter in a leisurely way. I am greatly concerned with the feelings particularly of Mrs Chamberlain. Having embarked on this exercise, one of the most cruel things we could do in this place would be to allow it to drift on over weeks, months, perhaps years, during which Mrs Chamberlain would not know, in any way, what her future was or what the ultimate intentions of the Senate were. The matter is not so complicated that we ought not to get rid of it as soon as we can reasonably form a view on it. That reasoning would appeal to all honourable senators, who I know are just and humane men and women. I know that in moving this motion I am embarking on a difficult and controversial task. This is balanced in my mind by my conviction of its importance and urgency. I will try to persuade the Senate to agree with me but, of course, honourable senators will make up their own minds on this matter. Mr President, I begin by seeking your indulgence, to whatever extent you think is justified, on the parameters of what I have to say. I know, and everybody who is listening to my speech ought to know, that the Standing Orders of the Senate oblige me to restrict my comments to the business before us, which is a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. If it is successful it would allow me to move a motion to bring on the Bill for debate. Unless these two motions succeed the second reading of the Bill cannot proceed and the matters which urgently require examination cannot be examined, and I think that would be a serious matter. My whole purpose in raising this motion is to establish a degree of necessity for the Senate to intervene in the Chamberlain case and having established that, to demonstrate a similar degree of urgency on any further action. Those are the two points I must make to honourable senators and I cannot do so without discussing aspects of the Chamberlain case that bear reasonably on those two points. The Commonwealth's power to intervene in this case is a matter about which I think honourable senators would like to hear first; it is the most important matter we have to consider. The Constitution provides that all laws which are made in this Parliament shall be binding on the courts, judges and people of every State and every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State, a provision which, naturally, we would approach with great caution. However, section 122 of the Constitution states specifically: The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit. I think it is generally agreed-I include the Northern Territory Solicitor-General-that that power exists and that there is no real reason why the Senate ought not to proceed if it wishes to do so. I say for the reassurance of honourable senators who might say `We might deal with it, but how would it fare in the other place?' that is a reasonable question. I am concerned about the attitude of the Government. I would much prefer to see this very important matter of conscience passed by consensus in this place rather than there being any sort of obligation or any pressure for the legislation to be passed through one place and not the other. I think that would be a great shame and I would not want to contribute to that kind of situation. There is a group of members of parliament crossing party lines in the other place who are prepared to sponsor the Bill in the House of Representatives. I have been given that undertaking. Further than that I cannot go, but that situation does exist. This motion cannot be intelligible at all without a brief summary of the historical events which led up to it and which to my mind constitute reasons why this motion should be accepted by the Senate and why we should proceed with this matter right through to its conclusion as soon as it is reasonably convenient to honourable senators. Mr and Mrs Chamberlain were convicted respectively of being an accessory after the fact and of murder on 29 October 1982, following their Northern Territory Supreme Court trial. The Chamberlains legal remedies were exhausted when the majority of the High Court of Australia dismissed their appeal, notwithstanding that two of the five justices concluded that on the evidence presented to the jury the convictions were unsafe and should not stand. Of course, this finely split decision has served to raise further doubts in the minds of the public and to establish the Chamberlain case as a high water mark of legal controversy. Following intensive scientific investigation, however, substantial and cogent evidence has come to light since the trial and the appeals. I understand that counsel has advised that this new evidence is cogent enough to prove the Chamberlains' innocence or at the very least to throw the gravest of doubts on their convictions. It is very much to the point that the aspects of that evidence which are now important and which, indeed, do attack so severely the two main points on which the Chamberlains were convicted at their trial, are matters which have come up since this matter went to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court. Certainly they were mentioned by Mr Martin who makes the point that there is nothing new in the evidence. Superficially that is true, but the real point is that the evidence which came up at the trial and at the inquest is now being presented in a very different light from what it was then. In fact, it is being presented in such a way that it gives a direct 180-degree turn to the bearing that that evidence had on the possibility of events. Senator Sheil —Is the evidence mentioned in the new report which has come out and which we have not read? Senator MASON —That evidence is mentioned, dealt with and considered in that report. My main complaint with it is that it does not appear to have been subjected to the scientific examination which I feel it ought to have had. Indeed, if there was such scientific examination in any depth, we have not been told of it in the report or elsewhere. Like others, I have not studied the report in any great detail but I have come to that conclusion. The basic point that we must consider now is that this new evidence cannot really be examined by any constituted judicial body that exists at present. This is the second half of the dilemma. Senator Gareth Evans, when he was Attorney-General, indicated that he might be prepared to support statutory amendments to enable a further appeal to be brought. Those amendments, as I recall them, would be to the Federal Court of Australia Act. I wonder whether that would be a good idea anyway since it would send it back to an appellate court and appellate courts, as we know, have significant limitations on the extent to which they can consider this sort of new evidence or a review of evidence. It seems to me and to those experts who know far more about the law and who are concerned with the Chamberlain Innocence Committee that the matter can be reviewed properly only by the setting up of a judicial inquiry with terms of reference wide enough to allow the consideration of all relevant evidence and to supervise all further scientific experimentation and analysis. That final point is one I should stress and commend to the thoughts of honourable senators. This matter is like the Splatt case in South Australia where, as we all know, an inquiry of the kind I propose reversed the judgment against Mr Splatt. He was released from prison and has had to be paid very substantial sums of money in compensation. Having discussed this with Mr Splatt, he does not regard that as compensating him for five years spent unfairly in gaol. I can sympathise with him in that view and I am sure that all honourable senators do feel that to be the case. It is necessary, I think, in this case to go right back to the forensic evidence. The forensic evidence is the key to it. Was it valid? Is it valid now in the light of what has been found out by careful experimentation since? I think that until that is considered somewhere, the Chamberlain case will continue to remain a vastly important issue and perhaps the most important legal issue in the minds of Australians. It is an issue in the minds not only of Australians, as I get letters from all over the world on this. These letters, I might say, are starting to compare the Chamberlain case with the Dreyfus case where, as honourable senators may recall, Captain Dreyfus was for many years refused a right of appeal because it might have been inconvenient to the Army and the legal procedures, but eventually he did and he was exonerated on the charges of spying of which he had been accused. Despite assurances from the Northern Territory Government that the submissions put to it five months ago by the Innocence Committee would receive proper consideration, there is, I suggest, great doubt that this has happened, for the following reasons: The Northern Territory Solicitor-General was accompanied only by Dr Simon Baxter on an evidence-gathering trip to the manufacturers of the blood reagant to test the Chamberlain's car for foetal blood. Dr Baxter was the Crown witness whom the New South Wales Ombudsman found guilty of wrong conduct in respect of testing procedures used in the Chamberlain case. The Chamberlain defence, I understand, forwarded a telex on 31 July 1985 requesting that, in the interests of justice, Professor Barry Boettcher of the University of Newcastle be invited to join these two men on the trip. Honourable senators will note that Professor Boettcher has made a very considerable input to the scientific views on this matter. But to date the defence has not even had an acknowledgement of that communication. The trip, of course, has been completed and the decision made. Again I stress that the submissions to the Northern Territory Government can be properly evaluated only by scientists examining the new samples produced by further experimentation and re-examining trial exhibits. Nobody on behalf of the Northern Territory Government has made any attempt to do this and I understand that the defence suggestion that it be done was rejected. That is confirmed by what is in Mr Martin's report. The suggestion that this has caused disquiet only among a vocal minority I think is cogent to a consideration of this motion. I believe that this view has now changed, and probably dramatically over the last six or seven months. It is a fact that in the most recent poll conducted in the Northern Territory, where originally, I think, there was strong feeling against the Chamberlains, 51 per cent of respondents thought there should be an inquiry, 25.5 per cent thought there should be no inquiry and 13.5 per cent were not sure. I think it bears on the point, without overstressing it, that the Northern Territory Government has taken an action which would appear to be against the wishes of the bulk of its constituents. Polls in Australia, taken selectively in certain States, have shown that up to one third of Australians and possibly more are deeply concerned about the Chamberlains case and believe that there well could have been a miscarriage of justice. I ask honourable senators: Is it not of great importance to this chamber and to this Federal Parliament that many Australians feel that way, that two people have been convicted for murder and been through the various areas of appeal, yet one third of Australians believe that they are probably innocent? What respect will we have for the law or the legal processes in this country if that situation continues, if those people are left with the long standing view that the systems of law in the country are not capable-I am not at this stage saying that the Chamberlains are innocent-of providing a vehicle for people who have exhausted the ordinary legal means of appeal where new evidence of greater importance has come up? I suggest to honourable senators that if we allow that situation to continue-I repeat, the ball is squarely in our court-we will have grave problems confronting us. I have far more faith in my colleagues here than to believe that that could ever be the case. I am absolutely confident that this Bill will be passed at the proper time. I could not have it in my heart to believe that the majority of honourable senators would contribute to the kind of situation which I have mentioned. I think its perpetuation or resolution one way or another, as a result, becomes a matter of urgency. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy President-stop me if you feel that I am transgressing in this matter-I think it is fairly important that we say very briefly what the evidence was. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Deputy President-- Senator MASON —I have asked for the Senate's indulgence; if Senator Evans does not want me to do that, that is fair enough. Senator Gareth Evans —With respect, Mr Deputy President, a great deal of lattitude has been given to the honourable senator so far. He will perhaps be trespassing on that lattitude if he pursues it to the point of a detailed review of the evidence at this stage. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Mason, all you have been saying is not strictly relevant to the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator MASON —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will not strain the tolerance of the Senate on this matter other than to say very briefly that I believe that those three areas of evidence are such that they ought to have been given greater scientific consideration by the Northern Territory and that they are matters on which honourable senators, if they have the time and think it is important enough, ought to inform themselves so that they can make their judgment of them. I make only one final point at this stage, Mr Deputy President. I thank you and the Senate for your indulgence. If ever there was a matter on which to my mind honourable senators ought to be permitted to consult their own consciences, surely it is this one. I feel that it would stand as a permanant reproach to and indictment of the parliamentary system if voting on this issue were to be dictated by party caucuses. I say this in my knowledge that members of all parties here, and in both Houses, for that matter, feel that further inquiry is justified. I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by forcing them to vote against their own conscientious view. I appeal on that basis for a free vote in all divisions on this matter. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.35) —The Government will not support the suspension of Standing Orders to debate Senator Mason's Bill, the Commission of Inquiry (Chamberlain Convictions) Bill 1984 [1985], simply because we believe it would be quite premature to consider the terms of that Bill, calling as it does for a judicial inquiry, in the light of the fact that, as Senator Mason has said, a very substantial report was handed down only yesterday by the Northern Territory Government. This is a report from the Northern Territory Solicitor-General on the alleged new evidence and the reaction of the Northern Territory Government to that. I believe that not only the Government but all honourable senators need time to consider the contents of that report, which is detailed and substantial, and to form a judgment as to whether the report is such that people believe that it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to take some further overriding action. To get into any kind of substantive discussion of the terms of Senator Mason's Bill simply is premature until we have all had an opportunity to go through that process. That is the simple reason for opposing Senator Mason's motion. I add three or four other points that I believe are relevant to the Senate's ultimate consider- ation of this matter. The first point is that it would be a serious step for the Government to take the action of establishing at the Commonwealth level a judicial inquiry of this kind. It is a serious step because of the reasons that I have put on the record on a number of previous occasions-in most detail in a statement issued on 14 June last year at the time of the initial introduction of Senator Mason's Bill. The simple fact is that since 1978 the Northern Territory Government has exercised full self-government powers in relation to matters of criminal justice arising within the Northern Territory. Even though the Commonwealth retains residual executive and legislative powers that could be used to override the Northern Territory Government at this stage, at neither the executive nor the legislative level has the Commonwealth since 1978 in fact exercised such powers. There is a very considerable conventional restraint, if you like, on our doing so, based on an acceptance of the principles of self-government. I make the point that there may be exceptional circumstances that would justify the exercise of overriding powers, but it is a serious step for the Commonwealth Government or Parliament to take up such overriding action. It is not a step that has been taken so far. I think the lesson in the present context is that the Government and Parliament would have to be satisfied that there are serious and obvious de- ficiencies in the Northern Territory Government's response to the material put before it a few months ago for us even to contemplate taking such action. Whether there are such deficiencies is, of course, the sort of thing we want to be looking at over the next two or three weeks. I make the further point that even if the Commonwealth were, at either the executive or the legislative level, to decide it was appropriate to exercise residual overriding powers and to come in with some kind of further inquiry at this stage, it would not be necessary for Senator Mason's legislation to pass for such an inquiry to be established. The Commonwealth does not need the specific authority of Senator Mason's Bill to establish a royal commission, or an equivalent inquiry. We do have the executive power and formal structure for doing so and for giving appropriate privilege protection and so on under the existing Royal Commissions Act. Although Senator Mason's Bill no doubt is an appropriate political device for raising the matter and getting it before the chamber, it is not a technically necessary means of-- Senator Mason —I did not once say that, I remind you, Senator Evans. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am making the point for the record, even though Senator Mason has not pursued it in those terms. In other words, it might be a course of action that could be contemplated for Senator Mason's Bill to be rejected but nonetheless for some form of Commonwealth inquiry to be established. Once again I make the point that the Government will consider this matter over the next two to three weeks. After we have had a full opportunity to review the material and the character and credibility of the Northern Territory Government's response we will come back to this chamber and advise the Senate accordingly as to what our reaction would be. I acknowledge the point that has been made by Senator Mason that the matter has been dragging on for a long time. I think that whatever else might be said about the Northern Territory Government's response it has been one that has taken a long time to appear, given that the material was available to it, I gather, some five months or more ago. Mr Deputy President, might I trespass on your indulgence by adding a final point, speaking this time in my personal capacity rather than as a representative of the Government, but in doing so reflecting a view that I know has been very widely expressed both across party lines and by people who have formed strong views both about Mrs Chamberlain's guilt and about her innocence. The view I would express is this: Rather than continuing what may prove to be very protracted arguments about the case for a further inquiry or not having an inquiry, as the case may be, the weight of the old evidence, the existence of new evidence and the question of guilt or innocence, perhaps it would be more appropriate now for attention to be focused on the merits-irrespective of guilt or innocence or one's belief about guilt or innocence-of Mrs Chamberlain remaining longer in gaol. I personally would urge the Northern Territory Government to give very serious consideration to releasing Mrs Chamberlain on licence, notwithstanding the views that it obviously very firmly holds as to the probity and accuracy of the judicial proceedings that have taken place through all the courts in the land up to this point in time. I acknowledge that it would be a very difficult decision for the Northern Territory Government to make. She has, after all, been convicted of murder. Murder in the Northern Territory is something that is punishable by imprisonment for life. It is not the case normally in any Australian jurisdiction that people are considered for release on licence in periods under 10 years or so when imprisoned for life for murder. That is the norm and that has to be acknowledged. However, these things are always discretionary. It is the case that the offence of infanticide, which is not on the statute books in the Northern Territory, is one that exists in other jurisdictions; for example, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, where the maximum penalties respectively are life imprisonment, imprisonment for 15 years and imprisonment for 21 years. Although infanticide is manifestly not treated as a minor offence in such legislation it is certainly unusual for a woman convicted of infanticide to be given a custodial sentence at all and, if a custodial sentence is given, it is very unusual indeed for it to be more than a year or two with an appropriately lower non-parole period. I think that it needs to be borne in mind that Mrs Chamberlain has been in gaol for something over 2 1/2 years. Measured against that yardstick a question arises as to whether continued incarceration serves any obvious public benefit. I well acknowledge that the whole crime of infanticide does involve some concept of diminished responsibility and there has been no question in the way in which the Chamberlains' defence has been conducted so far of any diminished responsibility being pleaded. On the contrary, the plea has been a very different one-there is no guilt of any kind; in fact, the cause of the death was something completely different. I acknowledge all of that and that, accordingly, the argument that infanticide is not a completely apt analogy. Nonetheless, bearing in mind all the issues that are involved in this case, I simply make the point that I believe the time has come for consideration to be given by the appropriate Government, and that is the Northern Territory Government-it is not anybody else-to that question. I say no more about that at this stage. I do not think that any purpose would be served in doing so. It may be that people's sense of justice would be better served by something along those lines occurring at this stage rather than pursuing what might prove to be the Will-o'-the-wisp of a further inquiry. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.45) —The Opposition will not support the motion moved by Senator Mason this morning to suspend Standing Orders in order to enable debate to commence on his Bill to set up a commission of inquiry to review the conviction of Mr and Mrs Chamberlain. That does not mean that the Opposition opposes any debate taking place on that Bill. It is simply that in today's circumstances, we believe it would be inappropriate and quite unsatisfactory for debate on that Bill to take place. The Opposition thoroughly agrees that early debate should be held on Senator Mason's proposed legislation. The reasons why the Opposition takes that view are very much the same as those that have been expressed by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, on behalf of the Government. There is no doubt that a great deal of material must be considered before a decision can be made by any honourable senator in this place. Certainly there has been no opportunity for that consideration to be given to the support of Mr Martin by any members of the Opposition at this stage. To recoup the facts, the submission of the solicitors for Mr and Mrs Chamberlain was made to the Northern Territory Government early in June. That Government referred the mass of material submitted, most of which was of a highly technical nature, to the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory, Mr Martin, who has been overseas to discuss the matter with experts and, of course, has done so in Australia. Only yesterday Mr Martin's report was tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. It is a report of well over 100 pages, including appendices. I have not had the time to study it. As I said, I am sure other senators have not either, including Senator Mason. I think he realises the problem. He indicated that when he said he did not want the debate to be concluded today, but he wanted it to be commenced. Senator Mason —That is right, I do. Senator DURACK —The difficulty with that is: How do we commence to debate something without knowing what our attitude to it is? I think the force of that argument is accepted by that acknowledgement by Senator Mason. I think everybody agrees that these were the proper procedures to have taken. Senator Mason introduced this Bill in the middle of last year and attention was given to it by the Opposition at that time. I think Senator Mason very wisely did not bring it on for debate last year, although there were suggestions that he may do so. I was then the shadow Attorney-General and we went through the ordinary party processes to determine what attitude we would adopt to the Bill at that stage, and I emphasise the words `at that stage'. On 13 September last year I issued a statement on behalf of the Opposition, which I will now read: Mr and Mrs Chamberlain were tried and convicted in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in accordance with the law of the Territory. They were represented by most experienced counsel and appeals to the Federal Court and the High Court were dismissed. The Chief Minister- at that time Mr Everingham- and the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory- there has been a change of Attorney-General as well- have given an assurance that, if material is presented to them by persons authorised by Mr and Mrs Chamberlain to do so which provide any ground for a further inquiry into their convictions, careful consideration will be given to it and the appropriate action to be taken. So far no such application has been made to the Northern Territory government. I have also spoken personally to both the Chief Minister and the Attorney General and I feel sure that they will give sympathetic consideration to any such application. The Opposition has now considered its attitude to the Private Member's Bill and has decided that in the light of these facts it would not be appropriate to support the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry as proposed in the Private Member's Bill. In our view the proper course would be for Mr and Mrs Chamberlain to take up the offer which has been made by the Northern Territory government. I stress that that statement was made in September last year in the circumstances that were presented at that time. I also added: On behalf of the Opposition I will maintain a close interest in any steps that may be taken by Mr and Mrs Chamberlain and will keep in touch with the Northern Territory government about the matter. I did not hear anything more for a number of months. That statement was made in September last year. Indeed, it was only in June this year that the actual submission in the terms that were indicated was made to the Northern Territory Government. Although there has been some question as to why it has taken so long-from June until now-I believe that it has been reasonable for the fullest inquiries to be made by the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory. If there were no definite time at which that report would be made, maybe another question would arise. The circumstances now are that Mr Martin has presented the report. He has only just presented it, and the Northern Territory Government has acted on it with rather surprising speed, if I may say so. I think there may be criticism of that aspect of the matter in the light of the size of the report, but that is a matter for the Northern Territory Government, of course, and not for us. Certainly it must be emphasised, as far as we are concerned, that we do need time to consider fully Mr Martin's report. Also, no matter what decisions one might make or what conclusions one might draw in relation to Mr Martin's report, there are some other major matters which must be addressed. One has been addressed by the former Attorney-General and the Minister at the table, Senator Evans, namely the question of the self-government which has been conferred on the Northern Territory since 1978. Of course, these are matters which are fairly and squarely within the devolution of power to the Northern Territory. If this matter had arisen in a State, there would simply be no power on the part of this Parliament or the Government to take any of the steps which are being suggested by Senator Mason or which have been quite properly contemplated by Senator Evans or which it has been suggested may be contemplated by the Government. That is a very serious question which must be considered. Technically, of course, this Parliament and this Government have the legislative and executive power under the Constitution to set up an inquiry. There is no question about that. Nevertheless, that is an issue which needs very serious consideration. There is another consideration as well, and that is the step of setting up a commission of inquiry into a conviction which has been upheld by two courts of appeal, including the High Court. The normal processes of the law are that those legal decisions of the court stand and are not reviewed. It is only in most exceptional cases that any executive government would set up a commission of inquiry to investigate a conviction which has been obtained and upheld in that manner. Senator Mason mentioned a case in South Australia. Of course, it does happen occasionally, but the emphasis must be that it is an exceptional situation and an exceptional decision. That in itself is another matter which must be given the gravest consideration. For all those reasons the Opposition believes that it is premature today to consider Senator Mason's Bill, but I reiterate and emphasise that we certainly believe that the question raised by the Bill must be addressed and the Bill is clearly required to be debated in the near future. Senator Evans said a few words which, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy President, perhaps were not relevant to the debate. As he has said something to which I have given a lot of thought, I hope you will grant me the indulgence of making some comments about that as well. I agree with the views that Senator Evans has expressed in relation to the release of Mrs Chamberlain. I expressed similar views to the former Attorney-General of the Northern Territory 12 months ago. It is within the power of the Northern Territory Government to make a decision to release Mrs Chamberlain and it should be considering that. I imagine that it has considered it. It is not something which is considered only once. The question whether someone should be released from gaol may come up often for consideration. Senator Gareth Evans, the former Attorney-General, and I, as a former Attorney-General, have had the experience of having to consider and reconsider matters of this kind in which very sensitive human considerations have to be addressed. Sometimes very hard decisions have to be made. But they are the continuing responsibility of any person who holds the office of Attorney-General or the appropriate Minister, whoever he may be. I urge that the necessary consideration and reconsideration be given to this matter. I will not go into all the reasons why that prerogative power should be exercised, but it is certainly there and it certainly can be exercised. I acknowledge that in all the circumstances there may be a lot of difficulty but certainly the power is there. It is a power to which I would give serious consideration. As Senator Gareth Evans indicated, if he were in the position he would do the same. Question resolved in the negative. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.58) —I move: That the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 113 and made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, be disallowed. I will be supported in this motion by a number of my colleagues and by my colleagues from the Australian Democrats. I notice with some surprise that the Australian Labor Party will not be putting up any speakers to defend these regulations. Nonetheless, it is important that the Senate should have before it the reasons why we are proceeding to disallow these regulations and the way in which the Government has acted so inconsistently with its election undertakings that has led to their disallowance coming about. It is part of the power of the Senate or the House of Representatives for that matter to disallow regulations which prove to be inconsistent or unjust or which, as in this case, go to the very centre of freedom of information, which is access, and stop it from being used. In some other countries the Act which we call freedom of information and which we regard as an important kernel of the democratic system is called `access to information'. Therefore, access is important. If we create a beautiful Act and make it impossible or unwise for people to use it, we reduce it to a sham and a hyprocrisy, which we are determined not to do. Let me quickly outline the case against these regulations. My colleagues will supply other examples of their misuse. They have been in operation now for four months and we have seen the way in which they have been used. The Hawke Government came into office with an undertaking that it would comply with the spirit and the letter of freedom of information. Its election promise of 1983 as contained in its policy states: Labor will implement fully the outstanding recommendations of the Senate Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to ensure that freedom of information operates in practice as well as in name. Honourable senators may recall the scorn which was poured on Liberals who accepted a Bill which was not as good as we hoped for but we were determined to get a Bill going while we were in government and had a majority in both chambers. We applauded and supported amendments, some of which were moved by Senator Gareth Evans and some of which were forced on the Government by the actions of the Opposition in the Senate to make sure it carried out the terms of its undertaking. One also ought to remember what the present Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, Mr Lionel Bowen, said about freedom of information during his period in opposition. I ask honourable members to remember these words. He said: Freedom of Information is a basic democratic right and it lies at the heart of the democratic system. This was said in August 1981. He is now the Attorney-General and the sponsor of these charges regulations which I seek to disallow. It is this attack on the heart of the democratic system that we particularly resist today. Honourable senators will recall that Labor Party policy which I quoted talks about implementing the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committe on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Recommendation 15 of the Committee's massive report on this subject states: The Bill should contain an additional clause specifically exhorting agencies, when processing requests for documents, to do so with a view to making the maximum amount of information promptly and inexpensively available to the public. Both of those requirements have been greatly betrayed by this Government. In the Act which was brought in by our Government there is a provision in the objects section, section 3(2), which states: It is the intention of the Parliament that the provisions of this Act shall be interpreted so as to further the objects set out in sub-section (1) and that any discretions conferred by the Act shall be exercised as far as possible so as to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information. Could anything be clearer than that or any obligation more satisfactorily set out? I suggest that this section has been disobeyed and that these regulations fly in the face of it. It may well be beyond the powers of the Government to enact such regulations because they do not comply with the terms of the Act. Since the Government has been in power we have seen a considerable move against the Freedom of Information Act in practice. In the first place we saw some excellent reports when Senator Gareth Evans was Attorney-General, but it is worth reminding the Senate that the third annual report is now four or five months overdue. While this debate is going on, Mr Lionel Bowen tells me that the report is ready to be tabled and he does not know why it has not been. We have not been given the facts set out in that report telling us how the Act has operated in its third and vital year. One is reminded of the people who have spoken critically of the use of the Act, people such as Senator Walsh. As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 March 1985, he said: Whether the Government should continue to provide a near costless (to the user) research service for journalists and retired politicians is open for doubt. He was trying to suggest that this was causing the increase in costs. We know that the greatest use of the Act in the first few years has been made by people seeking to obtain their own personal information from government. A few people have sought other information. Journalists do not seek information often enough in my opinion and politicians do not make sufficient use of the Act to obtain facts which they can use effectively in the chamber. Senator Haines —At $4 or $5 a page it gets beyond most of us. Senator MISSEN —It gets beyond politicians who are supposed to have great means. By the time we have to pay large deposits, as Neil Brown and other people have found to their cost, it becomes a foolish thing to rely on. Senator Peter Baume —But they are costs; you may get no information. Senator MISSEN —Yes, and we may find that the money has already gone and we cannot get it back. Mr Keating, the Treasurer, in May 1985 said: The Government has been increasingly concerned at the resources devoted to the provision of material under the FOI Legislation. We should always remember what was said by Mr Bowen. He said that freedom of information was at the heart of democracy. But he is concerned about the costs. However, the costs are not that great. Something like $20m per annum has been incurred in this way. Of course, the cost of government information set out in glossy publications is something like $106m to $120m. That, as Senator Ryan said in opposition, is information that people do not want. It is information that is forced on them. Of course, people do want freedom of information material. I will deal with the cost question in more detail later. However, I remind the Senate of the difficulties that one finds when people go into government with high ideals and then lose them. Senator Gareth Evans is not here to defend these regulations-- Senator Gareth Evans —Vigorously! Senator MISSEN —The honourable senator says `vigorously' with a smile. While I attack him, I do so merely as the Attorney-General's representative. The birches that I use are merely representative birches. I know that he has been fairly solid in his defence of freedom of information. Senator Peter Baume —Let us see how he votes. Senator MISSEN —Oh well, we know how the Labor Party acts in respect of voting. Senator Gareth Evans, when in opposition, was reported in an article in the Canberra Times by Jack Waterford in the following terms: Senator Evans himself wryly commented during the election campaign that any government which intended to increase access to government information had to do it in its first fortnight-before it had any secrets to hide-or it would never do it at all. In saying that, however, he was confidently asserting that he could do it. I am not sure whether he is so confident now but it was certainly a true and wise statement at the time. Senator Puplick —It seemed like a good idea at the time. Senator MISSEN —If I may say so, it seems a good idea now. What do the amending regulations do that we are criticising? First, of course, they increase the charges by 250 per cent. That is a pretty large whack. Even with the rate of inflation going down, that is the way costs are going up in line with the attitude of the Government. Senator Haines —It has probably got something to do with the Australian dollar. Senator MISSEN —I do not think it could. This is a great increase for ordinary people to have to pay. Information which was sought from personal files was first given freely. That is not the case now, unless one is in receipt of a pension. However, the number of people who are able to obtain this information free of charge is greatly restricted. So it has become foolish for people on ordinary small incomes to rely on the Freedom of Information Act and to seek information which one may find ultimately is not even in the files anyway. One will have paid $20 for the inquiries and that charge is now imposed upon people and is not refundable. The charge is imposed irrespective of whether the Government says that it will not give the applicant anything or there is no information. In addition to that, the new regulations require departments to impose a charge of 50 per cent of the estimated total charges by way of deposit. Of course, that is a great idea because the estimate is made by a public servant. There is no way of knowing precisely whether the estimate is just or not. Of course, enormous charges have already been imposed. Senator Lewis is one of the victims of this practice. He has been seeking information, as is his duty as a shadow Minister of the Opposition. In July 1985 he made a request to the Department of Territories, which is the responsible department, for access to all documents relating to policy, funding, allocation and disbursement of moneys in respect of the community housing expansion program. The Department in reply said that the request `would require considerable verification before processing' and that `in its present form it is estimated that a charge of $480 would be incurred by you'. He was then asked to narrow down the request to manageable proportions by specifying the documents to which he was addressing his attention. Senator Lewis rightly points out that one cannot do that without first looking at the files and finding out what is there. So he was caught in a catch-22 situation. That is, of course, the way in which his request is going to be dealt with if that regulation stays on foot. So we have a situation in which not only deposits are paid but also those deposits are calculated by the department concerned on the basis of very rubbery figures. Of course, in some respects the desposits will not be paid back. This Government does not like the idea that members of parliament have that getting information out of government is in the public interest. The Government has ignored the argument about public interest and requires deposits to be paid in the way I have outlined. We could give many examples of this. In respect of the practice of deterring people from seeking information, I would like to quote what was said by the Free Speech Committee in New South Wales which is made up of many organisations and persons such as artists, poets, publishers, journalists and film makers. The Committee has written a good submission on this matter. It said: Not only will this level of charges generally deter applications for documents of a personal nature, it will gravely disadvantage low income earners. Whilst section 30 of the FIO Act 1982 confers a right to the applicant to apply for a remission of the charge on the ground of financial hardship, the concomitant requirement to argue a case and to provide information of a confidential nature will act as a disincentive to applicants on low income. We can also produce examples of full time students who are required to produce evidence that they cannot pay the huge sums that are imposed. So the Government has put up another hurdle in the way of people seeking information. The Government has also made it difficult for people to obtain a waiver of fees. If members of parliament cannot get them waived, we can see what chance an ordinary member of the public has of doing so. An article in the Canberra Times of 7 November dealt with the question of fees. It is interesting to note that that article states: Most FOI requests are for documents concerned with an individual's personal affairs, usually fairly readily assembled and involving few if any complicated questions of exemption. In the past, these have been provided free. Even requests made in the general-interest area-of policy and administration-were processed free, agents recognising the substantial public interest in the material in question. Now, however, agencies have been told to charge as a matter of routine, except in cases of people requesting documents associated with pension and welfare entitlements. Therefore, a small group of people still remains. The salient answer which the Canberra Times expressed in respect of the discouraging of requests is worth reading. The Canberra Times said: The real reason for the changes associated with fees is that the Government is trying to bluff people out of exercising their rights under the Act. If the fees were made high enough, and it is made plain that one will have to pay regardless of what one gets, then people will be discouraged from making requests. In some cases, the level of fees being sought suggests that applicants are being forced to pay for poor registry practices of departments: it should not, however, take hours to find a file if what is being sought is clear enough and the agency has carried out its duty of consultation. The ones being most discouraged, of course, will be those who can least afford to pay: wealthy people and corporate interests will not be deterred by the new fees, or from taking the opportunities that getting access will give them. I think that is a very true assessment of the regulations and the reason why they should be thrown out. Costs have not greatly gone up. In fact, the cost per application has gone down considerably as past annual reports of the Attorney-General's Department clearly show. Indeed, the charge in the first place was very largely made up by the cost of departments putting their affairs in order, creating the necessary documents that are needed to allow them to find the information that was applied for as well as producing manuals and so forth. Those costs made up a major component of the costs. The cost now is mostly made up of the work involved providing access to the information. We wait with interest to see what the drop in access has been this year as a result of the level of fees. It is interesting to note that the Council of Civil Liberties in New South Wales has pointed out the way in which the calculation of costs is rubbery. For example, this is what the Council says: By placing these inhibitions on disclosure in obscure Regulations expressed in impenetrable prose, the Government has embarked upon a campaign to repeal the Act by stealth and subterfuge. It cloaks the justification for these charges in the language of fiscal restraint but its motives are transparent. Even the figures cited for the alleged blowout in the cost of the Act are rubbery. For example, the Government has inflated the actual cost to 88 per cent to provide for on-costs, yet the usual provision for on-costs is 60 per cent. That is an enormous increase in the estimated cost this year. Our bureaucrats are doing this, using a large figure, which is not the normal figure, to try to justify the statement that costs are too high. But assuming there are costs which should be kept down, this is not the answer, not the way to go about it. As has been pointed out by numerous people who have written to me, the costs of FOI have been greatly increased by the actions of departments in taking objections right up to the door of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and then giving way-giving the documents and thereby increasing the costs to the community considerably. That habit should be stamped out. Senator Harradine —And to the individual applicant, too. Senator MISSEN —Yes, the cost to the individual applicant in the individual case is greatly increased, and that makes him wonder whether he should have got into the whole mess that is created by this action. Administrative incompetence is another factor. This aspect is again referred to in the Australian this morning, from which it is clear that many applications could be dealt with in an informal way but they are not. They are dealt with in a procedural way, thus increasing costs. Moreover, in view of the fact that files are badly misused and badly collected, I would point out that one of the purposes of the Act was to get the filing systems right and to make them easier to get at. The fact that the bureaucrats do not do this and then charge the applicant the enormous search fees they claim is very bad. The Library Association of Australia, which over the years has taken a great interest in FOI matters, said this in a letter to the Prime Minister on 19 August this year: Since the legislation itself provides for a refusal of access on the grounds of excessive and unreasonable interference with the work of an agency, it is hard to reconcile this with the allowance of such an abuse. Effectively the ordinary citizen seems to be being penalised by an increase in charges which will affect him or her considerably, but the media or other researcher relatively less. There is that section contained in the Act. It is one of the grounds in the Act under which the bureaucrats can refuse to allow access if it will `excessively or unreasonably interfere' with the work of the agency. If there are vexatious persons around-and undoubtedly there are, as there are in all walks of life-who make claims again and again, those concerned can deal with it. They already have the provisions in the Act to deal with it and they are not doing so. They should not come back at individuals by making claims and charging them as a consequence. Let me put forward some other arguments that can be raised against these regulations. The truth about costs is being avoided, as I have said, and it is the duty of the Senate Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, after the three years of operation of this Act, which is now up, to look into the problems that might arise. At any moment now that Committee will be seeking that application; it has been waiting for the third annual report. I compliment the former Attorney-General on the excellence of the earlier annual reports, which were most informative. We have not got the third annual report and have been waiting since the end of June. Since it was known that this debate was coming on, why has not the report been tabled? Why has not the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs got it, because it is a basic document that it requires to look at the whole study-not just at the question of costs, which is one aspect only? The question of costs reminds me very much of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland who said: `Judgment now, evidence later'. That is exactly what the authorities are doing. They want evidence to come out later when the report comes out. We will know then whether there is any excessive use, but they want to have the judgment now. But for our vigilance and the vigilance of members of the community in making sure that this matter comes before the Parliament now, this would have been a fait accompli and later the facts probably would have shown it not to be justified. It is also said-this is another argument that may be used against the regulations-that there is no clear evidence of the need for these increased costs. In a report by the Free Speech Committee of 4 November 1985 it is pointed out: The second annual report on the operation of the Act stated that the `costs of administration of the Act reported by the agencies appear to be contained to a satisfactory level'. That is the last word we have had. This year we have not heard a word to know whether costs are still as they were or whether they have gone sky high. The Free Speech Committee went on to say: Firstly, the annual report acknowledges that the costs reported to the Attorney-General's Office by agencies ``varied widely in nature and extent, and in the bases used to determine them''. Why is that? Is there a lack of control here? Why are some departments charging more and costing more rather than less? Furthermore-and this comes from the reports-the fact is that not only are the overhead charges, the `on-costs', being used wrongly but it is argued that the estimated staff costs should be discounted to account for the savings that have accrued to government departments and agencies as a result of FIO. The Free Speech Committee points out: These savings, whilst difficult to quantify, include improvement in the quality of decision-making and its documentation; increased knowledge of government by members of the public; increased perception by officers of their responsibilities; improved relations between members of the public and government agencies; streamlining of procedures . . . It looks doubtful whether there has been as much streamlining of procedures as there should have been under the Act. The fact is that the distortions contained in statements by members of this Government have not comprised the facts on which we should be expected to rely to justify such regulations as these. Why has not the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of this Senate acted in this matter? It has been alerted to this matter by me and by the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties. That Committee wrote to the Minister and was a long time getting a reply. I say in general that it has now accepted that reply at face value and in it are many things that we and the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties challenge as being inaccurate and not checked. I regret to criticise a body of which I was once chairman, but I think that the Committee has not done its work properly on this regulation. Indeed, the rights of the individual and rights under the Act have been vitiated by the action of this Government. I hope that it will be more astute and will give notice, as it did not give notice in this case, so that this does not come to pass as a fait accompli. The Government's folly is also to be seen in the guidelines issued since the regulation came into operation. It has been seen how strictly-time does not allow me to go into this matter-these matters as to the requirements are being enforced on members of parliament and on other individuals. The objections which have come in have been very great-objections from members of parliament, the Wilderness Society, the Law Institute of Victoria and the Library Association. Indeed, I am in the process of setting up a series of organisations throughout this country. Already the process has started-in Melbourne today, beginning tonight in Canberra, and it will start in Sydney next week, I trust. It will set up a freedom of information access network so that in future we will not be caught in this way. One realises that we should give some attention to the way in which an Act such as this is operating. I am glad to say that members of all political parties are associated with that new formation. Its purpose is not political. Senator Durack —Are there any Labor senators associated? Senator MISSEN —Yes, there are. There are Labor senators and Labor members. Senator Durack —Really? Who are they? Senator MISSEN —I respect them. I realise that they are stuck by their Caucus rules. Senator Durack —They have got the courage of their convictions, though, haven't they? Senator MISSEN —Unfortunately, that is their foolish rule, but at least in this matter they are disclosing an interest and a worry which I know they have about this. The public has been roused and there is an interest in this matter. When one considers the figures that came out early in the history of freedom of information, one realises that it was not well known across the country that it existed. The rights were not well known and the matter is still at an early and formative stage. One is worried, therefore, that such a decision might at this stage kill freedom of information. I want finally to refer to a man on the Age, Paul Chadwick, who has taken a continuous interest in this subject, as has the Canberra Times. Apart from that, unfortunately, the Press has not taken sufficient interest. In an article on 24 May called `Freedom of Information-An infant in danger' he pointed to the Americans, and I could have referred to American publications to show that the very same internal attack is made in America by charges, by the same methods as is made by the bureaucrats in this country, backed by the present Government. Paul Chadwick pointed out: Since 1980, the attack has intensified and amendments which would dilute access rights are at present being pressed on Congress. But the US FOI Act is a strapping 19-year old which the politicians and bureaucrats are finding hard to tame. FOI has developed a bodyguard of beefy supporters to defend it, including powerful media groups and public interest bodies such as Ralph Nader's. I wish we had such groups here. Paul Chadwick continued: By contrast, the Australian FOI law is barely two years old, poorly understood and not a widely recognised social ``good''. If we are not careful, the politicians will smother it in its infancy. That calls for politicians today not to smother it but to ensure that we throw out this regulation. The Government can then come to the Senate Committee, produce the evidence and we can decide whether any action is needed. I hope that we will prove ourselves to be worthy of the merit of the Senate and the reputation which it has gained over the years of being vigilant on questions of the rights of the individual. The Senate passed this Act; let us now preserve it by passing this motion. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.26) —Naturally the Government will defend its regulations against the attack which Senator Missen has launched upon it today. It is an attack which he has launched without any support from the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, the Senate's watchdog and protecter of civil liberty principles, the rights of the individual and all of the values which Senator Missen alleges are put at risk by the terms of this regulation. It is very important that the Senate approaches this regulation against a background of appreciating that its own watchdog has failed to rise and bark with anything like the enthusiasm that Senator Missen has brought to this task. Let me explain why the Government believes that its regulatory package and its amendments to legislation are entirely defensible. On 19 June 1985 the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) announced the new scheme of charges for requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. The Government's decision to introduce the new scheme of charges was one of a number of hard decisions which it had to make in the context of its May statement. As honourable senators will know, the Government's Budget strategy is to contain costs. There are significant expenses in administering the FOI Act and the clear object of the Government's decisions was to contain those costs while seeking to maximise disclosure of information. The cost of operation of the Act was nearly $18m for 1983-84 and about $19m for 1984-85. In both years agencies charged for about only 5 per cent of FOI requests, collecting only $13,500 in 1983-84 and about only $22,000 in 1984-85. These low figures can be attributed partly to agency reluctance to calculate charges in complex situations or where recovery would be costly, and to the provisions in the Act for the remission of charges. Mainly they are attributable to the fact that a large percentage of requests-over 80 per cent-were for personal case files for which no charge would be made under the previous regulations unless over 100 pages were involved. Moreover, as now, agencies were not permitted to charge for decision-making time. Against that background and mindful that the object of the Act-access to-- Senator Haines —In the case of some matters that is probably a good thing. Senator GARETH EVANS —Things have improved slightly in that respect since the previous regime. Against that background and mindful that the object of the Act-access to information-does not require full administrative cost recovery, the Government decided that there was scope for rationalisation of the scheme of charges. This occurred in two steps: Establishing a clear policy on charging for requests and reviewing the level of charges. In my view this approach is consistent with the provisions of the legislation and provides an equitable balance between those who can afford to pay for access to documents and those for whom the imposition of charges would be so onerous as to deter the exercise of their rights under the Act. Perhaps I could illustrate this by reference to some important features of the new scheme. Firstly, under the new scheme the Government has made it a firm policy that requests by applications seeking access to documents related to all Commonwealth income support payments, such as social security and repatriation pensions and student allowances, are processed free of charge. For these people the new scheme operates more generously than the old charges system in the case of requests requiring large numbers of photocopies-that is over 100 as I mentioned earlier-or access to other forms of documents. In other cases, consistent with its Budget strategy, the Government considers that persons wanting access to government information not ordinarily made available without charge must expect to make some contribution. In this respect it is worth remembering that the average cost to agencies of processing a freedom of information request was over $900 in 1983-84 and nearly $600 in 1984-85. Although this decrease shows what might be understood as a pleasing improvement in agency efficiency, comparison with collected revenue-about $17 per request where a charge was levied in 1983 and $15 per request in 1984-85-suggests that there is some room for a substantial increase in revenue. Accordingly, the Government has decided that, apart from those dependent on income support payments, there should be no automatic remission of charges. Nevertheless, all applications for remission of charges must be considered in accordance with section 30 of the Act. Thus, consideration will continue to be given to remission where charging would cause financial hardship, where the document relates to the personal affairs of the applicant or where release of a document is in the public interest. Each application for remission of charges is treated on its merits taking those three factors into account along with any other relevant considerations. The Government considers that the remission provisions, sensibly applied, should avoid any situations where applicants deserving of free or reduced cost access might otherwise be disadvantaged by the imposition of charges. The Government considers that there was ample justification for the decision to increase the level of charges set out in the regulations. The former charges of $8 administration fee and $12 per hour for search and retrieval time expended in processing a request were based on 1982 estimates which took account of the cost of handling requests incurred by officers performing duties ranging from low clerical assistant levels to middle clerical administrative levels. At that time it was expected that most FOI requests would be handled by such officers. In practice this has not been the case, as has been evident from the costs of administration of the Act. The key FOI officer in the majority of agencies regularly handling requests is a more senior clerical administrative officer. The increase in the level of charges for the administration fee and for search and retrieval reflect this and increases in salary levels. They also include a component for overheads. Similar considerations apply to the increase in the charge for supervision time. The increase in the charge for transcription is consistent with rates now charged by the Commonwealth Reporting Service. The photocopy rate of 10c per page remains unchanged. As I have said, the Act, of course, continues to provide that applicants are not required to pay for time spent by decision makers in examining documents for exempt matter. Senator Missen has made much of the alleged deterrent effect of the administration charge. From what I have said, it will be clear that the vast bulk of applicants-those on income support payments-will automatically be exempted from this charge. Furthermore, proper consideration will be given to remission of the charge in other cases consistent, as I have described, with the provisions of section 30 of the Act. Senator Missen also maintains that requiring people to pay substantial deposits before requests are processed-therefore, before people know that documents relevant to their request exist and will be released-is a way of discouraging the use of FOI because the deposit need not be refunded if any documents located are exempt. However, it must be recognised that locating documents can consume substantial amounts of time and therefore represents a substantial cost to the public purse, often far exceeding any deposit which has been required. Costs are sometimes incurred in ways which are wholly at odds with the spirit and principles of the legislation. I think a spectacular example of the way in which costs are sometimes incurred in a way which is wholly at odds with the spirit and principles of the legislation appears in the report tabled yesterday in the Senate of the Department of the Special Minister of State. The report referred to a single freedom of information request by a Federal politician costing about $20,000 in staff salaries and photocopying which so far has taken more than 13 months to process. The request, of course, although the man is not identified in the Special Minister of State's report, came from a former Liberal Minister, Mr Newman. That request involved some 10,000 folios covering a variety of documents concerning overseas travel by parliamentarians. Mr Newman, I think it might reasonably be said, even to the satisfaction of Senator Puplick or Senator Missen, was not seeking to enhance his or anybody else's knowledge of government or of the decision-making process. What he was about in that exercise was simply to find something which might conceivably have proved or been seen by somebody to be possibly embarrassing to political opponents. That is absolutely and manifestly at odds with the spirit of the freedom of information legislation. Nobody is suggesting, and I certainly do not want to be taken this way, that access of that kind ought not to be continued to be sought, only that where access of that kind does involve enormous costs to the public purse that is a clear cut example of a case where charges might reasonably be imposed, as they are now able to be imposed under the present legislation. I think it is also to be noted that the Attorney-General's Department has been encouraging agencies to consult with applicants to help them to limit their requests to documents they really require and thus to help minimise the charges and costs involved. The reports are that in the case of complex and therefore potentially expensive requests, applicants are finding such consultation helpful. The intention is not to deter any request which can be regarded as reasonable or consistent with the spirit of the legislation. Senator Peter Baume —That is the effect it is having. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept that. I finally mention that the disallowance of these regulations will not of itself affect the Government's policy that exemption from charges should not be automatic but only occur where a ground specified in the Act has been made out. The policy is applied through administrative direction and does not rely on any provision in the Act or its regulations. We came to office with a firm commitment to broadening the rights of citizens under the Freedom of Information Act. That commitment has been met. The Freedom of Information Act was significantly amended in 1983, very shortly after we came to office, with respect to Senator Missen's previous contribution, to extend as far as possible the rights of access provided by the Act. The Government's action in introducing this new scheme of charges does nothing to retract from that commitment; nor does it exceed its powers conferred by the Act. Senator Durack —You didn't do anything about your conclusive certificates which you used to make such a song and dance about in Opposition. Senator GARETH EVANS —I performed massive and heroic feats, of which I remain extremely proud to this day, given the circumstances of that particular legislation. I think a little bit of grace on this occasion would be appropriate to acknowledge the force and extent of that contribution. I draw attention to a number of government initiatives announced on 14 June, at the same time as we announced our intention to promulgate this fee rationalisation, which further increase the public right of access to government information. Requests for non-contentious material are not to be refused simply because technical grounds of exemption are available. We stated clearly and unequivocally on the public record that that is the way the Act will be administered. Agencies have to clear with the Attorney-General's Department any appeal they wish to contest before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This, which will be a spectacular innovation in the context of some departments, discourages agencies from unjustifiably deterring applicants, understandably fearful of difficult proceedings. Again, wherever practicable, material likely to be the subject of frequent requests is to be made available for purchase by members of the public. Again, no right of access of any kind has been taken away. Again, emphasis, as I have already mentioned, has been placed on consultation with applicants to help them meet their needs. To summarise, the thrust of the Government's recent decisions is to maximise the disclosure of information while containing the overall costs of administration of the Freedom of Information Act in line with the Government's Budget strategy. If Senator Missen's amendment does succeed, the reduced charges will primarily benefit not those whom the Act was designed to assist, it will primarily advance not those principles which the Act was designed to advance; it will assist those who will not suffer hardship if they were charged, it will assist those who have no personal stake or involvement in the matters about which they are seeking information, and it will assist those who are not seeking information of public benefit. For all those reasons, I urge the Senate to reject the disallowance motion moved by Senator Missen. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.41) —We have just heard from Senator Gareth Evans one of the most remarkable statements that I have ever heard on freedom of information, particularly coming from Senator Evans. He made distinctions between those people whom the freedom of information legislation was designed to assist and those whom apparently it was not designed to assist. I thought that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of information was that it was designed to assist everybody in the community who wanted to obtain information from and about the Government. I have gone through some learning process in relation to freedom of information. Senator Robert Ray —I don't believe that. Senator DURACK —There would not be a Freedom of Information Act at all if I had not gone through a learning process. I do not think that is a very sensible interjection. The fact of the matter, and the main gravamen of the objection the Opposition has to these charges, is that it reverses a fundamental principle of freedom of information. Senator Missen is to be congratulated for bringing forward this motion to disallow these new charges, which in most cases increase by over 100 per cent the charges under the existing regulations-regulations which themselves only came into force towards the end of 1982. Despite the levels of inflation that have been continuing under this Government since then, certainly the sort of increase in charges is nowhere justified under any principles of indexation. Clearly, for reasons which Senator Missen has pointed out and which Senator Evans has admitted, they reflect a new policy by the Government in relation to charging for the provision of documents under the Freedom of Information Act. One of the most unpleasant things about this Government is the level of hypocrisy which has been reached by so many members of it. Nothing could be more hypocritical than the double standards in relation to freedom of information which have been revealed by the leading figures of this Government when they were in opposition and now when they are in government. I reiterate what I said in response to an interjection from Senator Robert Ray-that this Freedom of Information Act was one of the many outstanding achievements, I might say, of the Fraser Government. It is one of the matters of which I am most proud that as Attorney-General I introduced this legislation into this Senate in June 1978. For good reasons, which honourable senators always have for anything they do, it did not pass this Senate until June 1981. It was no fault of mine, nor of the Government of the day, that having been introduced in June 1978, it was three more years before the Senate passed the Bill. I acknowledge that the Bill was improved over that period through the efforts of Senator Missen and Senator Puplick, who are taking part in this debate-Senator Missen has already spoken-and also Senator Evans. Senator Peter Baume —Do you mean Senator Gareth Evans? Senator DURACK —Senator Gareth Evans. He was a member of the committee which spent two years improving the Bill. As Attorney-General, I acknowledged that and we made many amendments to the Bill to give effect to the report of the Senate committee, including recommendations about charging and about the policy that the Government, the departments or the agencies, or whatever we like to call them, should have in processing applications; namely, as Senator Missen has already said, that there should be a policy of assisting people and giving as much information as can be given, and doing it inexpensively, because, as we know, there are many ways of skinning a cat. We do not have to have provisions in the Bill to deny people information; we can simply put prohibitive charges on people before they can obtain information. That is exactly what this Government is now doing in relation to freedom of information. It is a great principle which so many members of the Government, when they were in opposition, espoused. There was no greater proponent of it than Senator Gareth Evans, who has just spoken in this debate on behalf of the Government-the former Attorney-General and former shadow Attorney-General who made so many noble pronouncements about freedom of information when he was in opposition. But there is one thing which I will say for Senator Evans but which I cannot say for his leader, Senator Button, who has just joined us and who may take part in the debate: At least Senator Evans is frank about these double standards. In April 1981, when Senator Evans was in Oppposition, he said: . . . one of the recurring themes in the whole history of freedom of information around the world is the way in which, for obvious reasons, it tends to be espoused as a concept rather more passionately by oppositions out of office than by governments sitting in office. He was very perceptive about his own colleagues. But the reverse has proved to be true. When we were in government we were very much more passionate and enthusiastic about freedom of information. We brought in the legislation and we got it on the statute book; but now that the then Opposition is in government it is trying to throttle this excellent piece of legislation, and the benefits it has conferred on so many Australians and will increasingly confer on Australians because more and more Australians are becoming aware of its benefits and are resorting to it. If the Senate does the right thing by disallowing the regulations that the Government has introduced, more and more Australians will enjoy the steadily increasing benefits of this important piece of legislation. I was talking earlier about hypocrisy. I have mentioned how well Senator Evans summed up the predisposition to that element by members of the present Government. Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, started a campaign about this matter earlier this year. That does not surprise us. He was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 March as having said: Whether the Government should continue to provide a near costless, (to the user) research service for journalists and retired politicians is open to doubt. That is a pretty snide comment about the freedom of information legislation and those who use it, is it not? He suggests that it is journalists and retired politicians who use it. Then we had the comments of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in the days when he was still the world's greatest Treasurer. He has been supplanted in that by others and obviously has been clearly supplanted because of the failing economy over which he presides. He said in May 1985: The Government has been increasingly concerned at the resources devoted to the provision of material under the freedom of information legislation. That campaign from two heavyweights of the Government clearly got under way earlier this year and-surprise, surprise-new regulations were introduced on 13 June 1985 by no less a person than the Deputy Prime Minister, who currently is also the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen. Senator Haines —But not a reformist in any way, shape or form. Senator DURACK —Well, Mr Bowen is trying to convince us that he is, will be or has been a great reforming Attorney-General. Senator Robert Ray —Try comparing him with you and your record. Senator DURACK —I will be very happy to have my record and his compared any day and any time, and Senator Ray can be the arbiter. I will accept even Senator Ray as the arbiter on that matter; it would be so easy to win. Mr Bowen's views on freedom of information have already been quoted by Senator Missen. He made the same pious statements about freedom of information and its importance, but as soon as his colleagues, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, cracked the whip he introduced regulations which took effect from 1 July this year, designed to choke off large numbers of Australians who have the right and otherwise would exercise the right under this freedom of information legislation but cannot, of course, afford the horrific and, in many cases, uncertain costs that they would incur. Senator Lewis is coming into the chamber at the moment. He can tell us what it might cost, and what it cost him, to get a simple document or documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Probably nobody in this chamber is better qualified than Senator Lewis to give an example of that. I think it has already been mentioned by interjection that Senator Evans was a member of the Senate committee which spent two years examining the original Bill I introduced and which, as I said, made many recommendations to improve the legislation, many of which were accepted by the Government of the day. That committee's report contained a couple of major recommendations on charging which I would like to read. One recommendation says: Charges for the search and retrieval of information should be fixed on a single set hourly rate basis, with provision for the agency to waive or reduce any such charge if it deems it appropriate in the circumstances. We can compare that with what the Government is now doing. There are a number of recommendations on this matter, but the only other one I wish to quote, which is highly relevant to the present situation, is the following: (a) Normally charges levied under the Bill should not be required to be paid until an affirmative access decision has been made; (b) Agencies should be entitled to require, where the anticipated fee chargeable exceeds $25, an advance deposit of 25% of the anticipated fee . . . Senator Puplick —That was a recommendation that Senator Evans made. Senator DURACK —Senator Puplick has already established by interjection, and again reminds me, that these were the recommendations of Senator Evans-on his own admission-when he was shadow Attorney-General, I think. He was certainly the then Opposition spokesman on these matters. What a record of hypocrisy we have here. Not only Senator Evanse but also Mr Bowen and maybe Senator Button-I do not know whether he had anything to say about this-- Senator Button —Don't throw me in too. Senator DURACK —I think he did have something to say about freedom of information. Actually, I have not taken the trouble to find out because I did not think Senator Button was interested enough to be in here. Senator Button certainly was a strong supporter of these matters when in opposition. No doubt he is now an enthusiastic supporter of the present change of heart of his leading colleagues. The Opposition is very pleased indeed to support this most worthwhile and important motion by Senator Missen to disallow the regulations. We congratulate him for taking that initiative. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.56) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting Senator Missen's motion to disallow the freedom of information charges. I must say that I have seldom heard the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, sound not only so unconvincing but also so unconvinced as he did when he responded to Senator Missen's arguments. Indeed, I am sure all of us on this side of the chamber would agree that the Minister sounded somewhat less than believing in his own arguments. What he put forward among the various figures he flung at us was nothing more than rhetoric and vague statements that were, I suppose, intended to soothe us. He made statements such as the one that non-contentious material will be made freely available. However, he did not say who decides what is and what is not contentious. He said that practicability will be taken into account. However, he did not tell us who decides what is and what is not practicable. He stated that bureaucrats who wish to appeal will have to get approval from the Attorney-General's Department, but, since the Attorney-General's Department itself is not exempt from freedom of information requests, the Minister did not bother to say who would give approval if a bureaucrat from the Attorney-General's Department wished to go to appeal. Essentially, what we have before us today is a question of principle. Senator Missen was both scholarly and erudite in his exposition of what we are all about. Essentially it boils down to this: Either we have effective freedom of information legislation, or we do not; either we have access to information through freedom of information legislation, or we do not; either individuals and organisations have a right to seek and to obtain information on themselves or on other issues, or they do not. That is what it boils down to. To introduce, as the regulations before us today are attempting to introduce, price exclusivity is clearly obnoxious and circumvents the alleged purpose of the Freedom of Information Act. Senator Missen said the Government is attempting to bluff people out of making requests for information. I suggest to Senator Missen that it is not a matter of bluff when the Government holds the financial cards, as it is attempting to do through this regulation. It is not bluff at all. Senator Lewis —It is bluffing with four aces. Senator HAINES —I would not be surprised if the Government had a fifth ace somewhere up its sleeve. All of that is true notwithstanding the fact that, as Senator Evans pointed out in one of his more lucid moments this morning, there are some groups and some people who are exempt from those fees. Already, of course, we have limits imposed on access to information enshrined in the Act and in the Schedules to that Act. To add a further restriction based on a person's ability to pay-unless, of course, the search he is undertaking is in regard to his own files-is one of the worst forms of discrimination that I think we have. Already freedom of information in Australia is hedged about with conditions, restrictions and limitations of a kind unheard of in the United States. As Senator Missen said, our Act is a mere baby in comparison with the legislation in operation in the United States. The United States has managed to come to terms with freedom of information in a way that apparently neither the Government nor the bureaucracy has managed here. In that country the only restrictions on freedom of information relate to access to defence matters, another person's file and data which could reveal private information about a third person. What is more, the charge for the information supplied is a nominal 10c to 15c a page for the document supplied. There is no deposit of which I am aware; there is no inspection fee of which I am aware; there is no administrative charge of which I am aware. There is merely a recoupment of photocopying costs. Those recoupment costs are a far cry from the $5 a page fee which is intended to be applied under these regulations. Senator Evans said in his response to Senator Missen that of course we have to make some sort of charge for administrative costs and the time of the bureaucrats involved. I would have thought that in fact public servants were just that and seeking and providing information for the Australian public would be part of the reason they are employed. Costs should not have to be recouped in charges made to those individuals. The new regulations regarding those charges under freedom of information are in essence a total denial of this Government's stated policy and philosophy in regard to open government. We cannot have open government if we hedge it round with costs and restrictions. The new regulations regarding charges under the freedom of information legislation facing us today also run counter to all concepts of democracy and the rights of ordinary Australians to know what is happening to them and to know what is happening to and in this country. They are anathema to everyone with even the vaguest commitment to civil liberties. They come perilously close to being elitist when access to a large amount of information is limited essentially and effectively to those wealthy enough to afford those charges. Let us look at the changes proposed to be made under the new regulations. It is not by a matter of cents in some cases that these fees are being raised. The charge in Item 1 of Part I of the Schedule to the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations (Amendment) goes up from $8 to $20. That is a charge in respect of the administrative procedures involved in processing the request. The amount charged is being more than doubled. The charge under Item No. 2 in Part I increases from $12 for each hour of search to $30 an hour. The remainder of the charge increases are somewhat less than that. For example, Item No. 4 goes from $4.40 a page of transcript to $5. The amount charged under Part II increases from $6.25 to $8. In some cases there is a charge increase from $4.40 to $5. Those are not inconsiderable increases to a lot of people who have very legitimate reasons for seeking information under the Act. Therefore, I think we have to question the rationale behind the Government's attempt to introduce draconian increases in charges. The Government is arguing in some areas that there has been an abuse of freedom of information requests by journalists and out of work politicians. Of course there will be situations in which people will abuse the system, but that is no reason at all for imposing a penalty on people who are not seeking to abuse the system. Senator Missen —It is throwing the system out of the door. Senator HAINES —Indeed, Senator Missen is quite correct in what he said. I remind honourable senators opposite who are complaining about the use being made of freedom of information legislation by other members of Parliament that in fact we can always put questions on notice which are just as trivial, apparently, to the Government and which are just as expensive to answer as any request under the freedom of information legislation. Senator Sanders —We have a better chance of getting an answer under the freedom of information legislation. Senator HAINES —Yes, I think Senator Sanders probably is correct. There may well be a better chance of getting an answer under freedom of information legislation than under questions on notice. That, of course, is a reflection on the Ministers from whom honourable members and honourable senators seek information through the procedures that apply within the Parliament. The search and retrieval fee of $30 an hour, for example, I would suggest is not what the Government says it is. It is not an economic charge for the time of a public servant or bureaucrat who is detailed to conduct the search. Instead, I would suggest that, again, it is an economic penalty which is placed upon applicants, a penalty intended to bluff them, as Senator Missen said earlier-I would prefer to use the word `force'-out of making the application in the first place. Certainly, the old regulation provided for a deposit, but that deposit was no more than a quarter of the estimated charges. The new regulation, the regulation that now would apply, provides that agencies are entitled to require applicants to pay a non-refundable deposit of not less than 50 per cent of the amount of a charge which is or may be payable for finding the document and for providing that document to the applicant. When we consider that the charges have risen as well as the cost of the deposit, we are looking at what is essentially an exponential and quite unjustifiable increase. The facts of the matter are that the freedom of information legislation is essential to the public interest. It is essential to groups and individuals who have a right to know what is happening to them, why it is happening to them and what impact it will have on them and other groups in the community. One must realise that the legislation that we have here is defective enough without making it worse by making it prohibitively expensive. Senator Missen-it may have been Senator Durack-mentioned earlier that such people such as Ralph Nader would simply not be able to operate effectively in this country under the sort of legislation that we have here. They would not be able simply to walk into a department, ask to see the files and be given access to them. They would not be able to get pages of documents at a relatively cheap cost. As a consequence, what may be quite necessary consumer and other reformist legislation could not be brought before the Parliament. In fact, the need for it could not even be drawn to the attention of the public, much less members of parliament. So essentially we would have hide-bound people with an interest in reform. At the moment all this legislation and the attempt to increase charges does is protect governments which have something to hide and bureaucrats who are so inefficient, as Senator Missen said, that it is practically impossible to get any information out of them without long searches and expensive costs. There is no justification for these increases on fiscal or any other grounds. The Australian Democrats are pleased to support Senator Missen's disallowance motion. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(12.08) —I intervene very briefly in this debate merely because I believe the Senate would expect me, as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, to report on our consideration of the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations (Amendment), which of course we did in the normal course of our activities in keeping an eye on all delegated legislation. We dealt with the matter. The ultimate result of our deliberations was that we did not conclude that the regulations should be disallowed on the basis of the Committee's principles. We did have correspondence with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) about this matter because, when the regulations were first promulgated and in our trying to make a judgment about them, there did not seem to be sufficient information in the explanatory memorandum to judge whether the Committee's principles were infringed or not. Following that correspondence with Mr Bowen, who explained in some detail the objective criteria by which the charges were calculated, the Committee concluded that the increases were not so large or unreasonable as to infringe any of the Committee's principles. In our letter back to the Attorney-General we said that it should not be concluded from this that the Committee approved or disapproved of the level of increases in charges. I emphasised that we were not in the business of getting involved with policy matters but merely that the Committee would not object to them under its principles. Senator Missen had raised this matter with the Committee, as well as the Committee dealing with it under its own motion. We have kept Senator Missen fully informed of our activities. Senator Missen —Not fully informed at all. Senator COATES —I thought we wrote back to Senator Missen quite fully about this matter and supplied him with copies of our correspondence with the Attorney-General. Following that, I discovered that he also wanted copies of the correspondence we had had with the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties. That was supplied as soon as we found out about it. We gave the matter a second consideration following Senator Missen's letter and stuck with our opinion on it. So that all members of the Senate can judge this matter, I seek leave to table our correspondence with the Attorney-General on these regulations. Leave granted. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.12) —Senator Durack observed, in the course of his remarks, that the Freedom of Information Act was introduced by a Liberal Government and that he as the then Attorney-General supported its being referred, before being concluded in debate, to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That Committee made a number of recommendations, several of which were then picked up by the Government when the Bill eventually came back into the chamber for final consideration. One of the recommendations which the Committee very strongly advanced was that the Act should have an object clause inserted in it to make it clear what the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act were. As a result, section 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 reads: (1) The object of this Act is to extend as far as possible the right of the Australian community to access to information in the possession of the Government of the Commonwealth by- (a) making available to the public information about the operations of departments and public authorities and, in particular, ensuring that rules and practices affecting members of the public in their dealings with departments and public authorities are readily available to persons affected by those rules and practices; and (b) creating a general right of access to information in documentary form in the possession of Ministers, departments and public authorities, limited only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons in respect of whom information is collected and held by departments and public authorities. (2) It is the intention of the Parliament that the provisions of this Act shall be interpreted so as to further the object set out in sub-section (1) and that any discretions conferred by this Act shall be exercised as far as possible so as to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information. So, written into the actual provisions of the Act, the objects clause of the Act, was that the legislation should be administered so as to facilitate and promote in a prompt fashion and at the lowest reasonable cost the disclosure of information. Senator Gareth Evans was a member of the Committee. In the course of his deliberations as a member of the Committee he was party to those sorts of recommendations, because he recognised-I do not say that this is a matter exclusive to the Labor side of the aisle-the inherent capacity and desire of any executive government to maintain secrets. It was not surprising that on 6 March 1983 the National Times should report the details of a New South Wales Labor Lawyers Association fund-raising dinner held at the Sydney Opera House, at which one of the principal guests was the then shadow Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. The report states: He-- that is, Senator Evans- announced that in the first two weeks of the new parliamentary session a Labor Government would introduce amendments to the Freedom of Information legislation. `It will have to be in the first two weeks because I'm damn sure my colleagues won't agree with them after they've been in government for longer than that period,' the Senator declared. Senator Robert Ray —It was said tongue in cheek though, wasn't it? Senator PUPLICK —Senator Robert Ray says that it was said tongue in cheek. I prefer to think that it was said with all the perspicacity which Senator Evans brings to bear on his numerous pronouncements in regard to the internal workings of the Australian Labor Party. As Senator Durack said in his remarks, it was not long before the Act came under fire, and it came under fire from a number of sources, including the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). The Minister for Finance addressed the `Access to Government' Conference in Sydney on Thursday, 14 March 1985. In the course of his address he said: The expense of providing services under the Freedom of Information Act is growing even faster than Commonwealth payments to the Northern Territory. Whether the Government should continue to provide a near costless (to the user) research service for journalists and retired politicians is open to doubt. One is not concerned about the impact of this upon persons in their individual capacity. One is concerned about the way in which the new charges introduced by the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules No. 113 of 1985, dated 13 June 1985, have impacted upon other groups in our community. I will give a couple of examples of that in a moment. It is, however, interesting to note some comparative costs. Paul Chadwick, the author of a very excellent recent book on freedom of information, was interviewed on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program, the Law Report, on 4 June 1985. He said: Twenty million dollars seems to me to be pretty cheap when you consider that the present Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, called freedom of informatioin something which lies at the heart of our democracy. Another point is that on the current available public figures it is clear that the Federal Government spends about $108 million a year on its own propaganda, publicity, media services, etc. etc. Now compared to that, what's $20 million for the right of every person to seek information that they seek, as opposed to that which is dished up to them. One does not hear the Minister for Finance roaring around the bureaucratic traps, saying: `Dear me, $108m spent on our own propaganda. Something ought to be cut back'. One does not hear the Minister for Finance launching an attack upon this area. But he is perfectly prepared to launch an attack upon individual citizens in the community who want access to information which this Parliament has stated they should have access to. In many ways the regulations, of course, are potentially self-defeating. In an interview on Tuesday Despatch, Mr Jack Waterford, the Canberra Times journalist who has become something of an expert in the operation of the Freedom of Information Act, was asked whether he would pay all the additional costs imposed upon him. Mr Waterford said: I won't be paying for them, let me tell you. I'll be running appeals on costs that are going to cost the government substantially more than the $20 or $30 per time that they'll be getting. So the whole thing in that sense is entirely a self-defeating exercise. What is of concern, I think, arising from today's debate is the way in which Senator Evans basically said: `Look, it really does not matter what the Senate does in terms of striking down these charges. There are effective bureaucratic ways of getting around this in order to minimise costs, in order to increase government revenue and in order to choke off access to freedom of information'. Under these circumstances it is clear that the Parliament will have to watch with some care whether, if we disallow these regulations, the Government by stealth attempts to reinstitute some system to choke off information once again. There are many instances in which information made available has I believe assisted the Government in terms of its revenue collection. For instance, there is an article in the Chartered Accountant in Australia, volume 55, October 1984 headed `Working papers that may be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act'. That highly reputable professional journal simply sets out the sorts of documents which are available under the Freedom of Information Act which will assist in knowing exactly what taxation rulings are, what rulings have been given by the Australian Taxation Office, by boards of review and by other bodies, so that there is a greater degree of certainty, so that appeals can be minimised and the administration of government, and indeed the financial return to government, can be potentially increased. I will give two examples of the way in which these silly charges have been operating and relate them to two requests that I have made under freedom of information legislation. The first one I made was to the Department of Aviation in order to obtain from the Department a copy of parts of a study on the future of commercial operations at Australian airports. The Department wrote back to me and indicated in its letter: Under new Government Directions on the administration of FOI, Members of Parliament are no longer given an automatic remission on grounds of public interest. I believe that if there is any belief in the operation of freedom of information legislation, it would surely be that members of parliament who claim that they are seeking information in terms of public interest are entitled to have changes automatically waived on that basis and not to have to go through the process of fighting before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for that waiver, because either public interest exists and a document ought to be released, or public interest does not exist and the document will be refused. The fact that these regulations specifically sought to cut back the access which members of parliament have to freedom of information is most regrettable. The second instance is a more interesting one. I wrote to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and asked it for a copy of the interdepartmental committee's report on national identity cards. It will be remembered that this report was given to members of the Labor Caucus, or at least to the administrative and legal committee. It was given to members of the Caucus administrative and legal committee so that they could study it. I thought that if it had been given to a dozen or so members of parliament-I do not know how many members there are on that committee-surely I as an Opposition senator ought to be able to gain access to the information. So I wrote to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and drew its attention to this matter. It wrote back and said two things. Firstly, I could not have the report because it was contrary to the public interest for me to have the report and, secondly, that I now owed the Department $20. I then wrote back to the Department and said, in effect: `By the way, have you seen that the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, in his speech dealing with the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 in the other place, said that when we set up the joint parliamentary committee on national identity cards the report will be released to members of the committee and members of the public for their information?' I am still waiting to see whether the Department wants the $20 because I am certainly prepared to tell the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that it will have a very long, hard wait for its 20 bucks. In any case if it has any doubt about the matter I am perfectly happy to give it copies of the documents which are freely available if one knows which member of the Caucus to ask for them. I give one other example of the sorts of remarks that have been made by Government spokesmen about these charges having to be introduced because rich former politicians are seeking to rort the system. I refer to a request which was made by Mr Michael Rae, who is the rainforest campaign director of the Wilderness Society. He wanted some information about the use of timber in the building of the new Parliament House. He was told that he could have some information-he did not know what information-provided that he paid up front $980. That was the freedom of information approach that was made to him. It makes my colleague Senator Lewis's $470 almost pale into insignificance by comparison. This Government and its back benchers waffle on ad nauseam about the significance of rainforests. They are significant. Someone asks them a question about what is happening to rainforest timber in the new Parliament House and they say: `You cannot have that information until we have $980 in our hot little hands.' The very concept that this money should be asked for up front was specifically addressed by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its report. Paragraph 11.39 recommended: (a) normally charges levied under the Bill should not be required to be paid until an affirmative access decision has been made. That report, which was signed by such luminaries as Senator Gareth Evans, Senator Michael Tate and former Senator Jim Keeffe, is, perhaps, a clear indication of how the mighty in this sense are fallen. My colleague Senator Missen dealt with all the other substantial questions and representations we have had from bodies, councils of civil liberties, the Library Association of Australia, and many other organisations. He quoted an editorial in the Canberra Times of 7 November, which concluded by stating: The principle-as the present Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, put it when in opposition-that `freedom of information is a basic democratic right and . . . lies at the heart of the democratic system' is threatened by the regulations designed to frighten people out of exercising their rights. An article in the Age by Paul Chadwick on 24 May 1985 concluded: By contrast, the Australian FOI law is barely two years old, poorly understood and not a widely recognised social `good'. If we are not careful, the politicians will smother it in its infancy. An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 March 1985, headed `FOI: the habit catches on', indicated that we were to expect this sort of attitude from the Government once people started to understand what their rights were and take the necessary steps to exercise them. My colleague Senator Missen has also adverted to the fact that around the country a number of groups are being formed to co-ordinate the work of people who have a professional and on-going interest in freedom of information matters. A meeting will be held in Sydney next Tuesday to convene such a group in New South Wales. I conclude, on a personal note. I put on the public record a comment which I think ought to be there acknowledging the work that Senator Alan Missen has done as Chairman of the original Senate committee and as a member of the Committee which has been pressing for us to get on with the three-year review of the Act. Nobody has developed a greater expertise in this legislation than he. He is recognised in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, where he has had the opportunity to address and meet with freedom of access personnel and professionals. He has certainly spearheaded within the Opposition parties our concern over the questions of freedom of information, and it will be much to his credit and to the credit of Senator Durack, the original proponent of freedom of information legislation, if these regulations are now disallowed and people have access to information held by governments which speakers on the Labor Party benches once said they actually believed in, and which we in the Opposition genuinely believe in. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(12.30) —I rise to support Senator Missen's disallowance motion. I believe that the Freedom of Information Act is a misnomer if ever there was one. The principle of citizen access to information held by governments is fundamental in a true democracy and fundamental to the preservation of civil liberties. It is a generally held belief that information is power. Conversely, the withholding of information is to disempower the people. It is also generally acknowledged that citizens feel overwhelmed by bureaucratic institutions. The introduction of the Freedom of Information Act was an opportunity to change that, an opportunity for people to be involved in the decision-making processes in this country. The Government made much of this legislation when it was introduced, heralding it as a great reform. To a degree it was an important landmark. However, never was all the information that citizens sought readily available. For example, especially in defence matters Australians have needed to get information under the United States freedom of information Act. It is indeed ironic that information denied to Australian citizens about our own national affairs is more easily accessible to citizens in the United States. In asking questions in this place about defence matters, which I believe is one of my major tasks because of the need to expose much of the secrecy surrounding defence matters and, in particular, all things nuclear, I find myself relying on information about our internal affairs coming from researchers in the United States. That is an ironic situation. The Government is now virtually dismantling the much heralded Freedom of Information Act, which it never adequately promoted to the public, by demanding high costs and putting it out of reach of ordinary citizens and community groups. I want to give a recent example of the Freedom of Information Act helping a community group. The World Heritage Committee asked the Australian Government to provide an indicative list of sites in this country-that is, to draw up a list of possible future nominations. The Australian Government told the public that the request was only for cultural sites. Information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Wilderness Society showed that the request was for both natural and cultural sites. The Government did not give the public the full information. It was selling out our natural heritage, such as the Daintree, because it was afraid of exercising its Federal responsibilities in this area. It is vital that responsible community groups such as the Wilderness Society should continue to have reasonable access to information under the Freedom of Information Act because governments are not always honest. As Senator Missen said, big corporations will not be disadvantaged, although they may be inconvenienced, by the exorbitant charges, but individuals and community action groups which have a right to information will be severely hampered in their quest for information, if not denied it altogether. The new costs will prove prohibitive. Information in this country is far from free. The matter of charges and the cost of the service to the Government is something of a red herring as presented by the Government. The provision of information to the citizens of Australia is a cost which a government should be prepared to bear if it believes in the principle of access to information. If the Government is so concerned about costs perhaps some of the extra income which will be generated by the recently passed Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Cash Bidding) Amendment Bill 1985 (No. 2) could be used to offset the cost of an effective Freedom of Information Act. It would be a great shame if a Labor government were responsible for smothering the Freedom of Information Act in its infancy. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.33) —It is disappointing that so many champions of civil liberty and open government on the Government side may be forced to line up to support the restriction of information to the public. We should look at the regulations which increase the charges by between 100 per cent to 250 per cent for this type of service. After all, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in the foreword to the last annual report on the freedom of information legislation, wrote: Most importantly it illustrates that, while some problems in administration have been identified, the Act is working well and achieving its stated purpose of extending as far as possible the right of the Australian community to access to information in the possession of the Australian Government. What has changed since earlier this year? Perhaps one of the reasons is that certain bodies, such as the Wilderness Society, are becoming much more effective at using the Freedom of Information Act to get the information they need to advance their causes. The Government was severely embarrassed when the Wilderness Society obtained documents about the Government's attitude to the Daintree rainforest. These documents show that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) did not have the political will to take on the Queensland Government over the environmentally unsound practices used in that State. It is also sad to find a supposedly reform government putting short term political comfort before the long term welfare of the nation. In fact, this rise of over 100 per cent is a way of introducing secrecy into public affairs. It is clear from a reading of the 1983-84 Freedom of Information Act annual report that the figures given as the cost of freedom of information are highly inflated and in fact are not particularly instructive because they include a whole lot of other costs which do not relate to freedom of information. I addressed this matter when speaking on a matter of public interest last week. The use of 88 per cent for on-costs as compared to the normal 60 per cent has pushed the announced costs of freedom of information from $14.5m to $17m in 1983-84. This type of thing has happened as a result of inflating the apparent costs of getting information to people. Under the legislation there are two avenues for internal review of decisions. Nearly half of the 501 applications for internal review in the year met with some success. Over 50 applicants to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal received virtually exactly the information they asked for in the first place but in the process they had to undergo lengthy delays and incur considerable cost. We need to have a change in the attitudes of the agencies which can come only from a change in the attitude of the Government, and that change is certainly not expressed by the Government putting forward the regulation that we are considering. Yet we really do not know the cost to the community of this internal review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal operation. These figures are not quoted as part of the costs of freedom of information. They do not have to be declared separately by the agencies and, hence, there is no way in which we can really assess the costs associated with these reviews. Anyone wanting to sabotage freedom of information and turn it into freedom from information can bask in the comfort that all the delaying tactics and even outright obstruction can just be quietly written off in the total cost estimate which is provided in relation to the administration of the freedom of information legislation. This is really a problem. Such failure to comply with the spirit of the legislation ought to be publicly exposed. We are not getting that sort of illuminating expenditure figure breakdown. We are just not being given the facts. The Government cannot legitimately use costs as an argument for increasing the charges when the costs so presented are so rubbery and open to manipulation. Under the new fee scales, agencies are allowed to charge a flat $20 administrative fee and $30 per hour for the time spent searching for or retrieving documents. They are not supposed to charge for the time spent examining documents before release and deciding what bits should be cut out in the process. When agencies come up with estimates of around $1,000-and we have heard examples of this-to process a modest request, we should really be very worried about the state of our Public Service and the state of government in this country. If 30 hours or more have to be spent looking for documents, what type of filing system have we got inside our Public Service? Should not we have a major inquiry into that process? It is being claimed currently that public servants are inefficient. No private enterprise would put up with this type of thing. There is no reason why this inefficiency should be imposed as a burden on the general information seeking public. In 1983-84 only $13,535 was collected in charges by agencies. If there had been an explosion in the number of vexatious requests, the old fee scales could quite adequately have covered that situation. If people are being unreasonable with their requests, under the Freedom of Information Act unreasonable diversion of resources provides grounds for refusing access to documents. I think it is quite important that already in the legislation we have this ability to handle troublemakers. There is no reason why a massive rise in fees should be imposed on ordinary people seeking information. It is wrong to price the information out of the reach of ordinary citizens. Open government is not compatible with the fee changes. I will be voting to disallow the regulations and to support the principles of open government and freedom of information for all people who want to know how our country is being run. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.41) —It has become perfectly clear from the way this Government is operating that it is not prepared to provide information to the public-it is certainly not prepared to provide information to members of Parliament; and it is not even prepared to provide information to its own members of parliament. I made an application for freedom of information because I knew that if one placed a difficult question on notice that question would not be answered until the last day of the session. That is the attitude that this Government adopts. Let me just explain what I mean by that. As at 11 November of this year-that was on Monday of this week-the Senate Notice Paper contained 48 pages of questions on notice which have been unanswered by this Government. The list goes back to 21 February 1985 when Senator Bolkus, a Government senator, put a question, which should not be difficult to answer, on the Notice Paper. The question read as follows: (1) Are there any aspects of the operation, functions, or otherwise of the United States' Base at Narrungar that are not classified information to the United States Congress. (2) Is there any such information which is classified within Australia. That question asked by a Government senator has been on notice since 21 February this year. However, the Minister cannot get around to giving the honourable senator an answer to it. That is the reason why members of parliament have had to turn to the freedom of information legislation to try to extract some information out of this Government as to what is going on. One would have thought that when one became a member of parliament-a senator or a member of the House of Representatives-one would have had access to all sorts of information. The situation with this Government is that one is in fact totally deprived of information. Every possible blocking move is put in front of us. Senator Robert Ray —I must make a note of this speech for when we go into opposition. Senator LEWIS —Senator Ray says, and rightly so, that he will make a note of what I am saying so that he can draw it to my attention when his Party goes into opposition very soon. Of course, that is fair comment. However, the situation is that under this Government we just have to use the freedom of information legislation to find out what is going on. Once upon a time under the Fraser Government one could write to a Minister and ask what was happening. One would get an honest, detailed and complete answer to one's questions. One would know what was going on. Now one does not even get an answer under this Government. Ministers really have become secretive and devious. It seems that they are scared to supply us with information. On 26 July this year I sought some information relating to housing problems in the Australian Capital Territory as part of the job which the Opposition has given me of looking after the Territories area. At that time Mr Brian O'Donovan was conducting an inquiry into the community housing expansion program in the Australian Capital Territory and as such he had access to all of the files. So, of course, all of the material was readily available. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of Australia's mounting economic difficulties, will the Government take urgent action by, firstly, approaching the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to suspend the incorporation into individual awards of the 3.8 per cent national wage case decision until these flow-ons have been discounted for the price effects of the devaluation; secondly, indicating that it will argue at the next wage case for a full discounting, irrespective of whether the actual amount exceeds the 2 per cent deal reached between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions; thirdly, informing both the Arbitration Commission and the ACTU that it is opposed to the 3 per cent productivity deal proceeding until at least the current balance of payments and currency difficulties have eased substantially and; fourthly, seeking the incorporation into the wage indexation guidelines of a new principle, namely, that there should be full discounting for the price effects of devaluations? Senator BUTTON —There are four parts to the question addressed to me by the Leader of the Opposition. The answer to each of them is no. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It refers to the community youth support scheme and Aboriginal unemployment. As the recent review of Aboriginal employment and training programs has confirmed that Aboriginals are the most severely disadvantaged unemployed group in Australia, can the Minister advise the Senate whether the Government would consider granting special need status to those CYSS projects that are Aboriginal intensive? In view of the proven difficulties involved in establishing and maintaining successful support projects for unemployed Aboriginals, would the Minister give consideration to a pilot scheme for CYSS liaison officers to specifically co-ordinate and promote the effectiveness of Aboriginal CYSS projects? Senator WALSH —I have a note from Mr Willis on this matter. In view of the wide-ranging recommendations contained in the report of the Miller Review of Aboriginal Training which was presented to the relevant Ministers in mid-August and which, of course, confirms the severe disadvantage faced by Aboriginals in the labour market, a committee of senior officials from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has been set up to prepare a submission for Cabinet to assist the Government in its consideration of the report's recommendations. In relation specifically to the funding of CYSS projects to which Senator Elstob referred, the funding of CYSS projects is tied to standard levels of grants. The appropriate level of grant for each project is determined according to that project's needs, taking into account the local area being serviced, the expected level of participation in the project, types of activities and so on. A major initiative in the last Budget was to increase the number of standard grant levels from three to five. It is not the intention to establish CYSS projects that are exclusively available for any single group in the community, which is implied by references to special needs status for some projects. However, in recognition of the fact that some projects need additional resourcing to run special activities for particular disadvantaged groups, the Government introduced special initiative grants in 1983-84. Those grants have proved to be particularly successful in assisting projects related to Aborigines. The allocation for that purpose has been increased substantially in this financial year-by 40 per cent. Provision is also made for training project officers working in CYSS projects. The Government's strong commitment to CYSS as an effective program in assisting disadvantaged young people is clear. The total allocation to CYSS in 1985-86 has been increased to $32m, an increase of 22 per cent. Senator REID —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer to an anomaly flowing from the Treasurer's statement of 17 July concerning the Government's intention to abolish negative gearing of rental properties and introduce depreciation. Is the Minister aware that while negative gearing will be allowed on properties purchased before 17 July and the new depreciation allowance will apply to properties constructed after that date, neither advantage will be available for properties which were under construction at that date but had not been sold? Was it the intention of the Government to deliberately exclude builders or other developers in that situation? If so, how can the Government justify penalising people who, through no fault of their own, happened to be in the construction phase at the time of the announcement? If not, will the Government remove the anomaly by allowing one or other of the concessions to apply to these cases? Senator WALSH —I cannot recall at this distance in time all the details of the Cabinet consideration on that question. Therefore, I am not sure whether Senator Reid's interpretation of or belief about the facts is correct. I am afraid that I really cannot do anything at this stage other than refer it to the Treasurer for a definitive reply. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the attention of the Minister for Community Services been drawn to reports that some child care centres will be forced to sack workers, employ juniors or even close due to the new Commonwealth funding arrangements? Are the reports true? If so, what action is being taken to ensure that child care facilities are available where the need is greatest? Senator GRIMES —I have seen reports, particularly from Victoria, which allege that child care centres will have to sack workers, replace qualified staff with junior staff and even have to close if new Commonwealth funding arrangements come into existence. In fact, I am even more disturbed to have been told this morning that the Municipal Association of Victoria will not only ask councils that are in the process of opening child care centres not to do so but also wish to tell councils that have already opened and are running child care centres satisfactorily that they should close. I am concerned that charges of this type can create anxiety and I am concerned about the motives of the people making such charges. I do not believe that the changes will mean that any centre will have to employ juniors, unqualified staff or close down. State licensing regulations prevent the employment of unqualified staff in most cases. At present, the centres' funds come from three sources. The Commonwealth provides operational subsidies, which it will continue, and it provides fee relief subsidies and advances, which it will continue. The rest of the money is made up by fees paid by parents. Under the new arrangements the amount of the operational subsidy in most cases will decrease. However, the amount of the decrease will be matched by increases in funds generated from fees paid by parents and by the increased fee relief provided by the Commonwealth. The total funds available will not change. Centres will be able to continue to operate on the break even basis on which they now operate. They will be able to continue to provide quality child care as under the present scheme. It is most disappointing that people who know better are concentrating just on the operational subsidy, which has been changed to provide greater equity in the system and to recognise the fact that it costs more to look after children under the age of three than over the age of three. Also, the change to the fee relief subsidy recognises that it costs more if more than one child is in care and that people who can afford to pay more should pay more under our system. Senator Peter Baume —Is not the amount of the fees that they can charge fixed by the Commonwealth too? Senator GRIMES —No, the amount of the fees that centres can charge to people on fee relief is limited by the Commonwealth. The amount of fees they charge to people who are not on fee relief is not. The figures have been worked out very carefully on a break-even basis. We have redistributed the funding of children's services, but I particularly want to emphasise that the local government sponsors of child care centres operate, and are in no different position from other sponsors that now operate viable and quality care centres all over Australia. There is no reason why they cannot operate on a break-even budget, either under the present arrangements-I remind honourable senators that the Victorian councils are complaining about the present arrangements-or after April 1986 when the new arrangements come in, when again they will be on the same basis as every other centre in Australia. I think that it would be a tragedy if these centres were left empty at a time when there are thousands of children and parents in desperate need for child care. The Commonwealth obviously will have to consider the situation if the Municipal Association of Victoria-unlike the municipal associations in the rest of Australia and unlike the hundreds of other groups operating child care centres-decides to take this action for its own local political purposes. Senator CHIPP —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the proposed amendments to the Queensland Liquor Act, whereby hotel licensees will be under a legal obligation to prohibit from entering their premises anyone whom they suspect of being `deviant'. Does the Minister agree that such police state measures would give bartenders and hoteliers the licence to indulge their prejudices and encourage bigots to engage in open victimisation, unbridled hostility and physical abuse of those whose lifestyles they dislike? I take it that Senator Walters, who is interjecting, supports the Queensland Bill-that is, provided that she could recognise a deviant if she saw one. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Senator CHIPP —Further, does the Minister agree that this action on the part of the minority Queensland Government provides an additional reason for the Government to support Senator Macklin's one-vote one-value Bill, which would enable a senior Australian State to rid itself of such a moronic government, which can now be re-elected by only 36 per cent of the population? Senator GARETH EVANS —If anyone should be barred from anything on the grounds of deviance, it is the Queensland Premier himself, on the grounds of his deviant bigotry, his deviant authoritarianism and his deviant contempt-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw those remarks. Senator GARETH EVANS —If it is thought inappropriate, Mr President, I will, but-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Clearly the Minister is breaching standing order 418. I would ask him to withdraw. Senator Chipp —He is a deviant. Senator Walters —I wish to raise a point of order, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Walters —It is a different point of order. The PRESIDENT —I will take the point of order after the Minister withdraws. Senator GARETH EVANS —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator Walters —I now ask that Senator Chipp also withdraw his interjection. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Walters —On a point of order, Mr President, I would like Senator Chipp's interjection that the Premier is a deviant to be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Order! There was an exchange between Senator Walters and Senator Chipp, but whatever it was I frankly did not hear it. There is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —Lest it be thought that I myself was proposing any authoritarian solution so far as the Queensland Premier is concerned, let me make it clear that the only barring I had in mind was from further participation in public life by the voters of that State. There were eminently extensive grounds for that, not least in the latest legislation of which we have now had public notice. It appears that the proposed amendment to the Queensland Liquor Act will authorise discriminatory treatment against persons suspected of being, as Senator Chipp says, deviant. Presumably it is intended that the discrimination may be based merely on the ground that the behaviour of that person is or appears to be behaviour that deviates from normal behaviour. In this respect I make the point that there is a very real problem so far as the general international covenants on human rights are concerned. It is a fundamental human right, recognised in both the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that every person has the right without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. That means that the substance of the law must not be discriminatory, unless discrimination can be justified on proper and rational grounds. If exclusion from licensed premises is to be based merely on some suspected deviance, there would not appear to be any rational basis provided in the legislation establishing proper, defensible grounds as a matter of international law for introducing a discriminatory law. It would appear that this provision is absolutely at odds with Australia's international obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is another classic demonstration of the indifference, to put it at its mildest, of the Queensland Government for those basic principles. As to the second part of the honourable senator's question as to whether this gives further nourishment to Senator Macklin's proposal, there is clearly, as I said the other day in answer I think to Senator Jones, need for major reform of some kind to ensure that Queensland is taught to respect democratic values. The Government's view is strongly supportive of one-vote one-value principles being applied to States as well as to Federal Government elections as being the only proper and equitable basis for electoral systems. As to the best means of assuring this-whether it should be a referendum and, if so, whether it should be in the terms of Senator Macklin's Bill or whether there is some other way of doing it-it is a matter, as I have said before, for further consideration. It may be that an opportunity will arise for that consideration on the proposed reference of Senator Macklin's Bill to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, with its now extended terms of reference. Senator BLACK —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry seen reports in the Brisbane newspapers yesterday of a 4c a litre rise in the price of milk in south-east Queensland? Is the Minister aware that the Queensland Consumer Association has blamed the price rise on the inefficiency of the Queensland Milk Board and has called for an inquiry into Queensland's industries' price fixing structure? Could these price increases have been avoided and the Consumer Association's concerns allayed if the Federal Government's dairy industry reform package had not been rejected by the Senate? Senator WALSH —Yes, I have seen reports about the very large increases in milk prices in Queensland-indeed, an increase of 5c a litre for a 600 millilitre bottle. Even measured against the very high general level of prices in Queensland, I think that is an increase of something like 7 per cent in one hit. Price rises of a slightly lower percentage have been applied for milk in other containers. I am also aware that the Queensland Consumers Association has blamed the inefficiency of the Milk Board for those rises. Prices for fresh milk are under the control of State governments and in Queensland the Minister for Primary Industries sets prices on the advice of the Queensland Milk Board. The Federal Government's proposed dairy marketing arrangements, which were torpedoed in the Senate, were directed at encouraging the sourcing of milk from the most economically efficient location. In other words, the Government had proposed to allow free enterprise to flourish in the milk supply industry. That attempt was torpedoed in the Senate. The Queensland Government, which preaches free enterprise, in fact practices regimentation of both economic and social matters. If the Federal Government's legislation had not been torpedoed in the Senate and market forces had been allowed to operate, it would not be possible for any State milk authority unreasonably to increase milk prices, or indeed to increase milk prices above the level which would have induced a different source of supply, possibly from another State. Had the Federal Government not been prevented by the Senate from implementing that legislation, the Queensland Minister and the Queensland Milk Board would have had to take that into account. That is, they would have had to take into account whether, if they used their monopoly pricing powers and their highly regulated and regimented legislative powers, this would be likely to push the price of milk to the point where supply from some alternative source would be considered or would be likely to be called for. It is most disappointing to the Government that the dairy marketing arrangements which it had proposed were rejected. It is yet again a sad reflection on the Liberal Party which knows better. As always, when pressure is applied it caves in and allows its policies to be dictated by its coalition rump of the National Party. Senator BROWNHILL —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to the National Australia Bank's latest financial summary in which it warns that there is nothing to prevent the 50 per cent tax scale from becoming dominant because of inflationary pressure between now and when the new tax scales are to be introduced? In the light of this and other criticisms in major newspapers this morning that we are facing a crisis of confidence and that real interest rates could go still higher, what advice can he give to young home buyers who are likely to get caught in the interest rate spiral? Senator WALSH —I did see some nonsense in the newspapers yesterday which was sourced to the National Australia Bank. If I recall correctly, it stated among other things that before very long most taxpayers will be paying tax at a marginal rate of 50c in the dollar under the tax scales proposed by the Government. They will be implemented in 1988, provided the additional revenue which is required to allow those tax cuts to be secured is raised. That depends, of course, on whether the legislation is passed by the Senate. Under the tax scales proposed and at a rate of inflation which has prevailed since this Government has been in office-that is, something above 5 per cent a year; it may be a little above this for wage increases-it would take about seven years, with a constant tax rate before even the average weekly earnings figure reached the level of income at which the 50 per cent marginal tax rate comes into effect. It would be considerably longer because 65 or 70 per cent of taxpayers earn less than average weekly earnings. So at best the article was a gross exaggeration. Its whole tenor was that of a beat-up. If, for example, one went back to the tax rate scales without making any adjustment for inflation which has applied since the 1950s, one would find that average weekly earners would be paying 75c in the dollar tax at the margin and this would have cut in way below average weekly earnings. I thought it was a shameful beat-up which did no credit at all to the National Australia Bank. Senator COATES —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, is about the Government's tax package. Has the Government formulated a response to the Opposition's disarray shown by its several inconsistent attitudes to the Government's tax reform package? What is the Government response? Does the Minister believe that the blind opposition by Mr Howard and the supporters he has left to selective parts of the Government's attempt to restore fairness to the tax system is, firstly, hypocritical; secondly, the ultimate in political expediency; thirdly, merely stupid; or, fourthly, all of the above? Or does the Minister take Mr Howard's refusal to promise repeal of the legislation as a sign of support for the correctness of the Government's policy? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I fail to see how most of that question can be a request for information about any matter which is within the province of the administration of the Minister. It is just another invitation for political debate and abuse and the Minister's usual diatribe. I ask you to rule the question out of order. Senator Coates —I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr President, I was asking whether the Government had formulated a response on these matters. I thought it may well have a right to do so. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I call the Minister. Senator WALSH —The Government has not formulated a response in any formal sense to that specific recent statement by Mr Howard. But the Government's response to all such statements is that it will introduce the legislation for the tax reform package announced by the Treasurer just under two months ago. The Government hopes and believes that that package of legislation will be passed. If it is not passed, either the tax cuts, which were outlined in the same statement and which will apply in 1986 and 1987, cannot be delivered or, alternatively, expenditure must be reduced in some other area. While on this subject-it is a matter of fact and is highly relevant to the question-I should comment on the statement made by Mr Howard on AM this morning. He said that the Opposition would vote against elements of the package. When asked how the Opposition would deliver the tax cuts if it were in government, Mr Howard said that this could be done by increasing either the rate or the coverage of indirect taxation. He said that elements of the package which the Opposition had said it would oppose amounted to only $700m to $800m. That statement is wrong. The Opposition has announced that it will oppose the following tax reform measures: The fringe benefits tax, negative gearing, farm losses, foreign tax credit and the capital gains tax. The 1987-88 revenue which would accrue from those five components of the package is $1,070m and the figure would go higher in future years. So Mr Howard's figure of $700m to $800m is a significant understatement. It seems that he is about as good at costing his tax policy as he was at Budget figuring when he was Treasurer. It is also worthy of note-it is something which the Government takes extremely seriously and finds very dangerous in this proposal-that the income tax revenue generated by the Government's tax reform package would be substantially sacrificed as would revenue raised from indirect taxation. The $1,070m in additional indirect taxes which Mr Howard has forecast a Liberal government would impose, would have about the same effect on the consumer price index as the devaluation of the Australian dollar has had on the CPI to date. Mr Howard said that the view that the CPI effect of the devaluation of the dollar has been quite catastrophic, very dangerous or disastrous is quite inconsistent with the alternative proposition that tax reform should be funded by increases in indirect taxation which would have the same effect on the CPI. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Finance, follows the question he was just asked and the answer he has just given. What proportion of the foreshadowed tax cuts for 1986 and 1987 will be paid for by the tax increases which are currently being proposed by the Government and what proportion by bracket creep and predicted economic growth? To put it another way, how much are the tax cuts that he has foreshadowed expected to cost as against how much would be raised by these tax increases? Senator WALSH —The estimated revenue from the tightening and widening of the direct taxation base to be received in 1987-88 is $1.7 billion. It is certainly of that order. The Leader of the Opposition has given commitments to oppose sufficient components of that tax broadening and tightening exercise to knock off more than $1 billion of that $1.7 billion. I repeat that a very substantial component of the tax reductions would have to be forgone or revenue would have to be raised from elsewhere. Although the Leader of the Opposition has misstated the figures in the discussions about taxation reform, just as he used to misrepresent the figures about Budgets when he was Treasurer, he has said that the revenue forgone from the Liberal Party's torpedoing of a great part of the tax reform package would be made up by increases in indirect taxes. I have already drawn attention to the consumer price index effects of that, which would be about the same as the effects to date on the CPI of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has ignored that part of my question where I asked him about the total cost of the tax cuts and the proportion which is being met by bracket creep and economic growth as far as the Government's predictions are concerned. Is it a fact that the tax cuts will cost in excess of $4 billion, or what figure does the Minister put on it? Senator WALSH —The greater amount of the reduction in taxation over the next two years, as estimated in the rate scale circulated by the Treasurer a couple of months ago-more than half of it-is attributable to notional indexation. That is correct. I do not know whether that is the answer that Senator Chaney wants, but I take it from his comments that he thinks a billion dollars' can be knocked off the revenue earned by the tax broadening and tax tightening measures. He thinks that a billion dollars is nothing. The Government does not take that view. The Government takes the view that a billion dollars' worth of tax cuts delivered to Australian taxpayers is quite important. It is also if not an essential then certainly a very important component of the renewal for another two years of the prices and incomes accord, which has delivered two and a half years of economic growth approaching 5 per cent, which has delivered 460,000 extra jobs, which has almost halved the rate of inflation, and which has produced the lowest level of industrial disputes for 18 years. Senator BOLKUS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to the continuing campaign by a number of vested interests, apparently now supported by the Opposition, to sabotage $330m worth of tax cuts by attempting to reverse the Government's decision on the non-deductibility for tax purposes of entertainment expenses. I refer also to the claims made in this campaign about the alleged employment effects of this particular Government decision. Can the Minister provide the Senate with any information about the state of the labour market in the entertainment and restaurant industries and can he say whether this campaign by vested interests will have any effect on the Government's decision? Senator WALSH —Fortuitously, I do have some information about the state of demand for labour in the industries to which Senator Bolkus has referred. Indeed, job vacancy levels have actually risen in recent months and are now at a much higher level than at the corresponding point in 1984. Commonwealth Employment Service job vacancy notifications for entertainment and recreation services, restaurants, hotels and club categories, in October 1985, which incidentally stood at almost 10,000, were higher than they had been for any period, certainly for the last 12 months, and I need not go back any further than that. I would say that they are probably higher than for any period in the previous two and a half years. More important, probably, is that the figure of 9,726 for October 1985 was some 20.4 per cent higher than the corresponding figure for September, which was just over 8,000. Between September and October, bearing in mind that this was the first month after the announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 18 September of the changed taxation policy, job vacancies within the industries which are allegedly being destroyed increased by 20 per cent, or almost 2,000. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations analysis of newspaper vacancies for skilled occupations in the food and beverage trade shows a total of 300 vacancies recorded in November 1985, which is the second highest figure on record and a 50 per cent increase over the corresponding vacancy count for November 1984. Regarding the first part of Senator Bolkus's question, I have noticed that the organisation which calls itself Business against Non-deductibility-BAND-was on 30 October and the days around that time running advertisements which stressed the alleged effect of the disallowance of the entertainment tax on the breweries and wineries, thereby, of course, clearly laying an implicit charge that the business lunch was a pretty alcoholic occasion. I note that since some attention has been drawn to that advertisement the most recent advertisements authorised by the same organisation no longer mention the alleged effect of the denial of deductibility on wineries and breweries. From that I suppose one should assume that there has been a great victory for temperance and that the business lunch could now be a Salvation Army picnic. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Government is contemplating some form of import levies to stem the tide of imports and to abate the adverse balance of trade? If not, will the Government indicate that it will not adopt that method of added protection? I ask further: Do Bureau of Statistics forecasts indicate any significant decline in imports in the immediate months ahead? Do those forecasts, based on past trends, indicate any worthwhile increase in export earnings in those immediate months ahead? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the second part of the question is that, having said no to the first part, it seems to me to be largely irrelevant. With respect to the third part of the question, I personally-I may be remiss in this-am unaware of ABS statistics which forecast likely imports and likely exports. I am, however, aware of the Budget predictions in respect of these matters, and I am sure Senator Sir John Carrick is equally aware of those. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in last week's Bulletin which claims that members of parliament get $155 a day travelling allowance when travelling away from home or the national capital on official business? In view of the widespread misunderstanding in the community of back benchers entitlements-- Senator Georges —Who said that? Senator ZAKHAROV —That is what the Bulletin said-a misunderstanding which is often fostered by those seeking to divert attention from their own tax avoidance, will the Minister correct the figure given in the article and explain the conditions under which travelling allowance can and cannot be claimed by back benchers? Senator GARETH EVANS —The figures contained in the Bulletin article are incorrect-an utterly unsurprising state of affairs given its authorship, David Barnett. As honourable senators will be all too aware, the Remuneration Tribunal has determined that from 1 July 1985 the following rates of travelling allowance will apply to senators and members of the House of Representatives: In Canberra, $95 per overnight stay; in other capital cities, $110 per overnight stay; and in places other than capital cities, $85 per overnight stay. Senator Georges —They are better than if you are in gaol. Senator GARETH EVANS —These allowances are payable only in certain circumstances, which I am not sure extend to those in which Senator Georges just found himself, and for an overnight stay in a place other than their home base. The Remuneration Tribunal is responsible for reviewing the allowances of senators and members and in so doing is required to have regard to the wage principles established by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Honourable senators will also be well aware of the conditions set by the Tribunal for payment of travelling allowances. There are many occasions when the allowance is not payable. Senator PARER —Will the Minister representing the Treasurer advise whether traditional Christmas picnics or parties provided by employers for their employees, their spouses and children, will be tax deductible to employers under the Government's tax package? Senator WALSH —I have not seen any piece of paper which specifically refers to the Christmas picnic but, consistent with the general principles laid down in the Treasurer's statement, I expect that it would not be tax deductible. I will, however, refer the question to the Treasurer for a definitive answer. The reason, of course, is this: Who will decide what is a legitimate, ordinary Christmas picnic for the kids and what is an indulgence for a large group of other people? The practical reality is that it is impossible, without employing a vast army of bureaucrats, to make that sort of distinction. A vast army of bureaucrats, incidentally, would probably harass business in making these distinctions and in trying to make that determination to the point where business would be squealing about the army of bureaucrats. I know that the Opposition has a policy, at least in some areas, of padding bureaucratic armies. It is demonstrating that before the Senate today. It is moving to disallow the Government's regulation on freedom of information, thereby increasing the staff requirement of the Commonwealth Public Service for that reason alone by 100 people. The Government did consider, on an administrative or commissioners discretion basis, separating that small component of the total amount claimed under entertainment expenses which is legitimately attributable to expenditure relating to the earning of income. The Government made the decision that, if it were administratively possible at all-some people would question that-it would require vast bureaucratic resources and vast expense. For that reason the Government decided against it. Senator CROWLEY —I ask the Minister for Finance whether he has seen the editorial in the Australian of yesterday, 12 November, referring to the South Australian election, which states: The State is leading the national economic recovery, and of the three manufacturing States it is best insulated against any short-term downturns. Figures released a few months ago by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed South Australia heading the list of forecast new capital spending by the private sector with an expected increase of 43 per cent to $1,251 million next financial year. Total unemployment is down, and the housing and construction industries are enjoying boom conditions. In the light of the misleading matter of public importance introduced into this place by Liberal Senator Hill on Monday, can the Minister further elaborate on the economic indicators relevant to the South Australian recovery, particularly private sector investment, so that the Liberal Opposition can be properly and accurately informed on this issue? Senator WALSH —I did see the Australian editorial. I am not able to be any more definitive on the private investment performance of South Australia than that editorial was. That reported, as Senator Crowley said, that South Australia headed all of the States in the forecast of new capital spending by the private sector, with an expected increase of 43 per cent to a massive $1 1/4 billion next financial year. That is not really surprising, given the other indicators of economic activity in South Australia. I refer in particular to two. The number of building commencements over the period in which the Bannon Government has been in office-the commencement of which roughly coincided with the period when the economy began to go into its deepest recession for 50 years, since the 1930s, under the stewardship of the present Federal Liberal leader, Mr Howard-has increased by a massive 70 per cent and that, of course, would be a major component in the private capital investment figure. Over the same period motor vehicle registrations have increased by 14 per cent, and the motor vehicle industry still remains quite significant in the South Australian economy. Although South Australia has not been the leading performer in every economic indicator, it has certainly been the leading performer of all the States in a number of very important economic indicators, and the overall improvement in the South Australian economy during the last three years has been quite spectacular. South Australia has made more than its proportionate contribution to the national economic recovery over the same period. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women to confirm that the principle of selection and promotion on merit is the principle that underlies her approach to equal employment opportunity and to any affirmative action designed to secure equal opportunity. Senator RYAN —I am very pleased to confirm that. In fact, I will make available to Senator Peter Baume a speech I made on that topic at a conference at Macquarie University recently which was organised specifically to explore the issue of merit in relation to affirmative action. Senator Peter Baume, perhaps of all honourable senators on the other side of the chamber, would be very well aware that in the preparation of the report of the Government's working party on affirmative action there was a great deal of discussion as to what affirmative action meant in the context of providing equal employment opportunity. In terms of our Government's approach to this policy it means that barriers which have restricted the opportunity for women to get jobs or promotion on their merits will be removed. Our approach to affirmative action in both the public and private sectors will ensure that the merit principle-that is, the principle of merit for the job-is the criterion used in selecting a person for a job rather than irrelevant criteria such as a person's marital status or family situation, or some such other criteria which have been used in the past, inappropriately, to deny women access to jobs, promotion or training courses associated with jobs. It would be counter-productive if we were to embark on a course of action which would result in women being promoted to jobs for which they were not qualified. Our Government is about giving women, and, indeed, all people in the Australian economy, the opportunity to have satisfying employment in accord with their talents, experience and abilities. Senator PETER BAUME —I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister's answer, why has a decision been made by Australian Capital Territory education authorities, in an area directly under her portfolio control and within her ministerial responsibility, to impose quotas reserving for women at least 50 per cent of advertised senior promotional positions and most higher duties allowances? I ask this of the Minister since such a decision clearly breaches locally the merit principle she has just claimed to support generally. Senator RYAN —I think that Senator Peter Baume's supplementary question is based on a misleading report in the Canberra Times about the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority's equal employment opportunity policy. I saw a similar suggestion that quotas would be imposed on certain levels of promotion positions within the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, and, on checking out that claim, found that that indeed was not the case. I think Senator Peter Baume will find that all appointments and promotions in the Australian Capital Territory teaching service will be made on merit but that certain steps will be taken to assist women to get the necessary expertise to be able to compete on merit for senior appointments. I think that Senator Peter Baume will find that it is the case that the Schools Authority has recommended that female teachers be given the opportunity to act in higher duties. This is not in breach of the merit principle because were they to seek promotion to those positions they would be assessed on their capacity to do the job. I understand that in the past very few female teachers were given the opportunity to act in a senior position. Thus it has often been the case that they have not been able to add that experience to their other qualifications when seeking a promotion position. I conclude by saying that it interests me to note when an initiative such as the Schools Authority's equal opportunity plan is published that all kinds of fears and anxieties are expressed and questions such as those asked by Senator Baume are asked and yet, to my knowledge, Senator Baume never leapt to his feet in this place and asked me why it was that no female teacher had ever been appointed to the position of principal in the Australian Capital Territory secondary system or to the position of secondary college principal. He never concerned himself to find out whether any woman teacher had ever been given the opportunity for a higher duties experience in the way that the system was being managed. Indeed, it is only when women suddenly are given positions or opportunities of this kind that concerns about equity and merit seem to be raised. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Communications aware of community concern in Bunbury, Western Australia, over the construction of a satellite earth station there for use by Golden West Network? Can the Minister inform the Senate of what those concerns are and of the Government's attitude to them? Senator WALSH —I am aware of such concerns, although I am not sure how widespread they are. When the Golden West Network was recently selected by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal as the most suitable applicant to provide Australia's first remote television service, for reasons of security, to minimise technical and operational difficulties and to contain costs the company sought permission to construct the earth station in a car parking area within its existing premises. The application was opposed by the Bunbury Council in whose shire GWN is based and by local residents on the grounds of their concern about the impact of the earth station in terms of aesthetics, increased local traffic and possible electromagnetic radiation hazards. I am advised that the Council originally dealt with the other matters but deferred its decision on the possible electromagnetic radiation hazards pending advice on that question from its works committee and the provision of further information by GWN. The Bunbury Council subsequently approved construction of the earth station after GWN had produced statements from NEC Australia Pty Ltd, Aussat Pty Ltd, the Western Australian Department of Health, the Royal Perth Hospital and Dr Repacholi of the Royal Adelaide Hospital. GWN arranged for Dr Repacholi, who is an authority on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, to speak directly with Council members. Given that the Council has now withdrawn its objections, I expect construction of the station to proceed. For the information of honourable senators, I table a diagram prepared by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission entitled `Comparisons of Electromagnetic Energy Levels', which provides an interesting pictorial comparison of energy levels from various sources, including satellite dishes, fluorescent lights, human bodies and other natural sources. It is in pictorial form, so even the National Party of Australia should be able to understand it. Sentor LEWIS-I ask the Minister for Education why it is that she refuses to disclose to the council of the proposed Presbyterian King's College, Warrnambool, the reasons she has refused to grant funding to that college. If she will not tell the council why she will not give it funding, will she tell the Senate? Is it not a fact that the Warrnambool branch of the Australian Labor Party made representations opposing the establishment of this college? Is it a fact that it was the only group of people who had any opposition to the funding of the college? Senator RYAN —The question put to me by Senator Lewis is typical of the misleading and, I think, very dishonest treatment of the new non-government schools policy which the Government has experienced at the hands of the Opposition. Firstly, I do not know whether the Warrnambool branch of the Australian Labor Party opposed or did not oppose the establishment of a particular school in that area. However, whether it did or did not would be absolutely irrelevant. If Senator Lewis is interested in finding out how the new non-government schools policy works, there are numerous documents put out by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, which administers that policy, which will explain it to him. Of the various criteria which State planning committees take into account in considering whether to recommend a school's proposal for funding, support or opposition from a Labor Party branch or any other political party is not relevant. There is simply no way in which such a representation would be relevant to the process. What is relevant to the process is a series of things, such as the financial viability of the proposal, whether the proposal can expect to achieve registration from the State education authorities, the number of children that can be expected to be enrolled in the proposed school, whether the school will be set up in an area to draw students away from existing government or non-government schools, and whether the State planning authorities have been adequately consulted in the preparation of the proposition. There are a number of very clearly laid out planning considerations, and considerations to do with registration and financial viability which are taken into account when a representative State committee-that is, a State committee representative of non-government school interests and the State education department's interests-makes recommendations. In the case of that particular school, I will seek information for Senator Lewis. However, it is certainly not the case that any group of people wishing to know the fate of a submission are not given that information. They are given that information. In this instance I expect they would have been given the information by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, which is administering the policy. If they seek further information they may get a reply from my office. However, that reply would be based on information provided by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. I think that it behoves Senator Lewis, and anyone else who wants to take an interest in whether schools get funding, to address himself to the actual policy guidelines which are used in these cases and not to go running off with these very misleading and, I believe, very dishonest imputations about activities of Labor Party branches. Senator LEWIS —I ask a supplementary question. Why has the Minister not replied to the council's letter dated 15 October? Senator RYAN —I do not know how long that letter has been with the Schools Commission. I do not know whether that letter came directly to my office. If the letter came to my office it would have been sent to the Commonwealth Schools Commission because, as I have just endeavoured to explain to Senator Lewis, who seems to be determined to remain totally opaque on this issue, the advice on these matters comes from the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Such decisions are not determined by me alone; they are determined in discussions with the Commonwealth Schools Commission. If a letter dated 15 October arrived in my office some days later and was sent to the Commonwealth Schools Commission for investigation and advice, I am not surprised that a reply has not yet been forthcoming. Senator COOK —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Senator Chaney —Oh, it is the economic expert. Senator COOK —I am pleased to see that someone reads my speeches. Perhaps the honourable senator should read more of them. I ask: Is the Minister aware that on the AM program this morning Mr Howard advocated a wage freeze? Can the Minister inform the Senate of how such a freeze could be implemented under a decentralised wage fixing system, which Mr Howard also advocates? Under what circumstances was a wage freeze last imposed? Senator WALSH —I heard Mr Howard make that statement on AM this morning and I nearly fell out of the car. He was asked: `What about a wage freeze?' Mr Howard replied: What about a wage freeze. Well, our credentials on a wage freeze are immaculate. I was the Treasurer responsible for bringing in a wages freeze. He continued by saying that if the economic circumstances required it he would do it again. Senator Cook asked me quite specifically how, in the absence of centralised wage fixing or, at least, regulated wage fixing, a wage freeze would be implemented. Frankly, I do not have the faintest idea. I think it is a matter for wide-eyed conjecture. I just cannot imagine how, in the absence of some formal mechanism for regulating or setting wages, a wage freeze would be implemented. As to the second part of the question regarding the circumstances under which a wage freeze may be applied, it is correct, as Mr Howard said, that he was the Treasurer who presided over the introduction of the wage freeze. It was applied because not only the Commonwealth Government of the day but also the States legislated in support of that wage freeze. It was a highly centralised wages policy enacted by the Commonwealth Government with complementary legislation from the State governments. It was about as regimented a wage policy as it is possible to get and, of course, was at the opposite end of the spectrum to the deregulated labour market about which Mr Howard also talks sometimes and advocates. The economic circumstances to which Mr Howard and Senator Cook referred, I think, are worth recalling. On the empirical evidence, the wage freeze at that time was fairly effective at freezing wages. This brings us back to the real point of Senator Cook's question; that is, the circumstances under which the wage freeze, backed up by a highly centralised system of wage fixing-the most centralised system conceivable-worked. At the time Mr Howard was destroying 186,000 jobs. He was driving the Australian economy into the deepest recession it had known since the 1930s. He was rounding off his big trifecta of double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and, at the end of his two years, double digit wages growth. Under those circumstances, where the economy was sinking into the deepest recession it had known for 50 years, a wage freeze was effective. In the same circumstances it may even be effective again provided the co-operation of all the State legislatures could be guaranteed. What is yet to be demonstrated is that attempts to control wages, either through a wages freeze without any prior agreement from organised labour or through collective bargaining-the experiment which Mr Howard had tried a year or two earlier-will work in periods of high economic growth such as Australia has experienced since this Government has been in office and which it appears very likely it will continue to experience as long as this Government remains in office. If it is the desire of the country that these circumstances in which the last wage freeze was introduced be recreated Mr Howard might well have his wage freeze, but it is not the desire of this Government, and I do not believe it is the desire of the Australian community in general, that those disastrous circumstances of late 1982 and early 1983 should be reproduced. Senator GRIMES —Yesterday Senator Foreman asked me a question about the possibility of sun tanning pills causing damage, which arose from a report in the Australian Consumer Association's journal, Choice. I have received the following information from the Minister for Health: It seems, according to the Department of Health, that the report may, in fact, overstate the risk mentioned by Senator Foreman. Capsules containing an approved food colouring-canthaxanthine-have been sold without prescription in Australia for many years. Intake of these capsules produces a bronzing of the skin which can resemble suntan. Case reports from Canada, West Germany and Sweden have shown that a daily intake of these capsules for about two months or more can result in a ring of crystals of the substance being deposited in the retinae of the user. In West Germany and Sweden these capsules have been banned. In France, labelling now recommends a maximum use of two months each year. The matter was considered by the Australian Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee on 16 August this year. Two problems emerged: Firstly, contrary to ACA's quoted claims, ADRAC found little evidence that such retinal deposits impair vision; and, secondly, the doses of canthaxanthine taken lie within the current accepted daily intake as a permitted food colour. The Committee has initiated the following actions: The Royal Australian College of Ophthalmoligists has been asked for urgent advice on certain technical matters; requests have been made for prompt evaluation of available data by the Department of Health; notification of the problem has been provided to State and Territory health authorities, pharmaceutical and foodstuff manufacturers which are known to use the substance, the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, the Australian Consumers Organisation and ophthamological, optometrical and pharmaceutical professional organisations, and the matter has been referred to the Food Science and Technology Committee. The matter will be considered again on Friday, 15 November. The Department is seeking a copy of the South Australian report to evaluate it together with other available information. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Vallentine asked me a question in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Defence about the North West Cape Trident II submarines and the alleged first strike operational capacity of that base after 1989. The Minister for Defence has supplied me with an answer. It is a longish one. I am happy to incorporate it in Hansard if I am given leave to do so. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- NORTH WEST CAPE AND THE TRIDENT II SUBMARINE The answer to the Question is no. The Government has no plans for dismantling the operation at North West Cape because of uninformed and misguided claims that it will become a first strike operation supporting TRIDENT II submarines in 1989. I leave aside the question of the extent to which the new US Ohio class submarines will be dependent on North West Cape given their ability to operate close to the US coast with a multiplicity of redundant communication systems located on US territory. In relation to the claims about North West Cape being involved in a `first strike', I would like to point out that capabilities of particular new weapons systems do not determine whether those particular systems have a `first strike' or a retaliatory role in isolation from the wider strategic context. Apart from the question of the suitability of particular weapon systems, acquisition of a theoretical first strike capability would require: the ability to attack simultaneously all targets, including hardened missile silos, with sufficient accuracy, survivability, penetrability and destructive power to provide 100% certainty that they would be destroyed; confidence in achieving complete surprise; and the ability to destroy the adversaries' means of retaliating, including retaliation with bomber or submarine-carried weapons and with mobile ICBMs. It is most unlikely that these conditions could be satisfied in the foreseeable future by either superpower. According a high priority to hardened and military targets is not a recent development. All elements of US strategic forces have been and are capable of being used against military targets. Furthermore, accuracy is not the only criteria as to possible use in the early stages of nuclear conflict. Survivability and time taken to get on station are also important factors. Assuming the US had a first strike capacity or strategy-which it does not-it is most unlikely that sea based systems would be involved in a first strike. Indeed, the particular value of submarine based nuclear weapons is their survivability, and consequential deterrent value as retaliatory weapons. Finally let me remind the Honourable Senator of statements by US leaders including President Reagan and Secretary of Defence Weinberger, which have repeatedly emphasised that US strategy is purely defensive and that a pre-emptive or `first strike' by the US has been ruled out. Senator GIETZELT —On Monday Senator Townley asked me a question regarding the intention of the Department of Aviation in closing the briefing office at Hobart Airport. I have received the following information from the Minister for Aviation: The Department of Aviation is in the process of studying the manner in which aviation meteorological information is provided to the aviation industry. This is taking place in consultation with officials of the Bureau of Meteorology and representatives of the aviation industry. This is consistent with cost reduction principles envisaged in the report of the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery otherwise known as the Bosch report. Current proposals envisage that it will no longer be necessary for Bureau officers to provide face to face briefing at Launceston, Hobart, Port Hedland, Canberra, Tamworth, Mount Isa, Alice Springs, Cairns and Rockhampton. Weather information will continue to be available from officers of the Department of Aviation. Similar arrangements exist already at 32 other locations in Australia. These arrangements have operated successfully for a number of years at locations which include important centres such as Coolangatta, Albury, Derby, Mackay and Coffs Harbour. The proposals will not affect the availability of weather information to pilots. Observations will continue at their present level. If pilots require elaboration of material, they will be provided with access to a professional forecaster. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Child Care Act 1972, and for related purposes. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that at 8.30 a.m. today two senators submitted letters in accordance with standing order 64-Senator Colston proposing a matter of urgency and Senator Michael Baume proposing a matter of public importance. To decide which letter should be submitted to the Senate I determined the matter by lot in the presence of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition and others. In accordance with the result of that procedure I now read Senator Michael Baume's letter: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: `The impact of the Hawke Government's policies on interest rates and the value of the Australian dollar'. Yours sincerely, (MICHAEL BAUME) Senator for the State of New South Wales 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 MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.09) —The Government's own economic policies are the major cause of the present balance of payments crisis and the present enormous rates of interest-the highest real interest rates for at least 50 years and, in many instances, the highest ever. To solve this problem these policies have to be changed. What the Opposition is about is not knocking the currency; what we are doing is knocking the policies that have knocked the currency. It is counter-productive for the Government to repeat, whenever we make any criticism of its policies, that all the Opposition is seeking to do is to damage our international standing and our international currency. That is a vicious attempt to divert attention from its own, misdemeanours, from its own deliberate attempts to mislead the Australian people and the international markets as to the reality of what is happening to our currency, our interest rates and our economy. We are determined to keep knocking those policies so long as the Government maintains them and maintains its futile attempt to pursue policies dictated to it by the Australian Council of Trade Unions at the cost of the rest of Australia. I suppose that we in the Opposition have one comfort and that is the comfort of being able to say to the Government on this matter: We told you so. We have been warning the Government for the last two years about the sorts of big government policies that it has followed-the enormous spending, the record Budgets, the record deficits, the record taxes, particularly the record size of government, the record borrowing requirement, the record impacts on our money markets and therefore, of course, the record interest rates and the record disasters in our balance of payments. We have been warning that these are the inevitable consequences of the Government's policies. It has been standing on its record and it will sink on that record. Senator Teague —Sinking like the dollar. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —`Sinking like the dollar' is an appropriate interjection. The reality is that we should examine very simply not only what has happened, but what should be done to fix it. Clearly, what has happened is that interest rates have gone through the roof. They have not gone through the roof as a result of unfortunate circumstances. As I said, they have gone through the roof as a result of deliberate policies and in the face of promises by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Treasurer (Mr Keating) before an election which was held only one year ago that interest rates would fall. Senator Chaney —And since he has promised that. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As my Leader says, since then they have both promised that interest rates would fall. That kind of promise reflects, I believe, the integrity of the leadership of the Government. What has happened-is was inevitable and the Opposition warned it would happen-is that there has been a serious disadvantage to the people of Australia and there will continue to be a serious disadvantage while the Government which misled the Australian voters last November and December persists with those policies. These disadvantages will continue to be suffered by the people who were so misled. Let us look at the details of the rises in interest rates. The 10-year Commonwealth bonds, for example-the most secure investment in Australia-have gone up from 13 1/4 per cent to 15 3/4 per cent. Last November interest rates on housing loans were 11 1/2 per cent. They are now at the maximum rate of 13 per cent. If there were no artificial controls, as the Government seeks to mislead the people once again, savings bank interest rates would be way above 13 per cent. Building society interest rates have gone up from 13 per cent to 14 per cent. Finance company interest rates have increased by a minimum of 3 per cent. Overdraft rates were 13 1/2 per cent when the Prime Minister made his promise that interest rates would fall. They are now 18 1/2 per cent, an enormous rise, a rise that is crippling small business in particular, destroying Australian farmers and imposing intolerable burdens on the ability of the Australian business community to employ people in this nation. Of course, we then turn to the really big ones. I refer to the Reserve Bank's rediscount rate on treasury notes. When the Prime Minister gave his deliberately misleading promise last November, the Reserve Bank rediscount rate was 11.8 per cent. It is now 18.8 per cent, a rise of over 50 per cent. What sort of a government is it that can make that kind of disgraceful promise to the people and then, as a result of policies which must inevitably lead to this sort of problem, end up with these kinds of interest rates? That, of course, is only part of the problem that we now face. There must be this enormous level of interest rates on two grounds. The first ground is the need to apply monetary policy to restrain the inflationary forces at present in Australia. The exercise of monetary policy to this extent, with these huge increases in interest rates, is the direct result of governmental and official intervention in the markets. The government agencies, such as the Reserve Bank, are a major factor in the high level of interest rates. It has been putting them up and the Government has been taking the credit for the Reserve Bank putting up interest rates. I think every Australian should recognise that that is occurring under the polite expression of maintaining tight monetary policy. One has only to maintain tight monetary policy-at least monetary policy as tight as this-when one's fiscal policy is so bad, so incompetent and so loose that it does not work. It has been a failure of government fiscal policy that has brought about these enormous rises in interest rates and this incredible tightening of monetary policy which, of course, is now getting tighter, as the Treasurer said last night. Not only are interest rates going through the roof; they are a direct result of governmental intervention in the market-places. Why has the fiscal policy been so appalling? Very simply, it is because government spending has been excessive, because this Government refused to follow its own advice. Continually, the rhetoric from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister was that this Government would show restraint. As a result it has brought to this nation the three biggest Budget deficits in our history. It is all very well for the Government to say that the latest Budget deficit involves a reduction and that the latest Budget involves only a very small increase in overall government spending of about one and a bit per cent. The fact is that these three Budget deficits are far higher than any introduced by any previous government. I remind the Senate that the last Budget deficit of the previous Government, in the midst of an economic disaster, the worst drought for 50 years and a world recession, totalled $4.5 billion. Senator Aulich —What about the next one? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am glad to hear that interjection. The next one was $8.5 billion and that came from the Australian Labor Party. It came after it added $2.5 billion of its own additional spending programs to the Budget. This whole economic disaster began when an irresponsible Labor Government in 1983 added $2.5 billion in extra spending to its Budget. That is shown in the Budget Papers, if the honourable senator cares to look at them. Clearly, the reality is that had this Government not added that $2.5 billion, it would have had a deficit that year of about $6 billion which maybe we could have lived with and which, by the way, was in direct line and absolutely in keeping with the forecast that the then Treasurer, Mr John Howard, had made before the election. That deficit figure was distorted and disgracefully misused by honourable senators opposite. The simple fact is that the Government has been long on rhetoric. It has continually said that it will cut government spending to be responsible, and it has not done so. When it talked about cutting government expenditure, in the May 1983 mini-Budget, it did not do so. It added more to the August Budget. The same thing happened last year and the same thing happened this year. It talked about expenditure cuts earlier in the year. When the Budget was brought down it announced increased spending which will overwhelm those spending cuts next year. So here we have monetary policy. The huge interest rates are the direct consequence of lax, incompetent, fiscal management by this Government, a government which pretends it knows what it is doing. We have always said that the freedom of the money markets that the Government very properly introduced would expose the Government to the risk of discipline if it misbehaves because now the Government has nowhere to hide. Misbehaviour will ultimately and simply be seen in what happens to the value of our currency and what happens to our interest rates. This misbehaviour is now bringing the Government the reward it so justly deserves. Monetary policy is only one reason why interest rates are going through the roof. The other is the need to attract foreign currency into Australia, to attract foreign investors to invest in Australia, because of our balance of payments crisis. We have to have a very high interest rate otherwise no one in the international markets would be prepared to buy Australian dollars. Why should they when they look at the balance of payments situation? There is a fundamental problem in the balance of payments due, once again, to the direct incompetence and mismanagement of the Labor Government. Its sins are eventually catching up with it. What are the facts about the fundamental imbalance? We have heard Ministers in this place and the Treasurer say that we cannot take too much notice of one month's balance of payments figures-that is the October figures-which show a deficit of $1,600m. That is the biggest deficit for one month in Australia's history. They say that we cannot take too much notice of that. But is it not remarkable that they do not say what is the total of the first four months of this financial year. They do not say what the total deficit for that period is. That is not taking notice of just one month; it is taking the trend so far this year. That trend has brought us a $5,000m deficit on our balance of payments current account. That is absolutely disastrous. If that rate were to continue for the rest of the year it would result in a 50 per cent worsening in last year's record current account deficit. I do not expect that that will happen. I expect that things will get a little less worse, if I can use that expression, but the trend so far this year has been disastrous. Even when we apply the seasonal adjustments, which I notice some of the apologists for the Government have been talking about, as reported in a few of the newspapers this morning, we still end up with the same kind of disaster. When we adjust the trade balance seasonally it still shows a doubling in the deficit over the first four months of the financial year. Let us not hear any nonsense about how, if we adjust the figures for seasonal factors, we end up with a much less worse situation. The reality is that if we adjust the figures for seasonal conditions or anything else, the trend so far this year has been utterly disastrous and needs a change of policy. What will this Government do about changing that policy? It says: `Perhaps we do not have to change it all that much because things will get better. The J curve will start picking up'. Without going into this too much, it seems that Mr Keating has great difficulty in picking a decent bottom. He certainly has not picked the bottom of the J curve. As we have seen, the figures keep going down. He says that things will get a little worse before they get a lot better. It seems to be the other way around. Things are getting a lot worse before they get a little better. For the rest of this financial year we are certain to find a reduced contribution by the rural sector to our exports. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics recently forecast that rural exports this year will be only about the same as they were last year, yet in the first four months of the financial year they have risen by 18 per cent. If they are to be only roughly equal to last year's exports over the full financial year, their contribution for the remaining eight months will certainly be much lower. That will cause a problem to our balance of payments. What about our defence spending? In the first four months of this year it appears that defence spending, particularly on the parts and components of the FA18s which are put into shape in Australia, represents only a small proportion of imports. Yet for the remainder of the year, unless the Government suddenly discovers an urgent need to reschedule those payments, there should be some significant purchases on that score. Helping our exports in the first four months is another factor that will certainly disappear in the long run. We had a large amount of fuel exports as we had temporary surplus in oil. How long that will continue I would not like to guess, but the reality is that in many exports we cannot expect a major improvement. It is very difficult to see where we will get an enormous sudden reduction in imports which will bring about the improvement this Government needs if its Budget targets are to be anywhere near met. That is the big issue. How far out will the Government's Budget-time estimates be as a result of these first disastrous four months? It is absolutely vital to the money markets and to all Australians that the Government stop pretending that everything is all right. We saw the first chink in the armour last night when the Treasurer admitted that his Budget forecasts of demand, of growth, were excessive. He said that was one reason for the excessive increase in imports in the first four months and that, as a result, he will tighten the money screws more. Interest rates will keep going up by the look of things, because the Treasurer is now determined to tighten down the economy again. He has to do that because his fiscal policy is so poor. He has to use interest rates. At least he is now admitting, for the first time, that the Government was wrong. We have been telling him that for a long time. What about the rest of the Government? The Treasurer admitted last night that things were a bit wrong. What about Senator Walsh? He is on record only this week as saying that the Government would not sacrifice growth just to maintain the value of the dollar. These fellows ought to get their act together. What about Mr Willis? He said that if some substantial deterioration that looks as though it will last is built into the system, the Government will have to reconsider its position. Mr Hawke does not reconsider anything. He is still living in the fairyland which enabled him to forecast a couple of days ago that our balance of payments deficit will be down to around 4 per cent of gross domestic product at the end of the year-a target which is absolutely impossible. It seems to me to be vital that if we are to have any stabilising of the markets, any confidence in the Australian dollar, the Government has to come clean. It has to say what its real forecasts now are for the balance of payments situation for the year. If it does not, there will be no confidence in the market and no confidence in the dollar. The disastrous trip overseas by the Treasurer helped the fall in the dollar because he had nothing to say except the normal nonsense about `She'll be right, mate, on the night'. We are now seeing that she is not right at all. What are the vital things that have to be done? What are the policy changes that are absolutely needed? In the first place, we have to cut the big spending policy. That means real, significant cuts in government spending. The main thing that needs to be changed is the wages policy, dictated to this Government by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the automatic full indexation of wages. The phoney discounting of 2 per cent next year that we have heard about is to be totally offset by a tax cut paid for by the farmers and small businessmen of Australia. Failure to discount fully for the impact of devaluation is a disaster. It is one of the reasons for the collapse in our balance of payments situation. It is certainly one of the reasons for the collapse in our foreign exchange markets. It is certainly increasing the costs of those in Australia who are trying to compete in world markets. It is certainly one of the reasons why I confidently expect the Government that has followed these policies to be thrown out at the next election. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.29) —This afternoon we are debating a matter which has been proposed by Senator Michael Baume from New South Wales and which states: The impact of the Hawke Government's policies on interest rates and the value of the Australian dollar. It is very important, in addressing oneself to the matter that has been put forward today by Senator Michael Baume, to place on the record for the Senate the interest rate history under the Fraser-Howard Liberal Government. In early 1980 the interest rate on savings bank first mortgages was 9 1/2 per cent. By early 1982 it had risen by four whole percentage points to 13 1/2 per cent. That is the interest rate record in the declining years of the Fraser-Howard Administration. One wonders just what the Opposition is seeking to achieve by proposing this matter of public importance for discussion. Is the Opposition in favour of continuing economic growth in Australia or is it espousing a policy of no economic growth? Are members of the Opposition in fact economic pessimists who feel happy only when the economy is depressed or when there is declining production and falling levels of employment? Are they the so-called new conservatives of Australia-those people who take an ideological view of conservative politics and are essentially happy only in an economy with high bankruptcy rates, where they believe bankruptcies in fact weed out the weak producers in industry so that only the fittest survive? Is that the doctrine and the dogma that they subscribe to in proposing the matter we are discussing today? I think, in fact, the matter of public importance really implies that the Opposition is in favour of a situation of no economic growth in this country. That is what I think it really boils down to. Of course, since 1983 the Labor Government has broken decisively with the past economic policies in this country. We have embarked this country on a policy of economic growth, not a policy of economic stagnation. Under the previous Administration, particularly when Mr Howard was Treasurer, we had an economy with high excess capacity and underutilisation of plant and equipment. That was done deliberately as a matter of policy, essentially to keep price and cost levels down in the community. The only remedy that the previous Government had for cost and price rises was to run the economy with a high degree of slack and excess capacity. This Government has turned its back on those policies and has given Australia a controlled economic stimulus. We have been able to do that with lower inflationary pressures than were applied under the previous Fraser-Howard Administration. The centrepiece of the Government's policy is, in fact, our incomes policy. We have been able to embark on a controlled stimulus to the Australian economy without the inflationary pressures which accompanied previous policies that were operated by the present Opposition. In turn, the centrepiece of that incomes policy is the accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Within that accord we have been able to define the concept of a social wage. The accord takes a broader view of income than just wages. A key element of the accord has been the indexation of wages for cost rises brought about by inflation increases. Vital to that, of course, has been the centralised wage fixing system through the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Of course, the Liberal Party Opposition does not support such a centralised wage fixing system. However, the centralised wage fixing system will enable this Government to discount future wage rises by up to 2 per cent for the increase in the level of inflation due to devaluation of the dollar. Effect will be given to that discounting in the next national wage case, to be heard next April, when wage rises based on the last two quarters are awarded. As a part of the accord with the ACTU we are operating a policy of awarding income tax cuts in return for discounting wage rises that would be awarded as a result of the inflationary effects of devaluation. That arrangement has been accepted by the trade unions, which recognise that disposable incomes will rise as a result of tax cuts that will take effect from September next year as a trade-off. Discounting will quarantine the price effects of devaluation of the Australian dollar. Of course, any policy espoused by the present Opposition just could not do that. It could not achieve that result, particularly, as I have indicated already, as the Opposition would scrap Australia's centralised wage fixing system which is operated through the Arbitration Commission. As a result of our policy, import price rises will have less effect on wages; hence, the subsequent effects of wage rises on prices will be lower. International agencies have been painting some very glowing pictures of the Australian economy under the policies of the Hawke Government. There have been accolades from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the organisation of the world's developed industrialised countries based in Paris. The OECD has painted some very positive pictures of the Australian economy. On Monday of this week a report released by the National Australia Bank in conjunction with the Australian Chamber of Commerce indicated that `cost pressures for business eased significantly in the September quarter'. So, the Australian Chamber of Commerce is saying that in the September quarter of this year cost pressures faced by business were down and eased significantly compared with what they were in previous quarters. A survey has been published by the Westpac Banking Corporation in conjunction with the Melbourne University Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. This forward index of economic growth indicates that Australia has and will have the strongest economic growth of any major Western industrialised country. That is a far cry from what happened in the past under the Fraser-Howard regime. I thought the Australian Financial Review, in an article on 29 August this year, summarised the position very appropriately under a headline which said-- Senator Michael Baume —Have a look at today's Australian Financial Review. Senator MAGUIRE —I point out to Senator Michael Baume that the headline was `The Australian economy now the best in the west'. That is what we have achieved. Seeing that Senator Michael Baume is so keen on quoting from today's newspapers, I would also like to refer to a major article in today's Sydney Morning Herald in which Mr Gittins referred to the achievements of this Government. Mr Gittins pointed out that in the two and a half years of the administration of Australia by the Hawke Government we have continuously had 5 per cent per annum real economic growth. I believe that by the end of this financial year that will accumulate to around 15 per cent economic growth over and above the inflation rate. We have the lowest real labour costs per unit of production since the early 1970s, and that has been a major boost for industry in Australia. Of course, as I indicated earlier, this situation has been made possible by the trade-off through the social wage. We have the lowest level of strikes in Australia for 16 years. There is now far less dislocation and disruption in our country than has been the case in the last 16 years. Admittedly, Mr Acting Deputy President, I regret to say, the situation is not so good in your State of Queensland. However, in the rest of Australia there has been a tremendous reduction in the level of industrial disputation. Under the accord this Government has operated a policy of industrial consultation, in marked contrast to the policy of industrial confrontation which applied under the Fraser-Howard Government and which is also practised under the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland. I would simply like to point out that in my own State of South Australia, under the Government of Mr John Bannon, the number of days lost per employee as a result of industrial disputes has now fallen to the level in Japan. The rate of days lost in Australia now is similar to that of a country which has one of the lowest rates of industrial disputes in the world. I think it is a very big achievement for South Australia to have a record similar to that of one of our major trading partners. Under this Government the rate of inflation has been reduced significantly. We have ended the period of high inflation that existed under the Fraser-Howard Government. All honourable senators will be aware that for many years the policy espoused by the Fraser-Howard regime was that of fighting inflation first. The members of that Government said on public platforms around the country for many years that they would fight inflation first; but look at the result. Consumer price increases were running at a rate of 11 1/2 per cent per annum in the 12 months before we assumed the treasury bench. That was the rate of increase under the party that said that it would fight inflation first. It said that it rejected the notion of double digit inflation. Yet, it bequeathed to the Australian people a rate of inflation of 11 1/2 per cent. We have reduced that rate to 7.6 per cent. Senator Michael Baume would be well aware that the 2.2 per cent rise in the September quarter was very well received in the Australian community. I think that Senator Michael Baume was an adviser to Mr Howard during part of the Fraser-Howard Government period. In the last year of office of that Government 180,000 jobs were lost in Australia. That was the record of that Government under Mr Fraser and Mr Howard. They brought the manufacturing industry to its knees. Labor promised in 1983 that it would create half a million new jobs in the first three years of its administration. The record speaks for itself. This Government has been in office for just 2 1/2 years. Already 460,000 extra employment positions have been created, so we are well on target for meeting that objective of half a million jobs in three years. I remind honourable senators that at the National Economic Summit Conference in April 1983 the decision was taken and the Summit advised the Government that its policy should be to fight inflation and unemployment simultaneously. That is what we are doing. The legacy left by Mr Howard when he was Treasurer was high unemployment and high inflation. The National Economic Summit indicated to this Government that it should fight high unemployment and high inflation simultaneously. I point out that we are doing just that. Of all the new jobs being created, over 80 per cent are being created in the private sector. They are not band-aid jobs; they do not result from make work schemes. They are permanent jobs in the private sector. As a result of that rapid rate of new job creation we have seen a marked fall in unemployment. The peak rate of unemployment in the recession which resulted from the policies of the Fraser-Howard Administration was a massive 10.4 per cent-double digit unemployment. We reduced that rate in October this year to 7.8 per cent, a marked reduction in the unemployment rate. For the first time since September 1982, unemployment is now below 8 per cent. Of course, the 7.8 per cent unemployment rate is unsatisfactory. I do not believe that it is acceptable. We will be making sure that unemployment continues to fall. In just 2 1/2 years since the National Economic Summit this Government has reduced not just the absolute level of unemployment but the actual unemployment rate by a quarter. Other economic indicators show the strength of the Australian economy under the Labor Administration, but, as I have said before in this place, the bottom line is the reduced level of bankruptcies in the community. It can be said that over the whole period of the Fraser-Howard Government one of the few growth industries was the growth in receiverships and liquidation. It is really illuminating just to look at the figures on bankruptcies under the Fraser Administration and under the Labor Government because in the last financial year in which the Liberal Party governed this country there were 5,151 bankruptcies. In the financial year 1984-85, which has just finished, the number of bankruptcies has been reduced by 8.2 per cent to 4,727. I am pleased to say that since the end of the financial year the preliminary figures show that the number of bankruptcies is continuing to fall in Australia as a whole. However, I regret that Queensland is not pulling its weight. Over the last two years, while bankruptcies have fallen by 8.2 per cent nationally, they have risen by 42.4 per cent in Queensland-a dismal economic record indeed. Under the Liberal Party the exchange rate for the Australian dollar was fixed. That Government operated an interventionist policy to maintain the exchange rate. In today's jargon it was a policy of regulation. That was how the Liberal Government set the exchange rate. Of course, those opposite now say that they support markets and the market orientation of policies. They accuse the Labor Party of being the regulatory party of this country but the fact is that it was the Liberal Party that operated a fixed exchange rate involving intervention and regulation. It was Labor that deregulated the Australian dollar. The exchange rate is now floating. It is set by market forces, essentially by supply and demand in the market place. The Liberals opposite do not seem to like that type of policy. They do not seem to like the practical effects of market forces while they espouse them in theory and on paper. In a perfect market there are many buyers and sellers. Perhaps it can be said that in our infant foreign exchange market in Australia there are still relatively few transactions. Activity is on a small scale. That could be reflected in the rates that are set in that market. Those opposite deny that the positive effects of the devaluation of the currency will take time to work through the system. They cannot seem to wait for those positive effects to show up. As a result of a devaluation the first thing to rise is import prices, essentially because there will be a number of goods in transit-on the water so to speak. There is no scope to reduce the volume of those imports, so there tends to be an increase in prices and, therefore, in import values, immediately after a devaluation takes place. It takes some time for the volume effects of a devaluation to work their way through the system. It is only when volume falls that the value of imports is likely to be reduced. The Government has said repeatedly that there will be little beneficial effect of the devaluation on the balance of payments in the period from July to the end of December. In that period, we expect little positive effect on the Australian balance of payments. Essentially, it seems that the Opposition cannot wait. It seems to want policy responses but we have said repeatedly that the effect will not show up during the current calendar year. We have also indicated time and again that the slowing of domestic demand and expenditure during the financial year which will end at the end of June will help the balance of payments. It is very noticeable that less than one-third of the total balance of payments deficit recorded for October was due to physical trade factors. Less than one-third related to the excess of imports over exports. The great majority was in other areas of the balance of payments, including the so-called invisible items in the balance of payments. I believe that that reflects the long term effect of Liberal Party policy of not developing Australian industry to get into the trading sector. I instance Australian freight and shipping, which have been neglected for years. We could have done a lot better in those areas in the long term to shore up the balance of payments. I believe that it is very difficult for the Liberals to raise such subjects as they have not put forward any policies to correct the situation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.50) —We are debating a matter of public importance relating to the Government's policies on interest rates and the value of the Australian dollar which, it is suggested, have been disastrous. We heard an impassioned contribution from the Opposition spokesman in this debate, Senator Michael Baume, who for some time was an adviser to the Liberal Party Treasurer, Mr Howard. Much of Senator Michael Baume's time was taken up in talking about the size of our deficit and comparing current deficits with those under a Liberal government. Unfortunately, he insisted on talking of deficits in terms of actual dollars rather than as a percentage of gross domestic product. Unless one does that, because of the inflation factor one does not really understand what the real value of the deficit is in relation to past years. In the time available to me I want to argue the case that the Government's economic policy cannot be said to be an abject failure just because of the fall of the dollar. We must look at two aspects of Government policy-the macro-economic side which includes unemployment, the Budget, interest rates and wages, and the long term economic policies of the Government which includes its industrial policy which impinges on imports and exports. First, I want to dispel two basic fallacies which seem to be accepted as gospel by the Opposition, by the Press and even by the Government itself. Let us look at the proposition that the strength of the Australian dollar reflects in some real and direct way the strength of the Australian economy. I do not believe this to be the case. The price of the dollar at the moment is set by the money market dealers-cum-speculators who buy and sell currencies simply in order to make a profit out of currency movements around the world. These people survive by guessing what the movement of foreign currency will be and, to be successful, they must stay ahead of their competitors. The last person out of a falling currency stands to lose his shirt-certainly large amounts of money. Currency dealers trade on rumours, psychological factors and how they think other currency traders will react to certain economic indicators. Senator Michael Baume —The market. Senator SIDDONS —Well, essentially they are speculators. Currency dealers are panic merchants rather than rational assessors of economic performance in any one country. Their judgments on economics plainly do not deserve the reverence that our Press seems to give them. Senator Michael Baume —They can't keep swimming against the fundamentals. Senator SIDDONS —Let us look at the currencies and the strength of economies around the world. The plain facts are that a free floating exchange rate does not work. I know saying that is attacking one of the current sacred cows in this country, and I intend to do just that. Despite Japan's enormous trade surplus, its yen has been kept artificially low in money markets for many years. On the other hand, the United States dollar is overvalued to the point where it is killing off American manufacturing industry. America is running a record trade deficit and a record budget deficit, and is financing all this with overseas borrowings. Yet the American dollar has been at record levels and is even requiring intervention by major central banks to force down its price before American manufacturing industry is completely wrecked. The English pound, on the other hand, has fluctuated wildly over the past years but that has had very little to do with the state of the United Kingdom economy, which has remained in the doldrums and has fluctuated very little. The only stable currencies around the world are the European currencies which are largely regulated and pegged against each other in the European monetary system. If Australia wants a stable currency, it must lend its support to the growing movement pressing for international monetary reform. That is what we need. Australia should lend its voice to world opinion and see that that happens. The second fallacy is another article of faith that I wish to attack. It is an article of faith, which again is taken as gospel certainly by the Opposition and large sections of the media, that the accord and the dollar are connected and that if the accord were scrapped the dollar would automatically rise. I do not believe that this argument can be sustained. I believe that there is no causal connection here. As I said earlier, the value of the currency is set by the gambling instincts of the financial market. Who knows what would happen if we scrapped the accord and deregulated the labour market? I think the most likely immediate outcome would be industrial chaos. Strong unions would go for whatever they could and would be successful in securing higher wages-more than they have been under the accord. This would lead to an endless round of flow-ons as other sectors of industry sought to catch up. Inflation would increase, strikes would certainly increase, and very likely disruptions would go through the roof. The economy, especially the export sector, would suffer and no doubt in the industrial mayhem that could well be precipitated by scrapping the accord currency dealers could get the jitters and the dollar could fall like a stone to the bottom. It is a pity that the only solution the Opposition has offered to Australia's very serious economic problem at the moment is the deregulation of the labour market. Senator Short —That is not the only solution. Senator SIDDONS —Well, that is the solution that has been put across in the last few days. I heard the shadow Treasurer say just that last night in an Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast. The facts are that it is a very doubtful approach to our problems which has nothing to support it in history. If we go back to the 1980s we know that in 1981 the Fraser Government largely deregulated the labour markets. It lost faith in centralised wage fixing. It allowed the metal industries to negotiate direct with the metal unions and to negotiate a massive 9 per cent wage increase. It flowed right through the industry and did not stop the strikes. Senator Michael Baume —How did it flow on? It was because of the centralised system. Senator SIDDONS —It was not. It was decentralised and it was union-to-industry negotiation, which is what the Fraser Government encouraged. It led to a wage explosion the like of which we had not seen in a long time. I believe that the Government must intervene to even out fluctuations in the dollar rather than just jack up interest rates. That is one approach but a very dangerous approach-an approach used by the New Zealand Government-and it has disastrous effects on the economy. I believe that the Government has got to interfere to the degree that is possible bearing in mind our international reserves, the nature of the money markets and so forth. Exchange controls could also be considered. The important point is that we should not crucify the economy with high interest rates simply to protect the currency. There are alternatives. I am not saying that in the immediate future we can avoid high interest rates. Of course, we have to continue to attract foreign capital into the country to keep ourselves afloat, but the long term economic problem is the one we should address and the Government is not addressing it, and it is by far the more important problem. Essentially, we have two options. Either we stop importing, or we export more. Of those two options we should be focusing on the need to export more-and we can export more if we can get our industries internationally competitive. We need a rebirth of industry in this country, and we will not get it unless there is a government initiative in this area. Our manufacturing sector can quickly earn us foreign currency. Unfortunately, our farming and mineral sectors are governed by commodity prices around the world and they cannot react quickly. Our manufacturing industries could if there were a rebirth of efficiency and if they became internationally competitive. I have put to the Parliament and to the Government-I hope the Government will take note of this-that worker participation is the essential way to get our industries internationally competitive. We have to rely on the brainpower, initiative and expertise of the workers in our industries. We have to use their ideas and their suggestions, as the Japanese do. If we change our attitude to management we will quickly get our industries to a stage where they can export to any country. Only when our industry is motivated to achieve that will Australia's long term economic problems be solved. We have a real balance of payments problem but it is hypocritical for either of the major parties to blame the other. Our foreign debt was rising at an extraordinarily fast rate over the last years of the Fraser Government; it is currently rising under the Hawke Government. It is our dependence on foreign investment and foreign borrowings that is the essential problem with the Australian economy and the Australian dollar. We have to get away from this. We should be restricting foreign borrowings. I am not suggesting that we can do that straight away but in the long term we have to restrict foreign borrowings. We have to say that we will be more self-sufficient than we have been. It was the Fraser Government's policy to encourage foreign money into Australia to finance the resources boom that did not happen. It was Fraser Government policy to encourage the takeover of Australian manufacturing industry and this is also the Hawke Government's policy. This is not leading to Australia's independence; it is not leading to Australia's self-reliance; it is not helping Australia's exports. If we are fundamentally to fix the problems of our currency and the balance of trade we have to look at the fundamental issues. As I have said, industry is the only quick alternative. We have to get our industries competitive internationally. It can be done. It is a great pity that the Hawke Government has not turned, as one would expect a Labor Government to do, to the manufacturing sector and said: `Here is the solution to our problem. How can we get this sector of the economy moving rapidly? How can we get an enthusiasm throughout our economy? How can we be self-reliant and efficient and export? Why cannot we invest funds specifically at those areas of the manufacturing sector which would give us the quickest return in export dollars?'. That is the long term solution; in the short term I believe it is nonsense to try to get a direct connection between the value of the Australian dollar and the performance of the economy. There is no direct connection. We have to take into account the highly speculative aspect of foreign currency markets around the world. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.04) —In speaking to this important matter today, I mention two basic facts which the Government cannot conceivably deny. However, before doing that I will pick up a couple of the remarks of Senator Siddons and Senator Maguire, who led in the debate for the Government. One has to dismiss Senator Maguire's contribution as an amazingly weak apologia which showed not the vaguest understanding of the problems facing Australia. That total lack of understanding is merely indicative of the lack of understanding which pervades the Government's management of the economy at this time. In support of that statement, I quote an excellent article from today's Sydney Press which cites a very respected economist, Mr Ray Block, the Chief Economist of the investment bank Dominguez Barry Samuel Montagu. The article pointed out: Australia's record October current account deficit of $1,640 million- that is $1.6 billion in a month- emphasises yet again the `foolishness' of the Federal Government's economic strategy . . . He said the Government was hiding its head in the sand. Mr Block said this mentality was epitomised by remarks of the Finance Minister, Senator Walsh, last week. Senator Walsh said the Government would not sacrifice growth just to maintain the value of the dollar. It is not possible to understand the basic economic parameters of this economy and at the same time to make that remark. Mr Block continued: On balance, the Government's dilemma is that, locked into an unfavourable agreement with the trade unions, it has no flexibility with little room for manoeuvre other than to beat the economy with a Draconian interest rate policy. Worst of all, as Mr Block pointed out, the Government does not really understand why it is at fault in the situation in which Australia finds itself. Two basic facts which the Government cannot deny are: Firstly, interest rates in Australia today are at their highest level in at least 50 years when account is taken of inflation. Some calculations indicate that they are at their highest level in more than 100 years. The second basic fact which the Government cannot deny is that the value of the Australian dollar against other currencies in recent times has been at its lowest in at least the 40 years since the Second World War. Those two facts have major implications for every Australian. Let us look quickly at those implications. The fall in the value of the Australian dollar has lowered the standard of living of every Australian. It means that Australia now has to sell more of its goods and services overseas in order to buy just the same amount of goods and services from overseas that it did a year ago. Since the beginning of 1985-only 10 short months ago-the value of the Australian dollar has fallen by more than one-quarter. That means that for every $4 needed in January to buy goods and services from overseas we now need $5. Thus, as I have said, the standard of living of every Australian has fallen. This fall in the value of the Australian dollar also adds to inflation because it increases the cost of imported goods and services. The figures show clearly that inflation in Australia is now on the rise again. It is now running at an annual rate of between 7 and 7 1/2 per cent. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) estimated in his 1985 Budget that inflation will rise to 8 per cent in 1985-86. Senator Michael Baume —That is understated. Senator SHORT —I believe, as does Senator Baume, that that figure is understated and that by June 1986 inflation will run closer to 10 per cent annually. But even 8 per cent is too high for our domestic well-being and it is far too high on an international competitive basis. It is an inflation rate more than double that of some of our major trading partners, notably Japan, and it is well above the average inflation rate of our dozen or so main trading partners. Senator Michael Baume —It would be three or four times Japan's rate. Senator SHORT —That is right. The fall in the value of the dollar is adding massively to our foreign debt, our repayment of debt and the interest on that debt. Our foreign debt now totals approximately $70 billion and that is more than twice its level only two years ago. A large part of that increase is owed because of the fall in the value of the Australian dollar. We now need $1 in every $3 that we earn from exports simply to meet our foreign debt repayment obligations. That figure is dangerously high particularly at this time when the prospects for many of our export industries are far from encouraging. Apart from its inherent dangers, this increase in our foreign debt and debt obligations also constitutes a direct reduction in the standard of living of all Australians. The massive rise in interest rates over recent months-as I have said, they are at their highest level for at least 50 years-is another contributor to the inflationary spiral now re-emerging in Australia. These staggering interest rate costs which Senator Michael Baume outlined earlier-I will not repeat them-affect everyone in our community. They affect people buying their homes, who are hit by rising repayments which they could not possibly have budgeted for; people seeking rental accommodation are forced to pay higher rents; investment becomes a very costly and risky proposition, so it is quite simply not undertaken in many instances; and small businesses, which traditionally operate on overdraft arrangements, are being mauled by the interest rate factor. This damage is not only to the business owners but also to those whom they employ. The rural sector, already facing difficulties with its export markets, depressed commodity prices and rising internal costs, now finds itself saddled with a further heavy interest cost burden-at a time when farmers are in no earthly condition to carry that burden as they face a projected fall of 26 per cent in the value of rural production this year. Indeed, we have on our hands in Australia a rural crisis of considerable magnitude, a crisis which the Hawke Labor Government seems not even to acknowledge exists. It is illuminating and I believe quite devastating to compare these movements in interest rates and their harsh consequences for all Australians with the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Treasurer (Mr Keating) during the 1984 election campaign. Ten days before the 1984 election the Prime Minister said: What I can be certain about is that there will be a continued downward movement in interest rates. Senator Michael Baume —That was along with no capital gains tax. Senator SHORT —That is right. On the same day he said: The outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. Treasurer Keating said during the election campaign: I think there is an interest rate step fall ahead for Australia and its interest rate structure generally throughout 1985. The Prime Minister, just after the 1984 election, said: Australia is a country which doesn't need an increase in interest rates and it is not going to get it. So much for the fine words of the Prime Minister and his Treasurer. These statements on interest rates were no less untrue than the Prime Minister's now infamous promise during the 1983 election: `There will be no capital gains tax'. What we have now are record high interest rates and firm government proposals for the introduction of a capital gains tax. I remind the Senate of the wording of the Opposition's matter of public importance today: The impact of the Hawke Government's policies on interest rates and the value of the Australian dollar. I have stated the facts about interest rates in Australia today and about the value of the dollar. I have also outlined the implications that flow from those facts. They add up to a very sorry tale, a very worrying picture of the problems the Australian economy is currently experiencing and which it will face over the period ahead. The question, of course, is whether it is fair to sheet these problems home to the Hawke Labor Government's policies. As I said in this chamber last week, I do not pretend that the government of the day, whichever government that may be, can be expected to have the answers to all these problems. However, governments can and do set the economic environment which determines in large measure whether these problems will arise in the first place and to what degree. There can be no possible doubt that the economic policies and the economic mismanagement of this Hawke Labor Government have had a major adverse impact on interest rates and on the value of the dollar, and therefore a major adverse impact on inflation, unemployment and living standards in this country. It is an enormous myth that over the past two and a half years the Hawke Labor Government has demonstrated itself to be an efficient economic manager. That is a myth and a hoax. The facts show that very clearly, none more so than the crippling interest rates we face in Australia today and the record low value of the Australian dollar. Which policies of the Hawke Government are causing our existing economic problems? There are many, including the frighteningly loose monetary policy. However, two stand out beyond all the others. These are the Government's profligate approach to its own spending and the Government's strong and unholy alliance with the trade union movement in perpetuating a wage fixing system in Australia which bears no relationship whatever to the economic needs and realities Australia faces. I would like to say something about these two policies. In relation to government spending, in the first two Keating Budgets, government spending increased at a faster rate than under any other government in Australia's post-war history, with the one notorious exception of the bankrupting Whitlam years. It is true that the rate of increase in spending was cut back in the third Keating Budget in 1985, but even allowing for this, when the three Labor Budgets are averaged out spending still has increased by almost 5 per cent each year in real terms, still making this the second highest spending government in our post-war history and far in excess of what was in the best interests of our nation and therefore our people. When the Hawke Labor Government spends at that rate it also has to tax at that rate. As well as being the highest spending government in Australia's history it is the highest taxing government. Under the Hawke Labor Government, taxation takes a higher share of total national production than at any other time in our history. Even that record level of government spending and, therefore, taxation has not been sufficient to match the record increases in the profligate spending. Over the last three Budgets alone this Government has borrowed an additional approximately $20,000m to meet the gap between its spending and its revenue figures. That represents $1,250 for every man, woman and child in this country. If it is put on a taxpayer basis, it is closer to $3,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. That borrowing has to be repaid, and it has to be repaid with interest. This year the interest bill alone, leaving aside altogether any repayment of the borrowing, is more than we Australians spend on the total defence of our country and more than the Federal Government spends on education. It is more than the Federal Government spends on health, even with the enormous drag of Medicare. For every $1 that the Hawke Government now raises in taxes it has to use more than 10c in each dollar simply to repay its borrowings. Senator Michael Baume —Just for the interest, not the repayments? Senator SHORT —That is right; just the interest. That is the prime reason for the record interest rate situation we have in this country. It is the result of irresponsible and misguided fiscal policy by the Government. The other reason, of course, is involved with the plummeting value of the Australian dollar. The other aspect of major concern, as I said, is the wages situation facing this country. The unreality of the Hawke Government-Australian Council of Trade Unions wages deal is perhaps the main reason why the international community in recent days has passed such a damning and costly judgment on the Australian economy by marking the Australian dollar down to record low levels. If I may say so in my concluding seconds, for Senator Siddons to say, as he did today, that the factor affecting the dollar is just international speculators at play, is incredibly naive. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has exprired. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(4.19) —As far as my contribution to the debate is concerned, I ask right at the beginning why this issue is being raised today. I think it is pretty fair to summarise the reasons for that as being basically party political, relating to a brawl that is occurring within the Liberal Party of Australia in this Parliament. It relates to some of the people who engaged in-I should not call it a conspiracy; there must be a word that comes close to that, but for the time being conspiracy will do-a conspiracy to make sure that Mr Peacock did not remain Leader of the Liberal Party. Having succeeded in getting rid of him, members of the Liberal Party now have to face some of the consequences of the policies that John Howard brought into the Party room with him. Senator Michael Baume —With the economy in its present condition all you can talk about is party politics. Senator AULICH —I think the person who leads a political party must count as a very important factor in all matters economic and political. If the honourable senator, who worked so hard to ensure that he stabbed his previous leader in the back, is so unconcerned about the importance of leadership, he ought not to have engaged in that activity in the first place. Senator Baume has brought into this chamber today a motion to cover up the problems that he is having with his own leader, the leader that he helped to create through the sort of conspiracy in which he was involved at the time. That is not just my viewpoint; it is the viewpoint of a number of honourable senators on the other side who are more than willing to talk about this issue. It is also the viewpoint of the Australian Financial Review of Wednesday, 13 November. I shall read a couple of paragraphs from that newspaper to indicate quite clearly that many commentators around this Parliament believe exactly what I have just said. The article stated: In a dramatic turnaround which has left key members of the Federal Opposition backbench annoyed and disenchanted with the new leadership, the Liberals yesterday decided ahead of the legislation to oppose the so-called `nasties' in the tax package while supporting the tax cuts. Some backbenchers are concerned that the division over tax tactics has the potential to undermine what should be a dream run for the Opposition . . . The article went on: The Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, yesterday admitted that the change to their previous policy of not specifying their position on all but capital gains tax until the legislation is introduced, was to some extent bowing to political pressure. The Howard Opposition has been criticised from both within the Coalition parties and among business groups for not taking a tougher stand against the package. But some backbenchers are dismayed at this vacillation, fearing that it will leave them open to the charge of hypocrisy and will affect their credibility and effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . Backbenchers believed to be opposed to the new policy position include those in the so-called Peacock camp but also comprise those close to Mr Howard such as Senator Michael Baume. There it is in a nutshell-Senator Baume is attempting in this chamber to overcome some of the problems that he is having with his own political party. That is fine; that is his problem, but I am not sure that he should be wasting the time of this House bringing forward matters of public importance such as this to get himself off the ideological hook that he himself created. Let us look at some of the areas that have caused problems for honourable senators opposite. For many years Mr Howard when in government attempted to put through his own government two areas of policy. He failed totally and utterly. They were the questions of the deregulation of the banking system, allowing foreign banks into Australia to provide proper competition and to give our own banks access to markets and contacts abroad; and the floating of the Australian dollar to ensure that it reached a level at which it would no longer be a burden upon our export industries. Those two absolutely vital decisons had to be made by the Government of the day. This was some years ago. What happened? Mr Howard bunked it, he failed it. He is an ignominious failure not only in relation to his own period in government but also because he has been unable to pursue his own policies within the Opposition at a time when he has finally got away from the umbrella of Malcom Fraser and is now supposedly leading his own Party. He has two ignominious failures on two policies that have now been put into practice by a courageous and intelligent government. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, ought to be congratulated not only on his intelligence but also on the courage that he brought to control of the economy. Senator Michael Baume —And his flexible moral position by blocking our application for foreign banks. Senator AULICH —It is very interesting to hear the sorts of comments that are coming from the other side. I do not recall interjecting on any of the Opposition speakers but Senator Michael Baume seems to be upset by some of the things I have said. I rather fancy that his inability to be loyal to a previous leader is something that has upset him. I think the second point I made about his inability to have any real impact on his colleagues in terms of the economic debate and the tax policies they should be following might be another. I just ask the honourble senator to listen to what is being said. He might learn something about economics and about what ordinary people believe ought to be done in this country. Senator Walsh —Tell us about his previous career. Senator AULICH —I will not refer to his previous career; that is a reincarnation that I do not think any of us should refer to in this House because it would lower the tone of the debate. Senator Michael Baume —I am quite happy for you to refer to it. Senator AULICH —It has already been lowered by the interjections I am getting at the moment. What are the Government's basic policies? First of all, the Treasurer has made it quite clear that this Government has a policy of economic growth without drastic inflation. He has often gone on record as indicating that the size of the cake is important, that we as a government must be prepared to increase the size of that cake before we get into questions of equity. That in itself is a major change for a Labor Government and it ought to be commended, and has been commended, by the business community and by many people within the labour movement who recognise the courage and intelligence of that approach. It has not always been the viewpoint of socialist parties around the world in the past, but Treasurer Keating has been prepared to start carving out a unique ideology which is appropriate to the 1980s and the 1990s, and he ought to be commended for it. The second part of our trilogy, if I can call it that, is the creation of jobs and the reduction of unemployment in this country. We have set a target which we are very near to achieving. That is something that Malcolm Fraser was never able to do, something that stands as a black mark against his policies in the seven long years during which he governed this country. The third policy, related to that, is the creation of a fair deal for the ordinary people of this country. The fair deal arises from the fact that this Government is pursuing a policy of growth to ensure that the cake is sufficient to divide amongst those people who are entitled to a fair deal, particularly after the seven long years of the Fraser regime. I must indicate that when we take a particular tack there will be some problems and the problems, of course, relate to business. Business can be divided into any number of categories but, just talking about business as industry, it is essential for a Labor Government or any Government to establish a proper working relationship with business and industry. I think the comments that have come from industry over the last two years-the response to us at the National Economic Summit Conference and the response to me personally and to other people who have been moving around in the business community-have been positive ones. Naturally, not everyone is satisfied with the way the Labor Government is going, but certainly the accolades that have been heaped upon Treasurer Keating have been earned and are very widespread indeed. The second response is the one that affects me personally. That is the reaction of what I have described as a fairly inward-looking and nervous international money market, involving the sort of people who the honourable senator opposite has indicated should be raised to the role of demi-gods; in other words, people who, in commenting upon the Australian economy, are given a status far beyond their role in the total economic fabric of this nation. I will get onto those in a minute. Let us look at the question of support from the international money markets. It has not been an entirely happy one; I will admit that. That is a matter of concern for me. I think it relates not so much to the performance of this Government as to the perception of this Government and any reform government that is held by these conservative international money people. First of all, they tend to thrive on movement in the money market. Everyone on the other side of this chamber seems to have forgotten that the only way to make money on that market is by buying and selling. There must be movement in order to make a profit. Any person who is involved in the money market, particularly at a major international level, knows that we must have that movement to keep companies moving in that area, to make profits. The second point I want to make about those involved in the money market is that they are basically fairly inward looking. They are basically European in outlook and origin, they have not seen a successful social contract work in Europe and, looking at Australia, they ask: `How can a social contract such as the accord work?'. They have refused to look at the fact that for 2 1/2 to three years that accord has worked. It has given predictability to this country and a certain degree of security to its workers, and it has given business itself an idea of exactly where this Government is going. That is more than we can say for the record of the Fraser Government. I do not know how many times I was approached as a former State Minister by people in business who said, in a nutshell-I quote one businessman well known to honourable senators on the other side-`What the hell is Malcolm doing?'. That question was asked over and over again. I could say that he was doing lots of nothing and following lots of different policies, but in the long run nothing resulted from his approach to management of this economy. I do not accept Senator Baume's policy of exalting the status of money lenders and money merchants in London and New York, who are as nervous as a horse at any change which they cannot understand. As a member of this Government I support the accord as a very important factor in the restoration of the economy of this nation. The accord cannot be discarded because some people, just barely out of boarding school and taking over some money markets in Europe-I could quote names, but I will not at this stage-believe somehow or other their British experience is something they ought to refer to when assessing the Australian economy and the way we manage industrial relations and financial policies in this country. What are the basic problems facing this Government? Most of them are the legacies of the seven long years of office of the Fraser Government which rocketed this country from one economic policy to another. I ask honour- able senators opposite not to take my word for it but to look at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures. I ask honourable senators to refer to OECD statements about what was occurring in this country in the period from 1975 to 1982. For example, the OECD described Malcolm Fraser's 1982-83 Budget in its June 1984 report as an expansionary stance of fiscal policy. The OECD described the previous Budgets as basically restrictive. How is it possible to move from an expansionary policy, such as the type we saw in 1981, 1982 and 1983, after so many years of tight monetarism? Had something happened to the Australian economy that objectively forced the Prime Minister of that time to do anything? I will tell honourable senators what did happen. There was to be an election. Malcolm Fraser-we cannot take this away from him-was extremely good at winning elections. The fact that he ruined the country in the process is an irrelevant issue as far as some honourable senators opposite are concerned. He rocketed from tight monetarism to an expansionary policy from 1981 onwards when he asked and encouraged State governments, semi-governmental authorities and private enterprise to get into an expansionary mould simply because development Australia was the particular push he was on about at that time. Honourable senators opposite have the temerity to stand up and waste the time of this chamber in attempting to criticise the consistent policies of this Government-policies which we have stuck to from the day we came to power-although they were members of a government which rocketed from one fiscal policy to another. They know that. For example, the comments of John Howard about Malcolm Fraser will not be forgotten. It will not be forgotten that he has stated that when he was Treasurer he was never permitted to follow through consistently the sorts of ideas he wished to pursue as Treasurer. What have honourable senators opposite done? Honourable senators opposite have not learned from that lesson. They were seven years in apprenticeship but still did not learn. The only sufferers in this country are the people reliant on wages and small business people. They are people who rely on stability and a consistent government policy in economic management to get by. Some of those people were not getting by in that period of Fraser Government. We should look at the figures, for example the figures for bankruptcies and the way that they increased during the Fraser period. We should look at the figures for small business. Small business people are the sorts of people about whom John Howard is talking. They are the sorts of people who looked to him for protection. In fact, they are the sorts of people he wishes to persuade over to his camp again. Many of them will not be going simply because they have seen the awful policies pushed during the Fraser period; they are not having that again. In conclusion, I will leave two questions with members of the Opposition. I ask: Do they still support deregulation of the banking system? Do they still support the floating of the Australian dollar? Senator Michael Baume —Absolutely. Senator AULICH —If that is so, then my case rests, because they are supporting the basic tenets of our policy. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(4.34) —I begin by making reference to remarks of previous speakers in this debate. Firstly, I refer to Senator Maguire, who quoted from an article written by Ross Gittins in today's Sydney Morning Herald. I would say that when he read the report of Senator Walsh's remarks he lost a bit of concentration and did not read on further because the article continued: The inflation rate has begun rising again- . . . Our overseas trade deficit is . . . getting worse. Our foreign debt . . . is very high. Real interest rates . . . are the highest they've been for 50 years. That is a record. The article continued. If the figures can be believed, the money supply is growing at a remarkable rate. I make the point in relation to Senator Maguire's comments because I do not think he read the full article. Also I wish to comment about Senator Aulich, who said that this debate was a waste of time. I think that his contribution to the debate definitely was a waste of time. I think he was talking too much of the past and not of the present, such as the problems associated with the high interest rates, or even of the future. He was looking back into the past. I wish only that he had listened to Senator Michael Baume's speech and paid attention to the way he led this debate, because I think he would have been able to learn a little and thus be much the wiser when the debate has finished. I think Senator Short had a great contribution to make to the debate too. If Senator Aulich had listened to Senator Michael Baume and Senator Short he may not have thought that the debate was such a waste of time. The disastrous policies that this Labor Government is foisting on the Australian people, despite the fact that very clearly such policies are wrong, are of concern to all people in the community. Time will not allow me to cover all the areas I would like to cover, so I will contain my remarks to what the appallingly high interest rates we are suffering at the moment are doing to our economy. I think this debate is about high interest rates and the problems they are causing to our economy. Just who in the community is being affected by high interest rates? If we were to listen to the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, or the so-called most respected Treasurer since Federation, one would be forgiven for thinking that high interest rates are hurting very few people. The truth of the matter is that high interest rates affect everyone. I am quite sure they affect even Senator Aulich. At the personal investor level high interest rates affect the hopes and aspirations of the majority of Australians who desire to own their own homes. Too often talk of borrowing and high interest rates revolves around international money market considerations only and people think only of companies such as BHP and Coles. Of course, the reality is that high interest rates affect most of all the people in the community, especially the average Australian family. Interest rates on most housing loans are variable and a small interest rate increase soon becomes a major burden on the average weekly wage earner. These are the people whom Senator Aulich and I represent in our States. If such people cannot get a loan from a bank or a building society they have to turn to unscrupulous money lenders. Already the New South Wales Department of Consumer Affairs has issued warnings about such moves. High interest rates also affect the price of purchases that the weekly wage earner wants to make, such as motor cars and furniture for a house. What happens is that if the decision to buy a new car or refrigerator or to move into a new home is not made the ramifications are felt right along the line. They are felt from the car sales yard to the white goods manufacturers, the real estate agent who did not make the sale, the family which did not get to sell its house to move into something better and so on. At the business investor level high interest rates have exactly the same stagnating effects. They attack those who have already bought and those who would like to buy. High interest rates result in the business suffering a squeeze on profitability because it needs more money to pay the higher interest or prevent the business operator from moving into a new business or expanding. However, honourable senators opposite would not have much interest in expanding businesses or in people owning businesses of their own. That is the part of the economy that is being slugged. One has only to travel through the country towns at present to see just what is happening there. Shops are closing down all over the countryside. I am referring not just to small shops. Retail chains also are cutting back because their operations are not making enough for them to pay the wages or interest rates. In many cases fewer customers are spending less money. Of course, what is happening in the rural sector is even worse. Here it is not a case of just one government policy crippling rural Australia; it is a veritable truck load of inappropriate, discriminatory and economically destructive measures. Possibly the two worst are the disastrous current account deficit and the cost of money. Almost daily newspapers, not only in the bush but also in the city, are running stories of farmers who after generations of successful farming are being forced off their farms. I think that is something about which the whole community should be worried. The National Farmer magazine estimates that upwards of 5,000 farmers will move out of agriculture this year. Why? Is it because they are poor managers or inept at farming? Maybe in a small percentage of cases they are poor managers, but Australian farmers are considered the most efficient in the world. Therefore, one has to look at the reasons. In the past week my office has been doing a survey among stock and station agents and rural property experts of what is happening in the market-place. Perhaps honourable senators opposite do not get out of their offices to visit the rural community. My office found that in every case high interest rates were blamed for a drop in inquiry for properties both small and large. Unfortunately for farmers, that is not the only government policy with which they have to cope. They also have to cope with the tax reform package which has started to affect rural property sales. The effect of this iniquitous additional capital tax on the community has not really started to be felt yet. For young people trying to get into farming or others wanting to increase and expand their holdings, the combined effects of that tax and high interest rates is taking all the investment attraction out of agriculture. Sadly, it is not just a few farmers who are feeling the crunch of this Government's economic strategies. Established properties needing to be upgraded, expanded or maintained are in a problem state. Every farm management decision is being affected because the cost of money is too high and is unaffordable. Of course, the two recent wage decisions will just about finish off the rural community. Senator Walsh —The public sector is a net lender. Senator BROWNHILL —I will quote that in a minute for the benefit of Senator Walsh. The 2.6 per cent increase, which is retrospective to April, for the farm earner and the 3.8 per cent national wage case increase are two other nails that are going into the coffin. Do not forget that farmers are price takers; they are not price makers. If the cost of borrowing money to buy cattle which will finish up in the fat stock market is too high, the farmer cannot make a return after paying interest and he will not buy the stock. If the return from crops does not cover the cost of borrowing to plant them they will not get planted. This is not a myth. It is not some phoney example being dreamt up to scare the rural community; it is a fact. It is happening right around the country now. It has already happened in Western Australia, where mortgagee sales are almost a daily occurrence. It is happening in Queensland, where sugar cane farmers are caught with falling prices for their product and soaring costs of finance. The cost to farmers of loans from the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd has gone from 12 per cent in 1979 to 19 per cent for loans of over $100,000. Trading bank interest rates have moved from 11.25 per cent in 1979 to 17.75 per cent in August 1985 for loans of over $100,000. The advice I get from the bank managers is that the rate today is 19.5 per cent but it is expected to increase in the next few days. For loans of under $100,000 the rate has gone up from 10 per cent in 1979 to 16.25 per cent in 1985. With all these sorts of increases how can anyone, be it a farmer, a small business person, a factory owner or a home buyer, manage? No wonder today's newspapers are saying that we have a crisis of confidence. What is really frightening is that this Government does not even realise what is happening. Let me quote a few comments made by members of the Australian Labor Party. The Minister for Primary Industry is reported in the Bulletin to have said: . . . contrary to common belief, the rural sector was a net lender, that a large proportion of the farm sector has little debt and that agriculture was advantaged by high interest rates. I would like honourable senators opposite to go out and tell the rural community that. It is a pity that Minister Kerin does not talk more often with his own Bureau of Agricultural Economics, which only this week announced a further slump of 26 per cent in rural profitability. Just in case he is wrong, the article continued: While the average man in the bush feels he is being squeezed out of existence, Kerin infers that structural changes are ultimately good. I wonder whether that statement would be very well received by people in the business community out in the country. I wonder how well those sentiments would be received by the 100,000 persons who protested early in July. I quote my very good friend on the opposite side of the chamber, Senator Cooney, who said only last week that the dollar had sunk and then tried to dismiss it by saying: . . . it is but one element in a whole series of indicators about the economy. Of course Senator Cooney is right. The collapse of the dollar is only one element. The others are high interest rates, a record current account deficit and a record balance of payments deficit. Senator Cooney, who is a learned barrister, also went on to say the other day: If anything is going forward too rapidly, it needs the restraint of interest rates. If that was not so the economy would overheat. What has Labor said about interest rates? From Australia's so-called most respected Treasurer since Federation we had the gem: I stand by the remark I made in the election campaign that I think there is an interest rate step fall ahead . . . through 1985. It is getting very close to the end of 1985. The Prime Minister has made a number of comments this year about interest rates. It is interesting to see how much he has changed his blind faith in his Treasurer (Mr Keating). On 20 November 1984 be said: At present the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. Later he said: Because inflation is coming down . . . interest rates will come down too. In April this year a note of doubt started to creep in. He said: We can expect through the period of this year that there will be, I would expect, a lowering of the interest rate . . . By November 1985 the Prime Minister was saying: High interest rates will have to be lived with for a time. A report which I have just received from Australian Associated Press indicates that the Prime Minister said today that he admitted that his and his so-called most respected Treasurer's prediction that interest rates would fall had `not turned out precisely as we said'. What has the media said about it? In today's Australian Des Keegan said: Nothing short of a major credit squeeze will plug our annual current account deficit and head off a $100 billion foreign debt. Michael Stutchbury said in the Australian Financial Review: The Hawke Government's much vaunted clean float of the $A is turning into a nightmare . . . I could go on quoting from innumerable newspapers from all over the place. The most classic example, which appeared in the Australian Financial Review on Thursday, 7 November, stated- Senator Aulich —That is not the Coonabarabran Times is it? Senator BROWNHILL —The honourable senator has spoken so much in the past that I think we had better keep up with him. The article stated: If our tunnel vision, ``she'll be apples'' conservatism continues to prevail, then we will only have ourselves to blame if we continue to fall further and further behind our trading partners and our dollar ends up as valuable as Monopoly money. That is the real message of the headlines about our dollar. I ask the Government to take a little bit of notice of what is happening to the Australian economy with these high interest rates and the problems they are causing for the small people as well as the bigger people in the community. If it does not do so this great country of ours will not be a good place for anyone to live in. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.49) —I am intrigued, indeed fascinated, by Senator Brownhill's contribution. I find it remarkable that a senator from the National Party of Australia, of all places, could stand here and lecture the Government on interest rates. I can recall, in the very recent past, the former Leader of the Country Party, as it was then known, Mr Anthony, making a comment about interest rates. He said that they would drop below 8 per cent and, if they did not, he would eat his hat. Senator Walsh —Did he? Senator RICHARDSON —I do not know whether he did. I think he said he would do it in Martin Place, but I suspect that the hat remained uneaten. Fortunately, it will not be necessary for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to change his dietary habits. I am not aware of his having made any such extravagant promise in that regard. I am aware, though, of promises made not only by Doug Anthony but also by Malcolm Fraser and John Howard about interest rates that were never met. Perhaps it has become too hazardous for politicians of any political persuasion to begin to be too definite. Senator Michael Baume —John Howard never made that promise. That is untrue. Senator RICHARDSON —I must answer that interjection, Mr Acting Deputy President, with your indulgence. I realise that John Howard never said anything about interest rates. He never said anything about anything in the end. He managed to spend so many years in the Treasurer's office. Never has a Treasurer stayed there so long to do so little. I, for one, cannot really criticise him for ever saying too much. As Paul Keating said, in the 1983 election campaign he was reduced to the role of a spectator. However, I want to say more about his role. Senator Archer —But you said he did. Senator RICHARDSON —I promise the honourable senator that I will return to him. He will only have to wait for a few seconds. I ask him to be patient. These days when one listens to honourable senators opposite talk about interest rates, the fall in the dollar and the tax package, one has to wonder what school of thought one is listening to. We have seen in the last few days that it is very difficult to know any more. In regard to all of the questions that we are debating today, one has to know whether one is talking to John Howard, Jim Carlton, Neil Brown, Steele Hall, Senator Missen or to Mr Macphee. They all have different views. I am finding it very difficult to keep up with them. It has become too hard for me. It has certainly been too hard for the Press Gallery. It gave up days ago. In the last two days in a row we have seen John Howard, the Leader of the Liberal Party-I did promise Senator Archer to return to him-being rolled in the party room. He lacks control over his own Party. He cannot get up any more because, I am reliably informed by the numerous leaks that flow so liberally from the Liberal Party party room, Liberal senators have combined to do him over. They have combined with the National Party. The National Party is accustomed to doing over Liberal Party leaders. It has been doing it for years. It is practised. But in the last two days, in regard to the tax package, John Howard had to do a complete somersault because a few Liberal Party senators combined with their National Party colleagues to do him over in the party room. Let us face it; I suppose that John Howard, having got to his position somewhat accidentally, will have to put up with those sorts of attacks pretty often. It is not only the reversals that are forced on him by the party room that concern me; it is his own reversals. We do not have to look very far in the past for such reversals. We have only to look at an interview he did with Steve Liebman on this morning's Today program. During the course of that interview this brand new leader of a brand new dry party, this dry liberal lot, was asked a question about a wages freeze. He was asked whether he would impose a wages freeze. He said yes, if the circumstances demanded it. I wonder, and I am certain many Australians are wondering today, what the Liberal Party really means when it talks about deregulation. What it means apparently is that on the one hand the Government can have no control, no role, it should be a spectator. But on the other hand we were told only a few hours ago by John Howard that if a wages freeze-in other words, a total wiping out of market forces-is considered appropriate by them, they will do it. One cannot have it both ways. The Opposition will be either a great little band of deregulators or it will be what it was for seven consecutive years in government-that is, a government that makes any socialist government look like a team of pikers when it comes to government interference in the economy. Time and again it intervened, and time and again it failed. Let us look at the subject of interest rates which, I note, is one of the subjects of today's discussion. No other area of policy debate really highlights the confusion that is so evident in the ranks of the Opposition than policies on interest rates. Members of this brand new dry party-that is, those of them who are prepared to be called dry; there are others who want to be called wet-want market forces to determine the economy and interest rates. But when the market does determine interest rates, once again they want to intervene. Once again they want to abandon deregulation. They want to jump back in to a regulated economy. Once again one must say that the Opposition cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, it bitterly complains about interest rate levels. It urges governments to take corrective action. On the other hand, it urges governments to deregulate. I am now told that John Howard is even prepared to advocate the lifting of the ceiling of 13 1/2 per cent on housing interest rates. That would be a disaster, not just for a few Australians but for millions of Australians. It is not something that this Government is prepared to countenance, as the Treasurer has made clear day after day in the other place. It is something that this Government will not advocate. Having mentioned housing interest rates, I point out that the housing industry is a good example of what some financial deregulation can mean. Innovations under the Labor Government-low start loans, variable rate loans, the secondary mortgage market-have emerged over the last three years. Let us look at the comparisons. In the last year of the Fraser Government there were 105,000 housing starts compared to 152,000 last year, and the figure is pretty steady at 140,000 this year. We deliver the goods. But that probably highlights the difference between this Government and the previous coalition Government. Certainly it is true that interest rates have risen. No one on this side can run away from that point. Of course, I think I mentioned to Senator Michael Baume in a similar discussion last week that a search of the Hansard record revealed that it is pretty barren in regard to his contributions in complaining about rises in interest rates in 1982. Nevertheless, in 1982-83 when people were trying to borrow money and having to combat very high interest rates, why were they borrowing? They were borrowing, let us face it, in the midst of a crisis, in the midst of a recession. They were borrowing just to keep their heads above water, to stay in business. Honourable senators should remember that that was the period in which bankruptcies were shooting through the roof. I know that that is still the position in Queensland today. But if one separates Queensland from the rest of Australia and looks at the States in which economies are run in any way sensibly, one sees that the number of bankruptcies is going down everywhere except Queensland. But under the coalition of which Senator Michael Baume was a part, in 1982-83 bankruptcies were soaring everywhere. People were in the market-place trying to get money in order to keep their businesses going, just to keep the doors open and to keep in place what jobs were left-those that had not been squeezed out of the economy. But today the contrast is pretty obvious. Why are people in the market-place still competing for money even if it is at high interest rates? The answer is simple: They are there to expand. They are borrowing money in the market-place in order to grow, to create new jobs, to add to the 400,000 jobs that we have created so far. The reality is that under this Government we have a growing economy. Honourable senators opposite just cannot handle that fact. The exchange rate is the other alleged subject today, although I noticed that Senator Brownhill did not talk much about that. We were treated only to a speech about what is wrong with the rural economy. We were told that it all had to do with interest rates. Here is someone from the National Party who tells us that he gets around the bush. I concede that; I saw him at Gunnedah airport the other morning. I can testify to the fact that he does get out sometimes, as he can testify that I do. In looking at problems in rural Australia, it is pretty hard to accept a National Party senator telling us that it all has to do with interest rates without his making even the scarcest mention of the policies of the European Economic Community and the policies of the United States of America in dumping subsidised agricultural products in our markets. That was not even mentioned. Also not mentioned was what I said by way of interjection during his speech. Thirty years of National Party mismanagement of the trade portfolio got us into a mess in rural Australia. It will take a few years to get us out of it. I return to the subject of the exchange rate, because unlike those opposite I want to try to keep to the topic and on course. I am far happier debating the topic today because this Government does not have anything to run from. We floated the dollar. Let us face it; that is something that John Howard advocated for years but, as has occurred in his party room in the last few days when he did not have the numbers, he did not have the Cabinet numbers to get support for it in those days either. But we did it. When we have a floating exchange rate, obviously it will float. It will rise and it will fall, but we do not panic every time there is a fall. We do not rush away and change course. We do not do what the Fraser-Howard Government did for so many years-promise a tax cut, a fistful of dollars, and take it away. We do not promise tax indexation, leave it with the poor fools, the voters, for a couple of weeks, and take it away again. We do not have to go on like that. The difference between us is that we have a real economic strategy. We do not have different groups racing out with different views on economic policy. We have a strategy in place to which we are sticking. When we look at exchange rates, obviously on a day to day basis the market will be attracted to short term solutions and profits. The smart young men who gather in ritzy restaurants in New York, London and Paris and gamble with our dollar and other currencies look only at tomorrow. But the market has a habit of sorting itself out over time. It is on the question of fundamentals that this Government remains confident. We have succeeded in lowering the deficit. We got it down this year to under $5 billion, lower than I thought would have been possible given the continuance of the Government's economic strategy. It was done by being real about cuts, not by having phoney razor gangs that talked a lot and did nothing, but by setting about cutting government expenditure. It was a remarkable achievement, given what we inherited only two and a half years before. We have kept a tight monetary policy, again something that the market over time demands. This Government is not prepared to move away from it. We have limited government borrowings-Commonwealth, State and local government. Jim Carlton, the shadow Treasurer, has in recent days, as one of his ways of getting out of this, urged the Commonwealth Government simply to slash funds to the States. That is something Senator Maguire might take back to South Australia. As the voters in South Australia go to the polls in the next few weeks they may want to ponder what the Liberals have in store for them. As usual, it is a tale of misery. We also have the accord. If short term factors are what governs the market, when the discounting of 2 per cent comes about next year no doubt we will see a jump in the dollar. I would be remiss in my remarks today if I did not make some comment about an article that appeared on page 2 of today's Australian by Mr Des Keegan. That article has been quoted several times on the other side. The essence of Mr Keegan's strategy for Australia is that we would be better off having a recession. He talks about freezing wages, greater unemployment, and discipline in the economy. The Liberal Party's idea of discipline is to put people out of work. Four hundred thousand Australian's have jobs who did not have jobs when we came into government. Those 400,000 Australians will not thank any party that wants to put them back on the scrap heap. We have given them some dignity. We will keep them there. We will not listen to rabid right wing ratbags like Des Keegan. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.03) —Mr Acting Deputy President-- Senator Archer —I move: That the business of the day be called on. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! Senator Archer, Senator Vigor had already risen. Senator VIGOR —Despite the fine words from Senator Richardson, in 1973 Australia was ranked as the twelfth largest exporter in the world but by 1983 it had dropped to the twenty-third ranked exporter in the world. Today, we are dropping fast to aroung the twenty-seventh ranked exporter in the world, only two years later. However, not only have our exports failed to keep pace with the growth of world markets but also an increasing proportion of our export earnings is not available to benefit the Australian economy because this country must meet the mounting capital repayments and the interest obligations on our massive foreign borrowings. Thus, the availability of export earnings to finance imports has been reduced, not only by the increase in import prices but also by the rapid rise in repayments and interest obligations resulting from Australia's heavy borrowings in international markets-borrowings which now stand at over $52 billion. In the 1974-75 financial year our export earnings were $8,726m. Interest and principal repayments stood at $1,006m. For the financial year 1983-84 our exports earned $24,766m in the world market-place and interest and principal repayments stood at $7,746m. In other words, our export earnings had increased threefold while the cost of servicing our foreign debt had increased sevenfold. In the last financial year export earnings totalled $30,717m and interest and principal repayments increased to $11,537m. The trend continues. In the light of the disastrous figures for the October current account and balance of trade deficits, who would be confident that Australia will ever trade itself out of the predicament in which we have been placed by both the Hawke Government and its predecessor the Fraser Government. It may take years for us to trade our way out of this deficit, and in order to do so we need direct action. Since I came to this House, as the Australian Democrats spokesman on trade I have often spoken about the urgent need to turn around the course Australia is following. The signs have been there. The warnings have been given. However, they have fallen on deaf ears. Mr Keating and his advisers can no longer refuse to see the signs or heed the warnings which have been given. Our trade situation must be improved if we are not to proceed down the path followed by Argentina and other South American economies. We have a number of problems. Before I turn to the disastrous October current account deficit figures released yesterday, and the balance of trade figures I will make a brief comment on how Australia is placed in comparison with 12 other Western developed economies, including the United States, Britain, Asian and European countries. The figures are horrifying. Over the last quarter Australia has had the highest inflation rate of the 12 countries. The rate is double that of the next highest country, Italy. Australia's inflation rate is almost treble that of Japan, one of our major trading customers. No wonder our dollar is losing value. Australia experienced the fastest decline in its exchange rate in 1985 of all those 12 countries. The trade weighted index of Australia's dollar now stands at 60.3, its lowest ever. We have the fastest increase in money supply of the 12 countries. Australia has the highest interest rates of those 12 countries. Now Australia has the highest real interest rates since the Great Depression in the 1930s. I ask the Senate: Is worse to come? Australia's gross overseas debt now stands at $68.5 billion-33 per cent of gross domestic product-or $4,400 for every man, woman and child in this country. We are trapped in a vicious cycle of debt, over spending, falls in the value of the dollar, upward pressure on interest rates, inflation and increasing wages. Yet Senator Richardson tells us that we have never been better off. We must ask the Government for concerted action to get us out of this mess, if we still can. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The time allowed for discussion of the matter of public importance having expired, I now call on government papers. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.09) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to speak to the Australian Dairy Research Committee report because the dairy industry, with all the problems from which it has been suffering, is still organising its Research Committee in a manner that does credit to the industry as a whole and to the people on the Committee. The Committee is a first class organisation and the work it is doing is extremely valuable. Many honourable senators will have heard in this chamber that the number of cows in Australia has been approximately halved in 20 years but production has gone up. This has happened because the Australian Dairy Research Committee has produced policies which has resulted in stock, feed and animal health which are better than ever before and a processing arrangement which is now second to none in the world. Research is still going on. Only in the last couple of weeks I saw reference in the Press to what was written up as the super cow-a cow that it is believed will produce an extra 25 per cent over and above what is produced by the really good cows in Australia at present. Such a development will result in fewer cows, easier management and still further great improvements. The industry has contributed very solidly to the research account and the research institutes around Australia have done a lot of work for dairying. Although it is a great story of progress, it is a pity that the industry is now suffering from a financial problem. The industry is very economical. It operates as efficiently as any dairy industry in the world. In fact, I would say that Australia is the most economic grass land dairying country of the world. However, our export position certainly hit home very hard this week when it was revealed that in addition to a 3.8 per cent rise in costs another 2 per cent rise has been added to the costs of dairying. Australia depends more and more on its rural exports and we must maintain our rural industries, particularly those on which the outlying rural areas of Australia have become so dependent for so many years. Excessive internal costs have ruined our export capacity and we are losing our domestic industries one by one as a result. I simply ask the Government what it is doing to keep Australia operating as an exporting country? What is it doing to ensure that industries which are efficient by any world standards are not lost as a result of our internal extravagance and excesses and a lack of consideration of the position we hold in the international marketing world? Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.13) —I rise to support what Senator Archer said about the dairy industry. I believe that the report of the Australian Dairy Research Committee indicates that we are taking a really dynamic approach to trying to solve some of our local problems in dairying through vital research programs. However, that is not going to be enough. The trade situation will eventually destroy the dairy industry, if internal squabbles do not. The European Economic Community and the United States of America are willing to break trade agreements and support their products in ways which are not allowed under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Indeed, the EEC is dumping dairy products onto our traditional markets and even here in Australia. So, in fact, when I read with excitement of the research programs which are being carried on by the Australian Dairy Research Committee, which is to be replaced by the Dairy Research Council, the pill is slightly bittered by the fact that we have to face the problems of stabilisation of the industry, the infighting which is taking place between the Victorian industry and other parts of the dairy industry, and the diversion of skilled labour off dairy farms into other areas. I am talking about people who will never return to the industry because once people leave the industry they generally do not go back. I have milked cows and I know how uncomfortable it is. However, I would like to refer to some of the exciting research developments that are taking place. Our dairy industry has produced some quite exciting products, some of which have been exported. I refer to developments in monitoring cow performance and computer systems for handling dairy figures and feed formulation. We have actually sent two people overseas to adapt some quite sophisticated software which is used for choosing the best diets for cows. We have actually tried to develop new export markets by hydrolysing lactose products-that is milk products. We have broken down the sugar content so that the slightly different metabolisms of certain people in eastern countries can actually absorb the goodness in the milk. As a result we now have the ability to penetrate the South East Asian markets with our milk products. We have managed to develop a process of reverse osmosis for concentrating and producing high quality `evaporated milk' which has not been denatured by the heating process or by the high vacuum processes which were previously used. A great number of on farm measures have improved the quality of pasture management and nutrition control. This has led to better control of diseases without the need to pump our cows full of antibiotics which pass through in the milk to the end consumer. I believe that the Dairy Research Committe is to be congratulated on all these matters. We now have improved quality milk, improved quality control and introduced much more efficient processing. We are actually tack- ling some of the really exciting problems. We are exporting new and exciting products to South East Asian markets. I commend the report. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.16) —This is the last Australian Dairy Research Committee report to be put down in this form. As from 1 January a new research body will be formed to co-ordinate research in the dairy industry. The report shows that just over $1.5m was spent on dairy industry research last year. This research covered three areas-farm improvement, animal health and product improvement, the latter of which takes about half of the budget. While this research has no doubt been of benefit to the industry, it is generally believed to be inefficient. In fact, real levels of research funding have decreased over the last three years. However, I understand that the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation is looking to increase the research levy paid by dairy farmers. This will probably be done by decreasing the amount spent on dairy promotion and transferring that amount to research. At the moment the dairy farmer is levied 19c per 100 litres of milk for promotion and only 1c per 100 litres for research. The ADFF is proposing that 1c be taken off the promotion levy and that the research levy be doubled. The Government, under the Rural Industries Research Bill 1985 that we passed, I think, only two or three weeks ago, is required to match that contribution dollar for dollar. These moves will, hopefully, restore research funding for the dairy industry to the level it deserves while not adding any extra cost to the producer. Another area that concerns the people in the industry is the allocation of research funds for product development and improvement. In 1983 the Dairy Technology Review Conference recommended that product development research be moved away from the traditional dairy products such as butter and long life cheeses and concentrates and more into the products with a short shelf life, such as yoghurts, drinking yoghurts, flavoured milk-and soft cheeses which over the past five years have shown increasing sales and consumer acceptance. It is obvious that this market will grow and it needs to be developed. I hope, as do many people in the dairy industry, that the new body will direct its product development research funds into these areas instead of the traditional but declining dairy products. Another point I wish to make concerns the cost of administration. Under the new arrangement the Department of Primary Industry will administer the research development fund. Of course, we all know that the Department of Primary Industry has tremendous overheads. Concern has been expressed by the dairy industry that the Department's overheads will eat away amounts of up to 20 per cent of the research funds available. Another disappointing point is that more and more good natural food in Australia is being displaced by people who have some health axe to grind. I do not believe that they realise the hardships that they cause Australia's primary industry. Every magazine we pick up contains an article saying that if we eat sugar, butter or meat we will die some horrible death from cancer or something else. I believe that this is absolute rubbish. If we eat anything in moderation it will have no harmful effect. I am sure that the people who write these articles do it from profit motivation to sell their articles to the magazines. People should realise that Australian natural foods provide the best nutrition available. In the last five years butter consumption has fallen 12 per cent, red meat consumption is down 14 per cent and sugar consumption is down 8 per cent. It is caused mainly by people writing scare stories for magazines. This is tremendously damaging to Australian rural producers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.22) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I understand that it will be rather difficult for me to say what I want and not transgress Standing Orders in respect of another matter which will come before this chamber at about 5.45 p.m. It concerns the disapproval motion that I shall move about the Remuneration Tribunal's decision to grant overseas travel entitlements to the de facto partners of members of parliament. The Remuneration Tribunal's job is difficult indeed. The Tribunal consists of the Chairman, Mr Justice Mahoney, Mr R. M. Porter and Mr L. J. Mangan. They have presented a four-page annual report. Frankly, I find it inadequate to explain the breadth of the work that the Tribunal has done in the last year. I also find it inadequate because in the Tribunal's 1985 recommendations, which have been tabled in the Parliament, there is little explanation of the decisions that have been taken in its determinations. I do not expect the annual report of the operations of the Tribunal to be the place for reasons for judgments to be made. But I point out that page 1 of the report under consideration states: The functions of the Tribunal are to . . . inquire into and determine allowances payable to Ministers of State, and the remuneration and allowances of Senators and Members of the Commonwealth . . . Part 4 states: . . . inquire into and report on or determine matters significantly related to (3) above. That may be a difficult task for the Remuneration Tribunal but the way that it has lumped all those matters into one determination makes our task of effective scrutiny and control of the Remuneration Tribunal's decision almost impossible. We will find that when we come to the decision by the Tribunal to grant de facto partners of members of parliament overseas travel entitlements. I have received senior counsel's advice that the Remuneration Tribunal Act contains nothing to prevent the Tribunal making a separate determination on a matter. I take this opportunity as the Remuneration Tribunal's annual report is now before us to state that, whilst we in the Parliament have delegated to the Tribunal a very difficult task, it should not act to circumvent the right of this Parliament to exercise ready control and efficient scrutiny of delegated legislation. It should have very serious regard for that. I believe that later today the Parliament should have very serious regard to that matter of great principle affecting this institution. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is the second report from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which deals with the granting of licences to broadcasters to use the facilities of the new Australian satellite, Aussat. Some time ago we had the very lengthy first report from the Tribunal dealing with the western footprint, as it is called, and the awarding of that licence. This second report indicates the granting of the licence for the north-eastern region, which is fundamentally the far north of Queensland, to a consortium entitled Queensland Satellite Television and made up of all the regional broadcasters currently operational in the north-eastern region. Some dispute has arisen over the fact that one of those broadcasters is the Fairfax group which holds control of one of the regional television stations and the Brisbane television station BTQ7. This is a majority report by the Chairman, Mr Jones, and a member, Mr Perry, over the dissent of another Tribunal member, Miss Julie James-Bailey. Her dissent is based on the fact that this consortium includes the Fairfax broadcaster, the holder of the licence of BTQ7. She believes that this constitutes an undue and unnecessary concentration of broadcasting services in Australia. This matter is dealt with by the Tribunal at some length in paragraphs 2.24 and 2.25 and the Tribunal acknowledges that this is a problem. It says in 2.24: The fundamental issue is whether the need to ensure the availability of at least one service outweights the need to avoid undue concentration of the ownership or control of the media. It goes on to say that this is an inevitable tension which results from attempting to put into place more than one broadcasting policy at the one time. I have spoken now several times in this chamber on the difficulty which the Government faces in balancing its commitment to equalisation and its commitment to localism. I have asked questions of the Ministers, and no replies have been forthcoming at any stage. Here we now have another example of attempting to put two contradictory government policies into the balance-one to provide the service of at least one braodcaster to remote areas by use of satellite and the other to avoid the increasing concentration of media ownership in Australia. Once again it points up the problem that is inherent because the Government is declining to undertake a comprehensive review of broadcasting policy and to undertake a comprehensive review of the Broadcasting and Television Act. Therefore, the Tribunal has come to this decision and says in its report: Consequently, the Tribunal does not consider that the media interests of the consortium members, in the circumstances of this case, disqualify Queensland Satellite Television as an applicant for the remote community television service licence. That is a fair enough judgment which can be made on the facts presented in this inquiry. The dissenting tribunal member said that the application should have been refused, that the remaining applicants should have been asked to restructure the consortium without the involvement of the Fairfax television company, as indeed it had indicated previously that it would have been prepared to do. I support the grant of the licence on this occasion because the Tribunal is correct in weighing up that there is a greater public interest and benefit in providing one service than there is in trying to adjust the question of media concentration within the framework of a licence decision related to satellite broadcasting. But once again it highlights the fact that in a number of sensitive broadcasting decisions the Government is attempting to balance essentially contradictory broadcasting policies to which it has committed itself. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.32) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.32) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would like to speak to the annual report of the Special Minister of State for 1984-85 and in doing so to touch on a couple of issues relating to that Department. The most significant matters in the Department relate to the law, security and crime and how we deal with that area. The Department is in a somewhat transitional state at the moment, a report upon it having recently been completed which no doubt will be discussed before too long in this chamber. The whole question of law, crime and so on has changed tremendously in the past five years and will probably change about as much again in the next five years. The public now has a very high expectation of the handling of all these matters, but people must also realise that what they would like to see may well be excessively expensive, or they may have to accept a degree of cost that is commensurate with what they may like to see achieved. One of the other areas in the report relates to awards. Awards used to be part of this division and is still partly served by it, but in the last week or two the media has carried reports about the problems that are being experienced by the new committee because it has no staff to work with. There is a totally inadequate staff to perform what is quite a substantial job. I take this opportunity to draw this matter to the attention of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), whose prime responsibility it still is to see that if we are to have an award system at least it can be made to work. The report mentions the investigation into lobbyist registrations. Without wishing to go back and up-end the reasons why it was thought one needed to register lobbyists, I would only trust that the report will show that it was a fairly futile operation and is one of the areas of saving that we can now indulge in. I will certainly leave it to the committee to report, but I believe it has been a rather futile effort up to now. I also wish to touch on the subject of flags and symbols. In common with many people on both sides of the political spectrum, I am rather disappointed that this area has been seen by the Government as one of the necessary areas of cost cutting by limiting the numbers of flags that go to schools, public bodies and charitable organisations. There is no price on loyalty and decency, and I plead with the Government to have another look at this and at least to allow those who are proud enough to fly the Australian flag to have the opportunity to do so. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to speak only briefly today, on the tabling of this report. As the report shows, this year has been a hectic one for Aussat Pty Ltd, with the launch of the first satellite and the imminent commencement of satellite services to remote areas of Australia. I feel sure that the people of the outback were as relieved as anyone else in Australia when initial hitches in the launch of our satellite from the space shuttle were overcome. People in the remote communities or on stations in the outback are waiting to receive television and radio services which so many of us in the more densely populated parts of Australia take for granted. It is probably difficult for many of us to understand just how much impact the satellite will have upon remote communities, which will now receive news, entertainment and educational programmes on radio and initially Australian Broadcasting Corporation television. Eventually commercial services will be delivered, once remote television licences have been granted to applicants. I note that the second report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has just been tabled. That report deals with the granting of a licence to broadcast in the north-eastern region of Australia. After consideration of the various characteristics of the region and an examination of the capabilities and fitness of the various applicants to deliver an appropriate service to the community, the Tribunal has awarded the licence to Queensland Satellite Television, a consortium of nine broadcasting companies already operating in Queensland. I understand that the licence for Central Australia will be coming under consideration shortly and I hope that a satisfactory applicant will be appointed and will serve all elements of the Territory community. Of course, the facilities offered by Aussat do not come cheaply. Those who wish to receive transmissions must purchase a receiving dish and other equipment which will cost up to $2,000. The PRESIDENT —Order! The time allowed for consideration of government papers has expired. The PRESIDENT —I wish to take this opportunity to advise the Senate of information I have received this afternoon relating to the events involving the arrest of Senator Georges in Brisbane on Monday. At 2.40 p.m. today, during Question Time, a telex was received in my office from Commissioner Lewis, the Queensland Commissioner of Police. The telex read as follows: Further to advice 11 November 1985 relating to the arrest of Senator Georges at a protest meeting at the S.E.Q.E.B. Building on 11 November 1985. Senator Georges appeared before the Magistrates Court, Brisbane on 12 November 1985 charged with an offence against Section 4A of the Vagrants Gaming and Other Offences Act and also with a further offence of obstructing police in the execution of their duty. Both matters were remanded for hearing on 24 January 1986 at the Magistrates Court 19, Brisbane. Senator Georges was admitted to Bail on his own undertaking. Senators will note that the message commences with the words `further to advice 11 November 1985'. As I was unaware of any previous advice having been received, I have had inquiries made to ascertain to what advice the telex message referred. The situation is that the Queensland police did take steps to advise me of Senator Georges's arrest and detention on Monday, steps which in the event proved to be ineffective. I am advised that, at 2.42 p.m. on that day, a telex message was dispatched from the Queensland police operations branch to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police in Canberra, in the following terms: ``Attn: President of the Senate, Canberra From: Vedette Subject: Arrest of Senator Georges On Monday 11 November 1985, Senator Georges was involved in an illegal protest at the S.E.Q.E.B. Building in Ann Street, Brisbane. Senator Georges was arrested under the provisions of Section 4 (A) (1) of the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act-Entering or remaining in or upon the building without lawful excuse. The Senator is expected to be released on Bail later today to appear Brisbane Magistrates Court, on 12 November 1985 at 9.30 a.m. Court 2. I will advise you of the result of court action in due course. This message confirms advice passed to your Mr Jack Carmody Commonwealth Parliamentary Officer this State. Lewis Commissioner. Inquiries from my office have revealed that although the telex is headed `Attention: President of the Senate, Canberra' it was taken, I am advised, to be a copy for information rather than a request to pass on the contents to me. I am also advised that, at 1.30 p.m. on Monday, a Queensland police superintendent telephoned the officer in charge of the Commonwealth Parliament Offices in Brisbane, Mr Carmody, advising him that he wished to get in touch with me to let me know of Senator Georges's arrest. Mr Carmody asked the Superintendent whether he wished him to pass on the message. This offer was accepted. Mr Carmody thereupon telephoned my office here in Parliament House and told one of my staff that he had received a call from the police to let me know that Senator Georges had been arrested that morning. My staff member told Mr Carmody that advice to that effect had already been informally received in Parliament House. The relaying of the message was not treated as an official notification, and was therefore not referred to me. While perhaps the communication to which I have referred above, may be interpreted as an official notification, the message to my office may properly be seen as informal advice. I believe these events indicate that the Queensland police authorities did take action to notify me of Senator Georges's arrest and detention-action which, as I have said, proved not to be effective. I take this opportunity to remind all relevant authorities that communication should be made directly to me personally as President. As this has significance with respect to a motion moved by Senator Reynolds in the Senate today, I have taken this opportunity to advise the Senate at the earliest opportunity. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Mr President, I am sorry that I was not available when you contacted me to let me know that you would make this statement. I appreciate your taking the trouble to do so. I also appreciate your putting on the record at this early time the facts which you have set out in your statement. Obviously, it is a matter of concern if allegations are made about the Queensland police. In this case you have been able to indicate that attempts were made to communicate with the Senate. Noting what you have put before us, I see that Mr Carmody, who I think is well known to many of us, has been regarded as an agent of the Parliament because of his role. It appears that he offered to pass on the message. It seems that that left the police in a position where they could be expected to assume that Parliament had been advised. Indeed, there was a communication, although perhaps its nature was not fully appreciated within your office or by the person receiving it. The fact that the telex was sent to the Australian Federal Police in Canberra and was misunderstood by them-one can easily understand a misunderstanding occurring-further confirms that the police tried to notify the Parliament as to what was occurring. These matters are difficult and the difficulties arise in part because of Senator Georges's strong views on certain matters which get him involved with the law and put the authorities, as well as the Senate, to considerable difficulty. I think it is very important that the sort of approach you have adopted, be adopted, that is, to keep the facts as clear as possible so that we do not spend time arguing about things which are not true. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-Since my name has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) I will not go over the details of what happened earlier this week because the matter is still before the Privileges Committee. A number of matters need to be examined. At the moment I was arrested I said to the arresting officer: `The President of the Senate will need to be informed'. That was at 11.30 a.m. At 12 o'clock when I was in the watch-house I was not able to make contact. I said to the officer in charge of the watch-house that he would need to advise the Senate. I also told him at that time that I would need, if possible, to catch a flight to Canberra at 1 p.m. I said that at about 12 o'clock. I notice that the watch-house tried to contact Mr Carmody-I have been assured by Mr Carmody that it did contact him-at 1.30 p.m. That is an hour and a half after I made my request. So it took two hours from the moment of my arrest to the point of sending a message, not formally but through an officer of the Parliament, Mr Carmody. Obviously it was suggested that he could send the message. The circumstance of the misunderstanding was that my office had rung your office, Mr President, to let you know that I had been arrested. The response to the call from Mr Carmody was that you had already been informed. That is how the whole matter collapsed into a misunderstanding. I think the Privileges Committee will still have to examine the matter. The means by which such information should be conveyed to you, as it must be conveyed, should be in a much more formal and more direct manner. I believe that the matter should still be examined in spite of the explanations by the police. Senator Lewis —At what time were you actually released on bail? Senator GEORGES —I was not released. I was not in a position to move because of the requirement for-- Senator Lewis —The next day. You were kept overnight. Senator GEORGES —I was kept overnight. I do not think I will go into those matters because they are matters for other debates, other explanations and a statement by me to the Privileges Committee which will explain some other matters which should be of concern and were of concern. I thank the Senate for its response to what happened in Queensland. A statement has been made by Assistant Police Commissioner Redmond. I believe the manner in which it was made was grossly unfair. All I suggested to the officers was that they should contact the President. I was not claiming privilege because I was uncertain as to whether privilege was in any way infringed. What I was certain of, having been a member of the Privileges Committee and subject to another privilege report, was that the President of the Senate needs to know if one of his senators is in any way apprehended in a manner whereby that senator might not, if the Senate needs his services, be able to attend the Senate. That is why we put that down. It seems to me that there is a slow learning curve with people in Queensland. I remember that once before I insisted that the President ought to be informed, and there was an indifference to the whole matter. I think we should insist that there ought not to be this sort of indifference in the future if what has happened this week repeats itself. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-Mr President, I commend you for bringing to the attention of the Senate the circumstances as you saw them. I am referring particularly to the last paragraph of your statement, which reads: I take this opportunity to remind all relevant authorities that communication should be made directly to me personally as President. It does seem to me that the attitude the authorities have taken in Queensland-I refer, of course, to the arresting officers as well as-- Senator Chaney —Mr President I rise on a point of order. We have a situation where there is a reference to the Privileges Committee. In my own remarks I tried not to canvass matters that I thought might be the subject of that inquiry and report. I really rise just to suggest that, in view of the fact that there is a committee consideration proceeding, to make comments on the substance of the matter might be undesirable. I just make that point to you, Mr President. I am not sure whether it is a point of order or whether it is a point I should make to the Minister for his consideration. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Gietzelt has been given leave to make a short statement. I do suggest that as the matter has been referred to the Privileges Committee it should not receive a substantive debate at this stage. I ask Senator Gietzelt to confine his remarks as much as possible. Senator GIETZELT —I did not intend to debate this matter, Mr President. It seemed to me that your statement and the attitude the Privileges Committee, and indeed the Senate, may take will depend upon the interpretation of what is required in the terms of a communication. That point needs to be clearly understood. If the Commissioner of Police believes that sending information to you represents a communication, we need to clarify what his obligations are in respect of the Senate. We need to be advised, therefore, as to whether his statement is regarded as sufficient and adequate in terms of the responsibilities the Senate takes upon itself or whether in fact he has adequately carried out his responsibility in sending a cursory message to the Senate. In hinges upon the interpretation of what is a communication and what obligations are on the Commissioner's shoulders or on the shoulders of the authorities in Queensland to send an adequate message to the Senate. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.54) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. In view of the fact that the second reading speeches have already been read in the other place, I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS BILL 1985 The purpose of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill (the VEB) is to consolidate, rationalise and simplify the entitlements available to members of the Veteran community. It represents the most important and comprehensive overhal of the Repatriation system since its establishment over 60 years ago. The need for an overhaul of Repatriation legislation has been evident for decades. The Repatriation Act has been amended on 90 occasions since 1920. Supplementary legislation has been introduced to cover warlike conflicts in which Australia has been involved since World War II. This legislation too has been subject to considerable amendment. As a result of this legislative activity over the years, many difficulties have arisen. Outmoded and inconsistent language and concepts remain in the statutes; eligibility provisions vary between the wars and conflicts; entitlements for medical treatment and ancillary allowances and benefits are scattered haphazardly through the various Repatriation Acts and associated Regulations. As well, some well-established services have operated without a clear legislative basis. The VEB tackles these problems in a comprehensive and coherent way. Background Mr President, let me say at the outset that this Government fully acknowledges its continuing responsibility to the Veteran community. The challenges of providing a continuing high standard of service to the Veteran community throughout the remainder of the twentieth century and beyond are immense. While it is 40 years since the end of the Second World War, there remain over 600,000 Australians actually or potentially entitled to Repatriation benefits. As far as is known we have two Veterans of the Boer War, approximately 6,000 Veterans of World War I, and about 480,000 Veterans of World War II, together with survivors of later conflicts and members of the peacetime forces. Most Veterans are now over the age of 65. On current projections, there will be more than 180,000 beneficiaries aged 75 years and over by the year 2000. As the Veteran community ages, so the Australian community's responsibilities grow. People in this older age group need more treatment and greater care. The demand for improved services will come on all fronts-for pensions, treatment, pharmaceuticals and, most importantly, in our hospitals and through home and extended care. The Government is meeting these challenges not just with words but with action. Changes made to the Repatriation determining system in January 1985 are now leading to reductions in the previously unacceptable times taken to process claims. Backlogs are reducing. Further improvement will occur. In the past three years we have increased spending on Veterans' Affairs by 40 per cent, or about 20 per cent in real terms. Substantial extra spending has been allocated to service pensions, as large numbers of Veterans have reached retirement age, and to meet the increase in the numbers and success rate of claims for disability and war widows' pensions. There are also vital projects to update our hospitals by replacement of obsolete accommodation and equipment and to set up Aged and Extended Care Units. The Brand Report on the Review of the Repatriation Hospital System has recommended further improvements and these are now under consideration. There have also been increases in pensions and benefits, including significant non-indexation increases, and the introduction of computer technology to aid efficiency and improve service delivery. The VEB Consultative Process Mr President, the introduction of the VEB in the Parliament marks the culmination of one of the most extensive processes of consultation that this or any other Government has ever undertaken. The Bill has been drafted around the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review which was constituted by representatives of the Returned Services League, Legacy, the War Widows' Guild and the Australian Veterans' and Defence Services Council. Over 95 per cent of the Committee's 292 recommendations have been incorporated in the Bill. Since the VEB was tabled in the Parliament on 30 May 1985, material on the Bill has been circulated widely. Over 90 seminars have been held across the country. I have received submissions from many ex-service organisations and individual Veterans. The changes made by legislation which came into effect on 6 June 1985 and which are carried through in the VEB have received some adverse reaction. In particular, there has been criticism of the standard of proof amendment which, as honourable senators will recall, was amended in the Parliament to make it subject to a six-month sunset clause expiring on 5 December 1985. It is intended that the VEB should include a new standard of proof provision and this should be in place by 5 December 1985. Some have suggested, in the course of the recently completed consultation process, that particular entitlements under the VEB should be more generously framed. I remind honourable senators that when my predecessor, Senator Messner, set up the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review, its terms of reference were drawn so as not to encompass amendments normally taken into account in the annual budgetary context. While some significant further concessions have been made since the draft VEB was tabled last May, I make no secret of the fact that the Government has had to make some hard decisions about how generous particular entitlements available to Veterans and their dependants should be, having regard to the expenditure implications. The Government must take into account not just the special interest of Veterans but also the broader interests of the community in ensuring responsible economic management. Nevertheless, in the course of the VEB consultative process, the Government has endeavoured to accommodate the concerns expressed by the ex-service community. In particular, a new standard of proof provision which should have broad ex-service community support has been devised. The proposal to apply the less generous civil standard of proof in determining certain claims for war widow's pension when a husband died more than 40 years after service will not proceed. Arising from the consultative process, the Government has also reviewed its decision to remove Repatriation coverage for all future Defence Force enlistees. Future Defence Force enlistees will now be eligible for Repatriation coverage in respect of hazardous service. Future changes are also proposed to treatment entitlements and to disability pension eligibility. I wish to pay tribute to the valuable assistance, during the consultative process, of former Judge Paul Toose, who reviewed the Repatriation system in the early 1970s. As a further indication of the Government's good faith in the consultative process, it has been decided to reverse decisions made by earlier Governments so that Repatriation coverage under the VEB is extended to some of the previously excluded groups of service personnel who served in the Vietnam war. This will be done by the Minister for Defence treating these personnel under the VEB as having been allotted for such service. This meets the longstanding concerns of some Defence Force personnel, such as those who made trips to Vietnam on HMAS Sydney, that they were being denied legitimate entitlements under the Repatriation system. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill Before turning to the particular provisions of the VEB there are two points I wish to make. The first is that the VEB and the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill contain a number of improvements on existing Repatriation entitlements. They include provisions to enable war widow pensioners who remarried or remarry after 29 May 1984 to retain their war widows' pension and other entitlements. There is provision to extend the $12-a-week domestic allowance to all war widows. The definition of `child' has been widened to include a child who is dependent on the Veteran but is not a natural or adopted child. The VEB also standardises the liability provisions for payment of pension on the more generous criteria applicable to World War II Veterans. It formalises an extension in the range of medical treatment available to Veterans to encompass social and domestic assistance. There are also minor extensions made to service pension eligibility. The second point is that under the VEB no person will lose a pension or benefit he or she now has. Mr President, I shall not outline the main provisions made by the Bill. Compensation Pensions Part II of the VEB sets out the eligibility conditions for the grant of a disability pension to a Veteran, a war widow's pension to the spouse of a Veteran and an orphan's pension to a dependent child. Eligibility will arise in respect of a Veteran's incapacity from injury or disease, or his death or her death, where that injury, disease or death is determined to be war-caused. In effect the VEB maintains the eligibility criteria applying under existing legislation. The automatic entitlement to a war widow's pension on the death of a T&I pensioner is continued by the VEB. Disability pensions are payable on three scales-the General Rate, the Intermediate Rate and the Special (T&I) Rate. This pension structure is maintained by the VEB. The extent of incapacity and the rate of pension payable are to be determined in accordance with a Guide to Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions. The Guide is to apply to assessment of rates of pension after 1 July 1986 although it may be applied administratively before that date. The Guide will be tabled in the Parliament. A draft of the Guide has been prepared by the Repatriation Commission and copies are available from my office to anyone interested. Part II of the VEB will also continue the effect of the recent legislative amendments to clarify eligibility for payment of pension at the Intermediate or Special (T&I) Rate. The T&I rate pension was designed for severely disabled Veterans of a relatively young age who could never go back to work and could never hope to support themselves or their families or put away money for their old age. It was never intended that the T&I rate would become payable to a Veteran who, having enjoyed a full working life after war service, then retires from work possibly with whatever superannuation and other retirement benefits are available to the Australian workforce. Under the T&I criteria in the VEB, a pension is not payable at that rate unless at the time of determination the Veteran is receiving a 100% General Rate pension, is totally and permanently incapacitated and would be continuing in remunerative work but for a war-caused disability and thereby suffers an economic loss. I would not expect many Veterans over the normal retirement age to qualify for payment of pension at this rate as there would usually be reasons other than the effect of a war-caused incapacity which precluded continuing in employment. If a person has had the usual span of working life or has retired voluntarily or has left employment for reasons other than accepted disabilities, a T&I pension is not payable. None the less there is no strict age limit on entitlement to the special rate pension although it must be clear that not many Veterans over the age of 65 years will qualify. Special provision is made by the Bill to cover Veterans who are under 65 years of age, are unemployed, and are genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work. The VEB will not reverse the Government's decision to abolish future grants of dependants' pension. Successive Governments have refused to increase the small amount of this pension. There are greater priorities for expenditure in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio than on this anachronistic benefit. Provision for optional commutation of the existing dependants' pension is made in the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill-a sum equivalent to three years' pension will be payable if the dependant chooses this option. Service Pension Part III of the VEB makes provision for payment of service pension to eligible beneficiaries. Subject to the income and assets test, a Veteran with qualifying war service would be eligible for payment of a service pension if permanently incapacitated for work, or at 55 years of age in the case of a female Veteran, or at 60 years of age in the case of a male Veteran. Qualifying war service will involve service such as in a theatre of war. An extension of existing service pension eligibility is made by the VEB for those Veterans involved in bomb or mine clearance work after World War II and for some Veterans who served in Malaya after 1957. Part III also provides for the grant of rent assistance and remote area allowance to eligible beneficiaries. Defence Force or Peacekeeping Forces Part IV of the VEB continues Repatriation coverage for existing members of the Defence Force and for members of Peacekeeping Forces. It had been the Government's intention that VEB coverage should not extend to future Defence Force enlistees. This would not have affected any other compensation entitlements that may be available such as under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government's Employees) Act. While it is considered that in general there is no basis for maintaining Repatriation entitlements for peacetime service, the Government accepts that there is a case for continuing Repatriation entitlements for new enlistees in respect of any hazardous defence service in which they have been engaged. The Government will also be considering further the development of a new defence force compensation package outside the Repatriation system. Treatment Part V of the Bill enables the provision of medical and other treatment to entitled Veterans and other beneficiaries. Part V in large part continues existing entitlements. However, one change that has been made is that all service pensioners with a 50 per cent disability pension-not just World War II Veterans, as is the case under existing legislation-will now be entitled to full treatment. As I have already mentioned, the VEB will formalise the provision to eligible persons of social and domestic assistance in addition to medical treatment. Part V also provides for preparation by the Repatriation Commission of a Guide to the Provision of Treatment and for it to be tabled in the Parliament. VEB Allowances Parts VI and VII of the VEB make provision in relation to allowances and other benefits and for a Veterans' Children's Education Scheme. Standard of Proof Part VIII of the VEB makes general provision for decision-making under Repatriation legislation. As part of the consultative process on the VEB, the Government made a commitment to consult the Veteran community on the future form the standard of proof should take after the expiration of the 6 month sunset clause to which this aspect of the May 1985 amendments is subject. This has proved to be no easy task. Lengthy consultations have occurred on the standard of proof clause. I stress that the Government remains firm in its intention to overrule the O'Brien decision. I refer honourable senators in that regard to the detailed reasons given in the second reading speech on the May 1985 legislation. The Government does not accept that a pension should be payable where there is no evidence to suggest a war service relationship to the claimed disability or death. While the ex-service community generally accepts that the O'Brien decision went too far, its view is that a provision should be developed that overturns the O'Brien decision while maintaining the effect of the earlier High Court decision in the Law case. It has been possible in preparing the revised draft of clause 119 of the VEB to reach a substantial measure of consensus. New sub-clause 119 (1) will now extend the generous criminal standard of proof to Veterans in respect of any operational service they have had. This involves an extension on the June 1985 legislation as some Veterans who served in the Northern Territory during World War II will now also receive the benefit of the criminal standard. Sub-clause 119 (1) will require a favourable determination to be made in relation to a pension claim unless the Repatriation Commission is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for doing so. However, the Commission will be required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt where, after consideration of the whole of the material relevant to a pension claim, there is no reasonable hypothesis raised and, if raised, there does not remain a reasonable hypothesis of a service connection to a Veteran's death or incapacity. Similar provision is made in clause 119 in respect of hazardous service of Regular Defence Force personnel or peacekeeping service by members of a peacekeeping force. Clause 119 provides that all other decisions made under repatriation legislation are to be made on the civil standard of proof. To accommodate ex-service community concerns, the new clause 119 makes clear that there is no onus of proof on any person in relation to a claim or application. The process of determining disability and war widows' pension claims is intended to be inquisitorial. Clause 119 also overcomes any suggestion that there is a presumption of entitlement to a pension or other benefit. Having regard to the many strong representations about the alleged discrimination involved in maintaining a 40 year rule and applying the civil standard of proof to certain war widows' pension claims after that period, the Government has decided not to pursue this proposal. In the light of the flexible and responsible approach taken by the Government, I would expect there to be broad support in the ex-service community for clause 119. The intended effect of clause 119 is outlined in greater detail in the explanatory memorandum. Other Provisions Parts IX and X of the VEB relate to the administrative review machinery established by the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. No substantive change is made in these provisions. Part XI of the VEB continues the existence of the Repatriation Commission and sets out its membership, its powers and its functions. Part XII of the VEB makes provision for trusts, offences, overpayments, delegations and other machinery matters. Financial Impact The changes made by the Veterans' Entitlements Bill will cost $1.2 million in 1985-86; $20.601 million in 1986-87 and $4.389 million in 1987-88. The increased cost in 1986-87 relates to the proposal for commutation of dependants' pensions which will provide for one-off lump sum payments from July 1986. These costs do not include those arising from the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985. Mr President, the VEB is one aspect, though a critical aspect, of the Government's strategy to build a repatriation system that is geared to the challenge of providing optimum services to the veteran community as we approach the twenty-first century. Within the constraints in which any Government must operate, I believe the VEB will make a substantial contribution to that task. I commend the Bill to the Senate. VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 This Bill sets out the transitional provisions consequent upon the repeal of existing repatriation legislation. It also deals with the consequential matters related to the enactment of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Separate legislative provision has been made for these transitional matters so that the Veterans' Entitlements Act will be more straightforward and readable in respect of its future operations. The purpose of the Bill is to bring current repatriation administration and operations within VEB coverage. This includes pensions and other benefits in payment, claims not yet determined and other outstanding administrative action. The Bill will also bring all decision-making in respect of repatriation entitlements immediately within the VEB. The only exception to this is the guide to assessment of rates of pension which is to apply from 1 July 1986, although it may be used administratively before that date. It is intended that under the transitional provisions there will be no loss or reduction in existing benefits except where there are changed circumstances or fraud. The Bill is also intended to ensure that no one is prejudiced because of procedural differences between the VEB and the repealed Act. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had made the amendments to this Bill requested by the Senate. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a third time. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the fifteenth report for 1985 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 14 dated 13 November 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. The PRESIDENT —Order! I present the annual report of the Australian Audit Office 1984-85. Debate resumed. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.59) —The Senate is continuing the debate it commenced this morning on Senator Missen's notice of motion that the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 113 and made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 be disallowed. Senator Missen gave this notice on 8 October 1985. I was saying this morning when the debate was interrupted that the Fraser Government had introduced these freedom of information regulations and had set fees for a reasonable return on the cost of such actions as the departments found necessary to provide the information. On 1 July this year this Government increased the fees very substantially. Clearly, the Government is using this increase of fees in order to prevent the disclosure of information, so the freedom of information regulations in fact become a non-disclosure procedure rather than a free disclosure procedure. I give the example of what happened to me earlier this year. The Senate will recall that a Mr Brian O'Donovan conducted an inquiry into the community housing expansion scheme in relation to the Australian Capital Territory. It was an excellent investigation and I congratulate Mr O'Donovan on his report, which has already been debated. In the course of the debates which were taking place at that stage, it became clear to me that, as part of my responsibility as shadow Minister for Territories, I ought to make some investigation of my own to see whether the Government had set terms of reference wide enough for Mr O'Donovan properly to be able to carry out his inquiries; so I sought access to all documents relating to this matter. I received a reply from the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator of the Department of Territories in which he told me that the second part of my request satisfied the `work load' test embodied in the Act because I had asked for all documents. This, according to the letter, placed the Department in an extremely difficult position in identifying, locating and examining the papers concerned. I am not sure why the Department had to examine the papers concerned and why it would have been difficult to identify and locate them; however, that apparently was the case. The Co-ordinator then invited me to narrow down the request. How could I narrow down the request? If he had given me a list of the files that the Department had, I might have been able to say, `I want to look at only this file and that file'; but without any further information, how on earth could I narrow down the request? Having asked me to narrow down the request, he then said: As it stands the second part of your request would require considerable clarification before processing. After all, I was wanting to look at the files! I hear Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle giggling in the background. Having been a Minister for so many years, she knows what chance I had of looking at the files without their being sanitised. The next part of the letter, which fascinated me, stated: If an attempt were to be made to proceed with this part of your request in its present form, it is estimated that a charge of $480.00 would be incurred by you. Departmental officers were going to look through the files. In their words, they were going to seek to identify, locate and examine the papers and, when they had finished doing that, send me a bill for $480. I still at this stage was not going to get a look at anything because this would only put the Department in the position of being able to respond to my request for the information. Having confronted me with this titbit of information, the letter then went on to state that, in respect of the third part of my request, the Department was confident that it had all the documents that I had asked for. It went on: A decision whether or not to grant you access to those documents has not been made. The FOI- freedom of information- (Charges) Regulations require that certain charges are paid by an applicant before a request can be processed. Please find enclosed leaflets setting out details of charges and your review rights under the FOI Act. No further action will be taken on part three of your request until the deposit notified in the enclosed leaflet has been received, or you have appealed successfully against the decision that you are liable to pay the deposit. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —You would be able to spend your electoral allowance on it. Senator LEWIS —Someone says that I would be able to spend my electorate allowance on it. There were then some three pages-first, a page setting out details of charges; then, a roneoed sheet with some explanatory information on it from which I am able to ascertain that a deposit was payable at this stage, not as part of but in addition to the $480; and two pages on how I could appeal in relation to the deposit, not in relation to the $480. By the time I had digested the 3 1/2 pages of the letter and the three supplementary pages and worked out that it could cost me about $500 before the Department worked out what it would be able to let me know it might be prepared to let me look at, I decided to abandon the request. How on earth can that situation go along with speeches which we heard Senator Gareth Evans making here during the 1980s about freedom of information? How on earth can he sit in this chamber, as he is doing at present, without blushing absolutely scarlet at the fact that his Government should be taking this action to prevent a member of parliament from looking at some documents which clearly I was entitled to look at? I think it is scandalous. If the Government feels this way about supplying information to the public and members of parliament, why does it not simply revoke the freedom of information regulations? Then the people of Australia would know what the Australian Labor Party thinks about freedom of information. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.07) —I follow up the remarks made by Senator Austin Lewis. The freedom of information legislation was a very important means of empowering ordinary Australians. It was also an important means of empowering members of parliament to do their job more effectively. The Public Service has been bitterly opposed to the concept and practice of freedom of information from the beginning. I remember from my time in government the resistance to the idea and to the implementation of freedom of information legislation once the threshold decision had been made. What we see now is the Labor Government caving in to pressure from its advisers and attempting in this place to remove or limit the power which lies in the hands of ordinary citizens. The war on freedom of information has been continuing. Senator Missen set out this morning the reasons why the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations (Amendment) have to be disallowed. I am glad that the Senate will so do in a few moments. An administrative war has been going on as well in an attempt to prevent access to information by means of regulations which impose large charges. I might say that I have continued to make my freedom of information requests and so far have not been asked to pay any money, but I have experienced considerable obstruction from within the Public Service to providing information. Honourable senators may be interested in hearing an account of the extent to which one statutory authority went to try to prevent us from having access to information. Earlier this year some decisions were taken in relation to Australian schools, putting non-government schools into various categories for the purposes of funding. This information was made known to the schools. I sought to obtain from the Commonwealth Schools Commission the list of the schools and the categories to which each had been allocated and some other information with regard to approvals. The information was readily available. It was information which had already been passed on from the Commonwealth Schools Commission to all the schools involved around Australia. The Schools Commission took no action. The Act allows for, I think, a 45-day period within which an authority must respond. I would not be surprised if Senator Gareth Evans was one of the people who helped obtain that period of 45 days rather than a longer period. On the forty-fifth day, out of the goodness of our hearts we reminded the Commonwealth Schools Commission that it was running out of time. By the end of the forty-fifth day the Commonwealth Schools Commission still had not responded to that request. Being a member of parliament and having a lawyer on my staff, I did not hesitate. We went straight to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as we were entitled to do, argued our matter before it, won, and had the Commonwealth Schools Commission give us the information, which it did reluctantly. By the way, the Commission in the interim made sure that it released the information publicly. It was not going to give me anything, as it was required to do under the Freedom of Information Act, until it had released it publicly. Clearly there is an enormous war of resistance going on within the Public Service and the bureaucracy to the principles and aims of the freedom of information legislation. The regulations which have come before us no doubt have emanated from somewhere within the bureaucracy. They have been taken up by the Government in the name of cost saving-an entirely spurious operation because of course there is a cost in empowering ordinary people to get information. There is no evidence so far that the public is abusing that right. In any event the right to know is one which must be protected. I fully expect that the bureaucratic war of attrition will continue. I give notice that we will go back to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and to the Federal Court of Australia under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act-we will do anything-to ensure that our rights under the freedom of information legislation are secured. If we find any of the statutory authorities or departments not willing to respond as the Act provides, we will be only too happy to oblige them and test those matters in the appropriate tribunals. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.12) —in reply-In closing the debate I want firstly to thank my colleagues for the support they have given my motion. I thank also for their support the Australian Democrats, Senator Vallentine and, I think I may say, Senator Harradine, who nods his head and who I know is concerned about this matter. Senator Harradine —I have been on the receiving end of not getting information. Senator MISSEN —Senator Harradine is one of the sufferers who have been really affected by this. It has been one of the follies of this Government to have had this amendment to the freedom of information regulations in operation for the past four months, thus enabling it to be tested and seen for what it is. I think it was a gross and foolish tactical error on the part of the Government to allow us to see what it had in mind. The Government was so keen to get the amendment going that we have been able to see it in operation. Thus Senator Lewis has been able to bring forward evidence today showing how the interests of the public are being denied. Senator Sheil —That is not the only area either. Senator MISSEN —No, he also reminded us of the ridiculous way he has been treated. He told us that a deposit of money must be paid before the request for information is processed and the person requesting that information is given any idea of what documents the agency holds. He certainly told us that. The fact is that this regulation represents another built in method of delay. People who have difficulty in paying the deposit know that they have the further problem of knowing that they will not get the information until long after they first sought it. I want also to express thanks to those honourable senators opposite who have left empty the Government benches. Those empty benches are fairly expressive in themselves. Senator Gareth Evans spoke very briefly on the matter and seemed to be quite cheerful about seeing his amendment go down the drain. Nonetheless, other honourable senators opposite have by their absence demonstrated their feeling that this amendment is not a regulation worth keeping. I know from discussions with them that they feel that there should be a reconsideration of this matter. Of course, the Government has not been able to do that. I will say one or two things about Senator Evans's surprisingly short reply. He gave us the impression that the fee collections were low. It was always known by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, of which Senator Evans and I were members, that the provision of this information would not be a fee collecting business, that that information would be provided as cheaply and inexpensively as possible and that, in the immortal words of Mr Lionel Bowen, freedom of information went to the very heart of democracy and therefore one expected such legislation to be used by a lot of people. Senator Evans made reference to the Press release issued by Mr Lionel Bowen on 14 June. There was a certain amount of puffery in it in that it suggested that the freedom of information legislation was doing some positive things, and then came the slug and it mentioned that increasing costs would be involved. Senator Evans forgot to mention-I am sure I did not mishear him-another main feature of the directions, which was that further publicity of the Act is to be suspended for the time being. In the first two annual reports on the Freedom of Information Act under Senator Gareth Evans as Attorney-General we had the idea set in train that we must publicise the Act more, that taxpayers must be told of the Act's existence. From a Morgan poll commissioned by the Government we learned that only 40 per cent of the people knew of the existence of freedom of information legislation and only 9.2 per cent knew how to conduct a freedom of information application. It was because of those facts that we had a publicity campaign to try to increase people's usage of freedom of information facilities. Now, of course, that has been turned right around. The Cabinet has determined that there shall not be too much knowledge. In fact, it has determined that people must be discouraged from actually exercising their rights under the Freedom of Information Act. That was one of the interesting things announced in Mr Lionel Bowen's Press statement of 14 June. In conclusion, I remind honourable senators of one or two other things that have been said. One of these is a statement of Mr Lionel Bowen which I read in the course of my speech this morning. I think it is worth reading again. He stated: We on the Opposition side believe that freedom of information is a basic democratic right and it lies at the very heart of the democratic system. I will read on a little further because Mr Lionel Bowen, who was then in opposition, said in the course of debate on the relevant Bill: If people are to make informed choices about a particular matter or policy or about who is to govern this country, then the widest possible information should be made available in order that the choices can be made in an informed manner. Withholding of information should be kept to the barest minimum. In order to protect the public interest we must always guarantee that there will be an impartial body, such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, that can certainly guarantee that protection. They were fine fighting words in opposition but we have now a miserable surrender to the bureaucrats. Let me also remind honourable senators that the guilt of the Australian Labor Party goes much further. I will read from an article prepared by Professor Gordon Reid, who is now the Governor of Western Australia, called `The Changing Political Framework'. He stated: You will recall the heady rhetoric of the policy speech of November 1972- That is the Labor Party policy speech. He then quotes from that policy speech, which stated: The Australian Labor Party will build into the administration of the affairs of this nation machinery that will prevent any Government, Labor or Liberal, from ever again cloaking your affairs under excessive and needless secrecy. I think we have proved in this debate that the Government has not sufficiently built in that machinery. It depends on the common sense, activity, interest and vigilance of those people in our community who are concerned with freedom of information being a practical and living creature. We must remain vigilant forever. Those of us in the Senate can do no better than to throw out this amendment, realising that it will strike at the heart of democracy if it continues to exist. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Missen has taken certain liberties with me in his reply to this debate. I do not mean that he has taken liberties with my person but with my contribution to the debate. I make it clear for the record that I am not in the slightest bit cheerful about the imminent demise of this amendment to these regulations. In fact, I am devastated. I am as devastated as I would be by the impending defeat of any Government policy. I further take odds with Senator Missen's characterisation of my speech as short, an attack that was as extraordinary as, indeed, it was unfamiliar. I think readers of or listeners to my speech would acknowledge that the speech, while not excessively long, was of moderate dimensions but quite finely tailored and constructed to meet in succinct ambit the extremely insubstantial character of Senator Missen's initial contribution to the debate. Question put: That the motion (Senator Missen's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Mason, C. V. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K.Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. (Teller)Crichton-Brown, N. A. Short, J. R.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Siddons, J. R.Haines, J. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Harradine, B. Valentine, J.Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D. B.Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. Grimes, D. J.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D.Colston, M. A. McKiernan, J. P.Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R.Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Walsh, P. A.Geitzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Vanstone, A. E. Coleman, R. N.Hill, R. Morris, J.Durack, P. D. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.27) —I draw the attention of honourable senators to page 3109 of the Senate Notice Paper on which my notice of motion is set out in this form: That the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 11 of 1985, relating to Entitlements of Members of the Parliament and made under the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, be disallowed. I seek leave to change the word `disallowed' to `disapproved' in accordance with the Remuneration Tribunals Act, Mr President. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —I therefore move: That the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 11 of 1985, relating to Entitlements of Members of the Parliament and made under the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, be disapproved. By way of explanation of that change, I remind the Senate that sub-section (8) of section 7 of the Remuneration Tribunals Act provides: If either House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after a copy of a determination has been laid before that House, passes a resolution disapproving of the determination, then- (a) if the determination has not come into operation- the determination shall not come into operation; The effect, therefore, of my disapproval motion will be that the Remuneration Tribunal's Determination No. 11 will, in fact, not further come into operation. We are dealing with a matter of very significant principle. The Remuneration Tribunal has brought in its 1985 review. It is signed by Mr Justice Mahoney and the members of the Tribunal, Mr L. G. Mangan and Mr R. M. Porter. The Tribunal has again lumped its provision for taxpayers to fund overseas travel expenses, including fares and accommodation for members of parliament with its general determination covering MP's facilities such as office facilities, postage, telephones, travel to and from Parliament, et cetera. In doing so the Tribunal ignored the submission I made, based on advice from senior counsel, that nothing in the Act would prevent the Tribunal from making a separate determination on this matter. I intend to pursue that question later in this debate. By refusing to act accordingly, the Tribunal has denied the Parliament its right of efficient scrutiny and ready control of delegated legislation. No one in this Parliament denies that the Remuneration Tribunal, through the Remuneration Tribunals Act, has been given a difficult task. Previously this task of determining the entitlements of members of the Parliament was determined by the Parliament. The Parliaments at a particular stage established the Tribunal and delegated its authority in respect of this matter to that body. Its determinations therefore are delegated legislation. In refusing to act in a manner to determine this matter separately from other matters, other entitlements of members of parliament which have traditionally been required by members of parliament, it has denied the Parliament its right to scrutinise efficiently and readily control delegated legislation. The only recourse available to Parliament is to disapprove of determination No. 11, because the Act does not provide for the disapproval of a section of the determination, or the Parliament could pass a Bill to remove the offending section. I will deal with the offending section and matters that I raised with the Remuneration Tribunal on this matter. But irrespective of what senators feel about that question, there can be no question in the mind of any senator that the Parliament must have an untrammelled right to scrutinise delegated legislation. Of course, one of the members of the Tribunal said that the Parliament could pass a Bill which would undo what the Tribunal proposed. That is also another recourse available to Parliament. But honourable senators will remember that on 24 August last year I introduced such a Bill after the Tribunal had first decided to grant de facto spouses equality of status with married spouses. Fourteen months later and another determination later, that Bill still remains at No. 34 on the Notice Paper. I also remind honorable senators that in October last year there was a decision by the Government to seek a resolution to cut out General Business. During that debate-I do not have it immediately to hand, but those senators who took part in the debate will recall it-I raised the question that by so cutting out General Business it would prevent the discussion of this important matter. Senator Button on behalf of the Government-I have found the relevant debate; it took place on 11 October 1984-made certain statements. Senator Chaney on behalf of the Opposition made certain statements. Both of them acknowledged that this was a matter which should and would have to be dealt with by the Parliament. Senator Button stated: I have accepted that the issues in his Bill have to be addressed by this Parliament. That can be done in one way or another, be that by his Bill or the move to disallow the regulations. Of course, my Bill which I proposed last year has been overtaken by events. Fourteen months have passed and another determination has been brought in. The only ready means now available to Parliament to ensure that it is not muzzled on this matter of principle is for determination No. 11 to be disapproved. As Senator Button said, the issue is one to be addressed by this Parliament. Once disapproved, if we do disapprove the determination, it will, of course, disapprove all of the matters contained in determination No. 11. Some people have said that might mean that we might not be able to travel home on Fridays, because included in the determination into which the Tribunal placed the de facto spouse decision, are the entitlements for senators for travel to and from Parliament. Of course, that is not an issue or a question which should bother senators, because if we do disapprove the Tribunal's decision, the Tribunal could on its own motion or at the request of the Minister, pursuant to sub-section 7 (4) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act, make separate determinations on any or all of the matters contained in determination No. 11. That need not take days or weeks. It could take a matter of minutes. In any event, in the interim determination No. 18 of 1984 would apply. It is very interesting to note in the transcript of this matter of the Remuneration Tribunal, at page 163 the Tribunal admitted that its de facto decisions: . . . comes from the decision which was made previously in respect of the same matter for Ministers. The reference there is to the decision of the Government in 1983 to allow de factos of Ministers to accompany them overseas. I believe that that was not a proper decision. It was made by the Government but it does not form part of the legislative framework. On the other hand, the decision of the non-elected Remuneration Tribunal forms part of the legislative framework of the Commonwealth. The Remuneration Tribunal has acted as a legislative pacesetter. It has done so in such a way as to circumvent efficient parliamentary scrutiny and control. Why do I say that? I say it for the same reasons that I gave to the Tribunal on 16 May, prior to its making the decision. I told it what difficulties parliamentarians would have in exercising scrutiny and control over delegated legislation if it lumped its de facto decision in with its general determination. I told the Tribunal on that occasion of the difficulties I faced with a private member's Bill. Despite the expressions of concern on both sides of this chamber about the principle of the matter and the widespread expressions of concern throughout the community that a decision had been made in this matter, the Parliament could not adequately exercise its audit control over delegated legislation. I invite honourable senators to look at the transcript of the hearing. It is all there. I indicated that it was very difficult in the circumstances with which we are faced for a private senator's Bill to be used for the type of immediate scrutiny that the Parliament has the right to exercise over delegated legislation. I pointed out the time lapse between when I introduced the Bill and when it was likely to be debated, a time lapse which, of course, has extended beyond the fruitful date. If we passed my Bill today it would have no effect because it relates to 1984. I will bet that if I introduced a Bill tomorrow to undo the 1985 Tribunal decision, unless I got some guarantees around the place that the matter would come up for debate it would not do so until after the 1986 review had been tabled. I indicated also that some honourable senators had taken a certain attitude on the Bill. Whilst they said that they were for the family, they made a number of statements to their constituents which were critical of my placing the Bill before the Parliament. I will read part of a letter to a constituent from a senator about my Bill. The constituent had written to the senator asking for support for the Bill. The response stated: Thank you for your recent letter concerning Senator Harradine's Bill on overseas travel allowance for de facto partners of parliamentarians. It seems proper to explain to you my reservations about the Bill as it has been presented to the Senate. I do this against the background of a strong commitment to family values and the family as the basic structure in society. I will not read the next sentence, which would identify the senator. The letter continued: I do not believe, however, that this Bill is a good one. It does not really deal with the problem of travel by de facto spouses. It deals only with a small part of it relating to the private travel by senators and members overseas. It does not, for example, deal with the travel by de facto spouses at public expense within Australia. It does not, for example, deal with the travel at public expense by de facto partners of Ministers. It does not, for example, deal with travel at public expense by de facto partners of senators or members going away on official delegations. From my reading of that letter to honourable senators they will know that that is nonsense. The constituent does not know but honourable senators know that it is nonsense because the Parliament has no power to deal with travel at public expense by de facto partners of Ministers. That is a decision for the Executive Government. The Parliament has no control over travel at public expense by de facto partners of senators and members on official government delegations. Dealing with travel by de facto spouses at public expense within Australia, I assume that the honourable senator concerned was referring to that part of the Tribunal's determination which deals with the travel of a spouse or nominee to and from Canberra. That particular section does not include the wording which defines nominees so as to include de factos. The wording, as it was originally placed in the determination, was designed for the purpose of allowing a close relative or a nominee to come to and from Canberra and it is associated with the travel rights of children to Canberra. In the case of a widow or widower it would, of course, give a person who was engaged as housekeeper that entitlement if that person were so nominated. The senator's letter to the constituent continued: The Bill in fact does not mention the family at all. Neither does it mention de facto partners. What it does is put into statutory form, that is a law, a perquisite for parliamentarians which was never previously in statutory form. The constituent receiving that letter might say `what is the use?', but honourable senators and I know that what was stated is not true. Hence the difficulty one has in bringing in a private member's Bill to undo what the Tribunal has done so as to circumvent, in a manner, the immediate control of the Parliament of delegated legislation. Can the Tribunal make a separate determination on this matter? That question was raised by the Chairman, Mr Justice Mahoney, with me during the Tribunal's hearing. I said to the Chairman that I believed it could but that I would seek legal advice on it. He indicated that it was his view that it could not do so. I sought the advice of senior counsel on the question. The advice was that it is clear that nothing in section 7 (4) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act would prevent the Remuneration Tribunal from dealing with this matter in a separate determination. I have circulated to honourable senators the letter that I wrote to the Remuneration Tribunal on 18 June. That letter sets out the facts of the situation. If honourable senators look at the Remuneration Tribunals Act they will see that this question concerns the effect of section 7 (4) and in particular paragraph (b) of sub-section (4). Section 7 (4) reads: Where the Tribunal inquires into a matter referred to in sub-section (1), (2) or (3)- . . . . . For our purposes we are dealing with sub-section (1); that is to say, the allowances to be paid to members of parliament for performing particular functions in, or in relation to, the Parliament. Paragraph (b) of sub-section (4) states: (i) if the Minister, by a notice in writing given to the Chairman, requests the Tribunal to inquire into, and either to determine or report on, a matter specified in the notice, being a matter that is, or is considered by the Minister to be, significantly related to the first-mentioned matter, the Tribunal shall inquire into the matter specified in the notice and either determine or report on that matter, as the case may be, in accordance with the request. If one looks at page 213 of the Tribunal's report one will see that the Minister, Mr Young, wrote to the judge in the following terms: Pursuant to section 7 (4) (b) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, I request the Tribunal to inquire into and determine or report on the following matters in relation to members of the Parliament. He then listed the matters. On the advice that I have received, I can find nothing in the Act that would prevent the Tribunal from making a separate determination in respect of a particular matter to which sub-section (4) applies. Even if the matter is included with other matters by the Minister in a notice under section 7 (4) (b), the references in the sub-section to any matter, and a matter in the singular, strongly support this view. I invite honourable senators to have a look at the letter that I have sent to them in respect of that question. It is ludicrous to suggest that the Tribunal cannot make separate determinations about separate matters. Of course, what is a separate matter is another question which I do not have the time to go into now. But as I said, it is ludicrous to suggest that the Tribunal cannot deal with matters separately. For example, what if immediately after the Tribunal's determination is handed down there is a very steep increase in postage rates? Do honourable senators say to me that the Tribunal cannot make a determination within hours on that particular issue? Of course it could. I cannot understand the intransigence of the Tribunal in this matter because, besides the rights of Parliament, there is another overriding principle at stake. Either we recognise marriage or we do not. Whether one likes it or not, the Parliament has a view on the question of marriage. The Marriage Act makes very clear what marriage is. Attempts to grant equality, whether or not they carry with them an eligibility for financial subsidy by the taxpayer, involve a matter of great principle and strike at the existing legislative recognition of marriage. We as legislators have a responsibility to uphold the law. Members of parliament have a further responsibility to give an example in matters of principle underlying the law which they pass through this Parliament. Marriage and family life have been basic to the strength of our society for a long time. The Parliament has said so in the Marriage Act. The Tribunal's action represents an attack on the family. Its decision publicly demeans the institution of marriage, strikes at its legislative recognition and flies in the face of the responsibility of parliaments to give an example in matters of principle under-pinning the laws which they pass. It has done so in such a manner as to circumvent the untrammelled right of this Parliament to exercise efficient control and scrutiny of delegated legislation. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(6.56) —I rise to oppose Senator Harradine's motion to disapprove Remuneration Tribunal determination No. 11 of 1985. I point out to honourable senators and to anyone else who is interested that in fact Senator Harradine did not refer to the words he objects to in the half an hour he took to address the Senate tonight. I assume he objects to the following words on page 81 of the 1985 review of the Remuneration Tribunal: . . . for the purpose of this entitlement `nominee' means a person with whom the senator or member has established a bona fide, stable domestic relationship; Senator Harradine wishes to disapprove this determination because he says it contravenes the right of the Parliament to scrutinise or oversee effectively delegated legislation and it is opposed to the family and the institution of marriage. In fact, he spent most of his time dealing with these matters. I assume that that means that he will deal with the other matters in more detail when he takes his right of reply. I understand that another senator wants to say something on this matter. In view of that and the fact that the debate is about to be be interrupted it would be sensible if I continued my remarks when the debate is resumed tomorrow. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senate adjourned at 7 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Quarantine Act-Determination under Section 86E, dated 29 October 1985. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act-Directions under section 37 and 41, to vary Schedules 19 and 20, dated 12 November 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 418) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Enironment, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) What storm water run-off occurs from the Holsworthy Army Base into the Georges River which might contain environmentally negative or toxic wastes. (2) What monitoring processes exist to ensure that dangerous run-offs or spillages into the Georges River are avoided. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is no storm water run-off from the Holsworthy Army Base into the Georges river which is known to contain environmentally negative or toxic wastes other than from normal roadways or parking areas throughout the area. (2) All environmentally negative and toxic wastes such as those from vehicle washing, and kitchen waste and effluent, are treated and removed by contractor or drained and processed by the Army sewerage system. However, the Moorebank sewage treatment plant which processes and discharges waste from the Moorebank military area into the Georges River above the Liverpool Weir has become overloaded at times in the past. This plant is soon to be decommissioned and the area waste is to be re-routed via a new sewage main, currently under construction, to the more modern Holsworthy sewage treatment works. (Question No. 551) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: Is it correct, as stated in Business News, Vol. 6 No. 16, issued by the Australian Information Service that ``the Tokyu Corporation of Japan and the Western Australian Government will conduct a feasibility study into the establishment of Australia's first international university in Perth''; if so, what role does the Australian Government have in relation to this proposal and has the Australian Government been consulted about this possible project and with what outcomes. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: A feasibility study is being undertaken into the development of privately funded university facilities in Western Australia. The study involves Murdoch University, Yanchep Sun City Pty Ltd (the Western Australian subsidiary of Tokyu Corporation of Japan) and EXIM, the Western Australian Government's trading corporation. The honourable Senator also asked about the Commonwealth Government's role. The Minister for Trade and I issued a joint media release on 23 September this year in which we announced several decisions made by the Government concerning the export of education services and related matters, including the establishment of private tertiary institutions. The Government has decided that it will not support the establishment of completely private institutions. However, further consideration is being given to the question of Commonwealth-funded institutions providing full-fee courses to overseas students in association with private organisations and the necessary safeguards which should apply if such arrangements were introduced. The Commonwealth Government has not been formally consulted by the State Government on the details of the proposed arrangements. I would expect that such consultations would take place after the feasibility study has been completed. (Question No. 579) Senator Withers asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) $6,000. (b) Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office (AGRBO)-Nil. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust (SFIT)-$11,400. (2) (a) Finance Directions 13/1, 13/2 and guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. (b) AGRBO-as per 2 (a) above. SFIT-Funds for reasonable hospitality (including reciprocal hospitality) are provided by the Trust where it is judged to be in the interest of the Trust's business. The key word is `reasonable' in the application of funds for hospitality purposes. The primary responsibility for deciding on limits, etc. and whether expenditure on hospitality is a proper charge against the Trust's funds rests with the Chairman. Hospitality expenditure by the Chairman himself is ratified by the Trust. Expenditure on hospitality within approved limits- (a) should, as far as possible, be approved in advance by one of the delegated officers; (b) must be reasonable and able to be justified (eg dinners would not normally fit this category); and (c) is subject to audit in the same way as any other expenditure. Expenditure should be supported by receipts where a cash advance has been obtained or where officers have met the expenditure from their private resources and are claiming reimbursement. The number of Trust officers attending a function should be restricted to those who will be able to advance or promote the Trust's business interests by their attendance. (3) Since the Commonwealth is a tax-exempt employer and since the denial of tax-deductibility for entertainment expenses would, therefore, have no application, the Government has decided that where Departments and Authorities pay entertainment expenses which confer a personal benefit on employees, or which reimburse employees for such expenses, those expenses are to be subject to the tax on non-cash fringe benefits. The relevant Finance Directions and guidelines will be reviewed and amended as necessary to accord with Parliament's enactments in relation to the proposed tax. (Question No. 613) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) How many copies of the publication `Industry, Technology and Commerce-Budget 1985-86' were printed. (2) What was the total cost of (a) preparation, (b) printing, and (c) distribution of the publication. Senator Button — The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) 2 000 copies were printed. (2) The total cost of preparation (a) was $437, printing (b) $2 620, and distribution (c) $835. Total cost of the publication was $3 892. Senator Grimes — On 31 May 1985 (Hansard, pages 2954-5) Senator Hamer asked Senator Button, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the removal of asbestos from the National Library of Australia. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: While there is a well recognised association, under certain circumstances, between occupational exposure to asbestos and diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, the risk to people working in buildings where asbestos is present, but in a sound and/or sealed condition, is considered insignificant. By way of comparison, the risk of disease to a non-smoker by inhaling smoke produced by a fellow worker in the same room is estimated on epidemiological and statistical grounds to be some 90 times greater than the risk from asbestos in the office environment. I am advised that the findings of the Canadian Royal Commission of 1983, and, in addition, the report released in April 1985, in the United Kingdom, by Sir Richard Doll and Professor Julian Petro support the earlier part of my statement. It should be noted that the danger from exposure to asbestos exists only when asbestos fibres are airborne and when their shape and size allow them to be inhaled into the lungs. Removal of existing asbestos in buildings is not necessarily the only action to be taken. Asbestos which is in a sound condition need not be removed, or if it has been subject to mild deterioration through age or wear and tear, it can be sprayed with a sealing compound which renders it safe and prolongs its useful life. Removal may be considered when the asbestos has deteriorated and broken up to such an extent that sealing is not a viable option and there is a risk in the circumstances of free fibres being released into the air in the building. However, it is necessary to realise that when asbestos removal is the chosen option, it is important to adhere strictly to the precautions recommended by the competent authority, otherwise removal may create a real risk where only a potential risk previously existed.