Friday, 29 November 1985 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hamer) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operation of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Black (from 196 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; (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 26 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of wide-spread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Haines (from 120 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 Decolonization 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 Devlin (from 37 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 Morris (from 1,035 citizens) and Richardson (from 273 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the Returned and Ex-Servicemen and their families in Tasmania, showeth: That your petitioners are concerned in regard to the non-appointment of a full time Service Member of the Veterans Review Board in Tasmania. We deplore the fact that Services Members from the mainland States are sent to Tasmania to sit on the Board at enormous cost to taxpayers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Returned Services League Nominee, Mr D. W. Beresford, be appointed as a matter of urgency to the Veterans Review Board situated in Tasmania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 818 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 as The said Bill seeks to give the Federal Government inordinate power and control over the State Governments of Australia and this petition notes that this action is power not acquired by referendum as required by our Commonwealth Constitution. The Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 seeks to give inordinate power and control over local government bodies all over Australia, and this acquisition of power is in abrogation of the Commonwealth Constitution. and therefore immediately request that the Government withdraw the said Bill of Rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Short (from 16 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 take note of the following: The Australian Bill of Rights Bill, 1985 contains no protection of the unborn; The Australian Bill of Rights Bill, 1985 may legalize abortion on demand; The Australian Bill of Rights Bill, 1985 may undermine parental rights over children seeking abortions and contraceptives; The Australian Bill of Rights Bill, 1985 fails to protect embryos and foetuses from cruel or inhuman treatment or experimentation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the present Article 18 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, 1985 be replaced by a new Article 18 to the following effect: ``Every human being, including the unborn, has the inherent right to life which life begins at conception and which right is assertable from conception.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 1,416 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We, the undersigned citizens of Western Australia: Humbly seek your support in opposing the introduction of legislation which will disallow taxation deduction for entertainment expenses. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 952 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) The Senate meet on Friday, 6 December 1985 and the hours of meeting be- 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-4.15 p.m.; and (b) The order of business for that day be as follows: (i) Petitions (ii) Notice of motion (iii) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (iv) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (v) Business as set down on the Notice Paper (vi) At 2 p.m., Questions (vii) Further consideration of Business as set down on the Notice Paper. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I present the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders, from 550 citizens of Canberra requesting that the Government approve the construction of a government primary school in the Canberra suburb of McKellar: We the undersigned, request the government to undertake the construction of a government primary school on the site originally allocated by the N.C.D.C. in the Canberra suburb of McKellar. Petition received. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —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 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —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 prohibit research into, and the testing of, certain nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons systems and anti-ballistic missile systems in Australia. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1985 be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform for inquiry and report. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs: The operation and administration of the Freedom of Information legislation. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) the hours of meeting of the Senate on Tuesday, 3 December 1985, be- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (b) the Order of Business for that day be as follows: (i) Petitions, (ii) Notices of Motion, (iii) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business, (iv) Postponement and rearrangement of Business, (v) Business as set down on the Notice Paper, (vi) At 2 p.m, Questions, (vii) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64, (viii) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order, and (ix) Further consideration of Business as set down on the Notice Paper. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) 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 Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.07) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- AUSTRALIA BILL 1986 This Bill and the accompanying Australia (Request and Consent) Bill 1985 have been introduced at the request of the Parliaments of all the States and in accordance with the established policy of successive Commonwealth Governments. All the States have recently enacted legislation which requested this Parliament to enact legislation in the terms of each of the two Bills. The Bills will give effect to the agreement between the Commonwealth Government and all State Governments to seek the removal of the outmoded residual constitutional links that still exist between Australia and the United Kingdom Parliament, Government and judicial system, and to substitute new constitutional provisions and procedural arrangements. This agreement has been reached following extensive consultations between the Commonwealth and State Governments, dating from the 1982 Premiers' Conference under our predecessors. At the outset, I emphasize that nothing in the legislation will impair the position of the Queen as Queen of Australia. In fact, the Queen, instead of being formally advised on State matters by United Kingdom Ministers, will now be advised direct by State Premiers in her exercise of the powers concerned. The Australia Bill 1986, if enacted, will be an exercise of the power under section 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution-the power to make laws with respect to the `exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia'. The Australia Bill bears the date `1986', and provides for the Act to be cited as the `Australia Act 1986', because it is desirable for the Act to have the same title as the corresponding Act to be enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament; this matter is dealt with in the accompanying Bill. In brief, the proposed legislation will terminate any powers that might still remain in the United Kingdom Parliament to make laws having effect as part of Australian law. It will remove existing fetters and limitations upon the legislative powers of the State Parliaments except in respect of the conduct of foreign affairs. In particular, the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 will be repealed in relation to the States. As well, residual executive powers of the United Kingdom Government with respect to the States will be terminated. The legislation will also remove the remaining avenues of appeal from Australian Courts to the Privy Council, thus making the High Court of Australia the final Court of Appeal for all Australian Courts. This will end the anomalous situation in the area of legal precedent, where a State Supreme Court could find itself faced with two binding, yet conflicting, authorities. Among other important provisions in the Bills are those concerning the State Governors. They are to be vested with all of the Queen's existing powers and functions in respect of the States except those in relation to appointments of State Governors and the termination of their appointments, and in relation to awards of Imperial Honours. On these matters, the Queen will no longer be advised by United Kingdom Ministers (following recommendations by the State Premiers to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom Government). Instead the Queen will be advised directly in each case by the Premier of the State concerned. Furthermore, when the Queen is personally present in a State, she will be able to exercise a power or function in relation to a State but will do so on any occasion only if there has been mutual and prior agreement between the Queen and the Premier that it would be appropriate for her to do so. All State Premiers have confirmed their acceptance that such mutual and prior agreement is an essential ingredient of the proposed arrangements. In order to cater for those few States who may still wish to issue them, arrangements have been made for Imperial Honours to be awarded by the Queen upon the advice of the Premier of the State concerned. These arrangements do not need to be included in the legislation and have not been included. Procedures acceptable to the Commonwealth and State Governments, the Queen and the United Kingdom Government have been formulated and will be given effect by amendments to the prerogative instruments in the United Kingdom constituting the various Orders and Awards. I turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The Australia Bill departs from the usual form of Commonwealth Bills in that the provisions for its short title, commencement and interpretation are placed at the end so as to parallel the Act to be sought from the United Kingdom Parliament. This has been done so that the clause numbers of the two Bills fully correspond. Clause 1 of the Australia Bill terminates the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws having effect as part of the Australian law, whether as law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory. Clause 2, which must be read subject to clauses 5 and 6 mentioned below, declares and enacts in sub-clause (1) that the powers of each State Parliament include powers to legislate extra-territorially. Sub-clause (2) removes any other limitations on the legislative powers of the States that might exist by reason of their former colonial status. However, sub-clause 2 (2) expressly provides that it does not confer upon any State any capacity that the State did not have immediately before the commencement of the Australia Act to engage in relations with countries outside Australia. Sub-clause 3 (1) removes the fetters imposed upon the States by the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. Sub-clause 3 (2), which will operate subject to clauses 5 and 6, makes it clear that the States will be able to enact legislation repugnant to the laws of England or to United Kingdom Acts, and that those Acts may be repealed or amended by a State Parliament in so far as they are part of the law of the State. Clause 4 expressly repeals sections 735 and 736 of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act 1894 in so far as they are still part of the law of a State. Clause 5 qualifies clause 2 and sub-clause 3 (2) by making them subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and the Commonwealth Constitution. Clause 5 goes on to provide that they do not operate so as to give effect to any provision of a State Act that would repeal, amend or be repugnant to the Australia Act itself, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, the Commonwealth Constitution or the Statute of Westminster, as amended and in force from time to time. Clause 6 provides that, notwithstanding clause 2 and sub-clause 3 (2), a law of a State made after the commencement of the Australia Act respecting the constitution, powers or procedure of the Parliament of that State shall be of no force or effect unless made in the manner and form (if any) required by a law made by that rliament, whether before or after the commencement of the Australia Act. It thus preserves the entrenched provisions of State Constitutions subject to any changes made in accordance with State law. Clause 7 contains the provisions relating to the vesting of the Queen's powers in State Governors, except in regard to appointments of Governors and the exercise of the Queen's powers when she is personally present in the State. I mention again the understanding that the Queen, when personally present in a State, would only exercise a power or function following mutual and prior agreement between the Queen and the Premier. Clause 8 will put an end to existing powers of the Queen to disallow State laws, and will prevent any requirement for the operation of State laws to be suspended pending signification of the Queen's pleasure. Sub-clause 9 (1) will prevent any law or instrument from requiring the Governor of a State to withhold assent from any Bill that has been passed in the manner and form (if any) required by a law of that State, and sub-clause 9 (2) will preclude any law or instrument from requiring the reservation of any Bill for a State Act for the signification of her Majesty's pleasure. Clause 10 provides that, after the commencement of the Act, the United Kingdom Government will have no responsibility for the government of any State. Clause 11 will terminate appeals to the Privy Council from Australian Courts. However, it will not affect an appeal instituted before the commencement of the legislation, or an appeal instituted after that commencement pursuant to leave granted on an appropriate application or petition presented before the commencement. Clause 12, which supplements clause 1, expressly repeals section 4, sub-sections 9 (2) and (3), and sub-section 10 (2) of the Statute of Westminster, relating to the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament to make laws with respect to the Commonwealth and the States of Australia, in so far as they are part of Australian law. Clause 13 and 14 contain special provisions concerning the Constitution Acts of Queensland and Western Australia. These provisions are consequential upon the termination of the powers and responsibilities of United Kingdom Ministers in respect of the States. Clause 15 provides that the proposed legislation and the Statute of Westminster, as amended and in force from time to time, in so far as they are part of the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, can be repealed or amended only by the Commonwealth Parliament at the request, or with the concurrence, of the Parliaments of all the States. An exception is made in respect of Commonwealth legislation enacted pursuant to any constitutional alteration made, in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution, after the commencement of the Australia Act. Clauses 16 and 17 provide for matters of interpretation, short title and commencement. It has been agreed between the Commonwealth and State Governments that the Australia Acts to be enacted by the Commonwealth and United Kingdom Parliaments will be proclaimed to come into operation at the same time. Mr President, passage of this long overdue legislation will complete the process of constitutional development commenced at the beginning of this century. It will eliminate those laws and procedures which are anachronistic and substitute new arrangements which reflect Australia's status as an independent and sovereign nation. It will also ensure the capacity of the States to exercise fully the powers that are appropriate to their position in our Federation, freed at last from the legal fetters and limitations derived from their earlier status as British colonies. I commend the Bill to the Senate. AUSTRALIA (REQUEST AND CONSENT) BILL 1985 This Bill complements the Australia Bill 1986. By enacting this second Bill-the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill-this Parliament will declare that the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth request, and consent to, the enactment by the United Kingdom Parliament of an Act in the terms set out in the Schedule to the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill. That scheduled Act is in the same terms as the Australia Bill 1986 now before this House, except for some minor differences that are needed to take account of the fact that the scheduled Act will be an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. In addition to this Commonwealth request to the United Kingdom Parliament, each State Parliament has enacted legislation directly requesting the United Kingdom Parliament to enact legislation in the terms of the proposed United Kingdom Act. The remarks made in relation to the provisions of the Australia Bill apply to the corresponding provisions of the Act to be sought from the United Kingdom Parliament as set out in the Schedule to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) 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 Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.09) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- STATES GRANTS (NURSE EDUCATION TRANSFER ASSISTANCE) BILL 1985 This Bill gives legislative effect to the Government's decision, announced in August 1984, to support the transfer of basic nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education at diploma level. The purpose of the Bill is to provide financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for the transfer of nurse education and to empower the Commonwealth Minister for Health to make agreements with the relevant State Ministers on the terms and conditions related to that assistance. Nurse education has traditionally been carried on in hospitals, with the student forming an integral part of the hospital work force. The responsibility for nurse education has therefore clearly rested within the States' area of responsibility. Nursing, like all health care, is currently undergoing a profound change. This change began with the drug revolution of the 1940s. Together with constantly changing medical technology, the effect of this on all fields of health care has been to develop a concept of health as an entity. The concept and practice of illness care is now only one part of health delivery. The recognition that health can be taught and can be promoted by education, that illness can be prevented, that hospitals, whether psychiatric or general, should be used as crisis intervention centres only, and that patients should be rehabilitated in their own environments, are part of the new patterns of health care promoted since the 1940s and 1950s. They are also in accord with the Government's policy on health care. All this has required a rethinking by the health professionals of their role in health care. Professional nursing representatives have constantly stated that the traditional hospital based education for the nurse was becoming too narrow and inadequate to meet the changing health needs of our society. Furthermore, in the highly complex atmosphere of acute care, many have considered that patient care requirements were too sophisticated to permit student nurses to practice total individualised care, and that, therefore, patient care was being fragmented. The Sax report on nurse education and training to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in 1978, addressed this change and advised that the professional functions of the registered nurse included being able to: plan, implement and evaluate the nursing care appropriate to the nursing needs of individuals: accept individual responsibility and accountability for nursing practice: function independently with other health professionals: communicate effectively with patients or clients, their families, and other members of health teams: appreciate the place of research in nursing practice and participate in nursing research projects: and undertake continuing education. The nursing profession has consistently maintained that such professional functions require the nurse to have received a tertiary education. Over the years, professional nursing organisations have constantly pressed the Government of the day to make the move from hospital based education to tertiary institutions. The New South Wales Government announced, in November 1983, its decision to transfer nurse education to colleges of advanced education between 1985 and 1987 involving an estimated 7,500 students. The Commonwealth Government was aware of the vital contribution of the nursing profession to the health services of this country and recognised the importance of improving arrangements for their education and professional development. Following the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's report in May 1984, the Government set up an interdepartmental committee on nurse education to report on the education of nurses, taking into accounting not only the health and education factors but also the status of women, employment, industrial relations and costs. The committee consulted closely with representatives of all State and Territory governments and the then Capital Territory Health Commission, representatives of nursing organisations, the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, the Hospital Employees Federation, the New South Wales Nursing Association, the Australian Congress of Mental Health Nurses, the Queensland Nurses Union of Employees, the College of Nursing, Australia, the New South Wales College of Nursing, the New South Wales Nurses Union and the Health and Research Employeees Association of Australia. After consideration of the IDC report on nurse education, the Federal Government announced on 24 August 1984 its in-principle support for the full transfer of nurse education to colleges of advanced education from hospital based schools of nursing, with the last intake into hospital based courses in 1990 and the full transfer completed by the end of 1993. The Government's commitment to the transfer is in full accord with its priorities and policies in the health and education areas. We are looking to the colleges of advanced education to provide a better educated and more flexible nursing work force. The transfer will also increase the educational and employment opportunities, particularly for women, and enhance the professional studying of nursing. In agreeing to support the transfer of nurse education the government was conscious of the significant ramifications that the transfer would have in both the health care and education sectors. Special features of the transfer required that the assistance provided for the transfer be structured to address those features. A major objective of the Commonwealth is that the transfer proceed in a planned and orderly manner, thereby minimising the potential for disruption in the health care and education sectors. The Commonwealth's assistance to the States for the transfer has therefore been structured not only to achieve this objective but to take account of special features. The states responsibility for nurse education, the hospital work force implications and differences between the States made continuation of the States' responsibility crucial to a smooth transfer. It has been made clear to the States that the Commonwealth Government sees itself as responding to State initiatives on the transfer, particularly in relation to the rate of the transfer. To achieve the national objectives of responsible national nursing work force planning and minimising the disruption in the health care and education sectors requires a co-ordinated and co-operative approach developed jointly between the Commonwealth and the States. This Government's financial assistance to the States has been on a co-operative effort, to provide support for the transfer in a way that is both responsible and financially sound. The Commonwealth Government has taken the view that, as hospital based nurse education is currently funded by the States and the tertiary education sector is Commonwealth funded, nurse education over the transfer period to 1993, should involve an element of cost sharing. Over this period there will also need to be close co-operation between the Commonwealth and State health and education authorities, together with the colleges of advanced education, in the provision and funding of the nurse education courses. The level of the Commonwealth's assistance to the States is $1,500 per student per year based on 1983 prices. The level of grant will be indexed using the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's indexation arrangements for advanced education recurrent funding. The indexed level of grant in 1985 prices is $1,630 per student per year. All students undertaking a basic nursing diploma course at a college of advanced education will be eligible to apply for Commonwealth tertiary education assistance scheme (TEAS) allowances on the same conditions as other tertiary students. The estimated cost to the Commonwealth of the student TEAS allowances is over $1,000 per student per year. This means Federal funding in excess of $2,630 per nursing student in 1985. The level of financial assistance proposed by the Commonwealth is not intended to meet the full cost of the transfer. It is intended to be, and is, a realistic level of assistance for what is traditionally a State responsibility. As I said before, the transfer needs to be a co-operative effort between the Commonwealth and the States, and this applies financially as well as administratively. Costs of hospital based nurse education vary substantially from State to State, depending on factors such as the structure of the training, the number of hours of theory taught and the size of the school of nursing. As the costs vary, so will the savings that accrue to the health sector when the training ceases. The major factor that differentiates between the cost levels appears to be the extent to which student nurses are used as part of the hospital nursing work force. Where the students perform a substantial work force role the costs of the training and the consequential savings are lower. After the transfer is completed in 1993, the Federal Government will fund basic nurse education on the same basis as all other advanced education, after appropriate adjustments are made to Commonwealth-State financial arrangements. An important constraint on the rate of transfer is the supply of registered nurses. Over recent years there has been a marked reduction in the number of nurses being trained. This has meant that the transfer must proceed at a rate which does not generate demand at a greater level than the supply. The increasing shortage of nurses is of serious concern to the Government and we are aware that our concern is shared with the States and the nursing profession. It is clear that the shortage of nurses is making the transfer a difficult process. I should explain to honourable Senators that, when student nurse positions are transferred from a hospital to a college, the hospital loses some of its work force which it needs to replace by employing additional qualified staff. In the current situation of a nursing shortage the replacement is often proving difficult to find. The States have had increasing recourse to overseas recruitment to cope with the recruitment problems. The Government gave its agreement to increased immigration of nurses as a short term measure only, to ensure the minimum disruption to the health care system. At the same time it was made clear to the States that increased training and retraining efforts were expected. To this end the Commonwealth, through the labour market programs of employment and industrial relations, has already committed some $3.3m to assist the States in providing additional retraining programs for nurses not currently working in nursing. As a result of recent discussions and consultation with the States and nursing profession, the Government has agreed to provide up to an additional $4m for nurse retraining over 1986 and 1987. This is evidence of the Government's commitment to the orderly transfer of nurse education. The Government is firmly of the opinion that priority should be given to the education training and employment of those in our Australian community. We view with concern the tendency of the States to look overseas before looking to those in their community. The transfer clearly conforms with the Government's educational and training priorities and, we believe, will encourage States to look to their own communities first. The Government is concerned to ensure that an influx of nursing students into the tertiary education sector-and remember we are talking about some 18,000 students-does not disrupt or displace other students, either through their impact on teaching resources or facilities. Such displacement would bring the transfer into conflict with other important educational objectives of the government. The financial assistance to the States will be on a uniform student basis, the level of the grant being determined by the agreed number of students entering basic nurse education courses at colleges of advanced education. The agreed number of students will be determined on a triennial basis after consultation with all the States and Territories. In the current triennium the agreed national program will be 1,000 students in 1985, 2,700 in 1986 and 5,000 in 1987. The program will increase each year to approximately 18,000 students in 1993. These places are additional to the 1,369 college of advanced education places currently totally funded through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for those basic nursing courses already in existence within the colleges of advanced education. There will be cost penalties imposed on those States which exceed the rate of transfer agreed to by the Commonwealth. However, where States increase the total number of nurses they are training there will be no penalty. Payment of both TEAS and the per capita grant are conditional upon the State agreeing to fund a tertiary education capital program that is acceptable to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission will advise the Government on this aspect. Details of the terms and conditions relating to the payment will be incorporated in agreements between the Commonwealth and the States, rather than in this legislation. These agreements are provided for under clause 4 of the Bill. These agreements will provide the terms and conditions of the financial assistance and the administrative mechanisms related to payment of the assistance. As the Commonwealth is responding to State government initiatives on the transfer, the approach taken, the timing and the rate of the transfer will differ from State to State-the agreements will reflect those differences. I previously mentioned the requirement that the States fund an acceptable capital program for nurse education over the transfer period. The Government is looking both to protect the interests of the existing college students and to ensure the States continue to carry the responsibility they would have met, had the transfer not gone ahead, of providing the nursing students with adequate facilities. In a number of cases facilities associated with existing hospital based schools of nursing will be accepted as part of that capital program. There will be consultations with the States on all aspects of those capital programs as part of discussions on the agreements. The Bill also requires the States to provide financial information on the funding of basic nurse education courses at the colleges of advanced education. The funds to be provided by the Commonwealth under this Bill will be additional to funding continuing to be provided under the programs of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission made available through the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984. There are however, consequential changes required to clarify accounting requirements to be met under that Act. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 which will be debated cognately with this Bill will effect these changes. As honourable senators will be aware, since May 1985 when this Bill was first introduced, there has been broad and increasing concern in the community and the nursing profession that the transfer proceed on schedule-that is, be completed by 1993. The Government shares this concern. Against this background, and the increasing shortages in the nursing work force, the Government has conducted further discussions with the States on proposed financial arrangements for the transfer of nurse education. Flowing from these discussions, the Government has agreed to provide supplementary assistance to the States. The package of assistance addresses both the difficulties encountered by the States in respect of the transfer and some of the related general work force concerns expressed by the nursing profession. We are committed to the transfer going through on schedule. Although most States asked for an increase in the level of the basic offer the Government was not convinced by the claims. Many of the costs being associated with the transfer are costs that would in any event have been incurred by the States as a result of inevitable changes in nurse education. The Government however does recognise that costs associated with developing basic nurse education courses in colleges may impose additional costs on the States and that these costs must be met to ensure quality courses. It has therefore agreed to provide a further $2.3m for new and expanded basic nurse education courses. The allocation of these funds will be on the basis of advise from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. This provision of additional funding will require amendment of sub-clause 4 (4) of the Bill which specifies the level of financial assistance payable to the States. As the Commission will need to consult with States on the transfer, planning and college needs the Government is unable at this stage to advise on the apportionment of that $2.3m between the relevant years. We anticipate however being in a position to do so in the autumn session 1986 when the level of funding in sub-clause 4 (4) will also need to be adjusted for changes in price levels. Financial Impact Statement With regard to the approved number of student places, the estimated cost of the indexed $1,500 per capita grant, will be $1.62m in 1985, $4.43m in 1986 and $8.2m in 1987. Although the Government has not yet determined the transfer program for the following trienniums, I should mention that the estimated cost for the 18,000 students in 1993 on completion of the transfer, is $29.5m in June 1985 prices. The cost of the development assistance is estimated at $2.3m in the period 1985-87. The funds required will be appropriated annually in the normal manner. The framework of the transfer program will however be as set out in this bill and in future amendments. The transfer will also impose an additional cost on the Commonwealth, through the tertiary education assistance scheme, of the order of $2.5m in 1985, because of the additional number of students likely to be eligible for teas allowance. The decision by the Commonwealth to assist the transfer of nurse education has been widely supported by the nursing profession. It was made after many years of indecision by earlier governments and marks an important and historic step for the nursing profession in Australia. Benefits resulting from the transfer will include not only increased employment opportunities, but above all will improve the quality of nursing care for all members of the community by reducing its fragmentation. At the same time, the disadvantages suffered by nurses because of the disparity of their education compared with other health professionals will be rectified. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1985 This Bill provides for amendment of the State Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 to clarify the accounting requirements to be met under that Act consequential upon the provisions of the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill 1985. This Bill does not alter the grants appropriated under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act. There is therefore no financial impact from this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to implement Government decisions regarding: The power of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to make program standards; and The inquiry procedures of the Tribunal. The proposed amendments can be summarised as follows: In relation to the power of the Tribunal to make standards, the Bill provides for the preclassification of children's programs by the Tribunal and the inclusion of quantitative elements in standards. The provisions relating to the enforcement of standards are based on recommendations of the Administrative Review Council (ARC) in its 1981 report on the inquiry procedures of the Tribunal. The Council recommended that the Act be amended to confer upon the Tribunal a wider range of powers to respond to breaches of broadcasting standards. Honourable senators will recall that amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act were passed last year to streamline the Tribunal's inquiry procedures by the automatic extension of licence periods pending completion of a licence renewal inquiry, and the formation of divisions of the Tribunal. In the autumn sittings of Parliament this year further amendments were passed which provide the framework of uniform procedures for Tribunal inquiries. They empower the Tribunal to dispense with a public hearing where no substantive issues of public concern are raised. The Bill will enable regulations to be made to allow the Tribunal to apply the new uniform inquiry procedures to inquiries which would otherwise be required to be dealt with under old, less efficient procedures. Amendments relating to the enforcement of program standards were also originally scheduled for inclusion in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985 passed by Parliament in the Autumn sittings. Following the High Court's decision in Herald-Sun TV Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the amendments were withdrawn to allow for further consideration and consultation with representatives of industry and public interest groups. The amendments contained in the Bill will not alter the costs or revenues of the Commonwealth. The purpose of the legislation is to give the Tribunal the power to make and enforce certain standards. I should point out that, until recently challenged, the Tribunal had already exercised this power in the belief that it was within its authority under the Broadcasting and Television Act. The machinery, that is the personnel and facilities, is therefore in place and the amendments will not necessitate an increase in the resources of the Tribunal. The Bill provides for the amendment of two Acts, the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985. In general terms, the amendments will commence on 1 January 1986. The form of the Bill is complicated, however, as a result of the commencement of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985 on that date. That Act preserves the application of the previous Act in some circumstances. The result is that some amendments made in the Bill are in duplicate form. I now turn to the detail of the proposed amendments. STANDARDS-MAKING POWERS There is a history of doubt about the standards-making powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and its predecessor the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. As long ago as 1963 the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Production for Television expressed the opinion that the program standards-making power of the Broadcasting Control Board was confined by legislation to a qualitative determination and did not extend to determinations as to content, type, variety or country of origin of programs. Its concern was, that unless the regulating authority had the power to set legally enforceable standards it would not be able to ensure that adequate and comprehensive programs were provided by commercial broadcasters. The committee recommended amendment of the Act but no such legislation eventuated. In 1978, when the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts inquired into children's television, it commented on the fact that the questions raised by the Senate Select Committee in 1963 had never been resolved. It said: ``over the whole matter of industry regulation, there still hangs the question of the Tribunal's powers to regulate effectively''. It recommended that if it were considered by the Attorney-General's Department that the Act was in any way inadequate for effective regulation, that it be amended to remove any inadequacies, ambiguities or inconsistencies. Still the Act was not amended. A number of recent court decisions against the Tribunal has now, once more, highlighted the need to amend the Act to affirm the standards-making powers of the Tribunal. The decisions have actually invalidated a number of the Tribunal's standards. DEFINITION OF PROGRAM STANDARDS The first of these decisions was of the Federal Court in Saatchi and Saatchi Compton (Vic) Pty Limited v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Court ruled that a ``standard'' must relate directly to the quality or nature of the material broadcast. That is, the Tribunal's power does not extend to the regulation of circumstances connected with the production of a program where these circumstances are not intrinsically related to the nature of the end product. The Court found that the requirements of the Tribunal's standards relating to the Australian content of advertisements was in no way related to the quality or nature of the advertisement produced. Therefore, these provisions did not qualify as a standard in respect of the televising of advertisements for the purposes of the Act. Subsequently, the full Federal Court upheld the decision, after an appeal by the Tribunal. The effect of these decisions is that many of the Tribunal's current program and advertising standards which purport to impose quantitative rules, and this would possibly include time based rules, could well be void. In this category would fall major aspects of advertising time standards, Australian content program standards, children's program and advertising standards. The Bill redefines ``program standard'' to include the concept of ``condition''. This is to avoid the interpretation given by the Federal Court in the Saatchi case that ``standard'' must relate directly to the quality or nature of the material broadcast. The inclusion of ``condition'' will enable the Tribunal to apply standards which regulate the circumstances connected with the production of a program. In particular this will enable the Tribunal to apply standards which relate to Australian content in productions. PRECLASSIFICATION OF CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS In May of this year 14 commercial television licensees successfully challenged the Tribunal's power to require children's programs to be pre-classified prior to telecast. The High Court, in the Herald-Sun TV case, decided that the preclassification requirements in the Tribunal's children's television standards were beyond the Tribunal's power under the Act. Since 1979 the Tribunal has required ``children's'' or ``C'' programs to be pre-classified prior to their telecast by commercial television licensees. The assessment of programs is carried out by the Tribunal which has the benefit of the recommendations of the Children's Program Committee. The Tribunal has employed the preclassification approach to ``children's'' programming as a quality control mechanism and to ensure that these programs, which are produced specifically for the needs and interests of children aged 6-13 years, meet the Tribunal's standards. ``children's'' programs are those which: (a) are designed specifically for children older than 5 years and younger than 14 years; (b) are designed to entertain children; (c) are well produced technically and artistically; (d) can be easily understood and appreciated by children; (e) fulfil some special need of children; (f) contribute to the social, emotional or intellectual development of children; (g) are appropriate for Australian children, not assuming too much of the culture, dialect or environment of some other country; and (h) are not outdated in content or in technical or artistic production. The regulatory action of the Tribunal followed numerous inquiries into children's television. As early as 1953 the Royal Commission on Television examined children's television. It received numerous submissions from parents and teachers concerned about the predicted preponderance of American programs on Australian television, the effects on children of television violence, and overt commercialism. The Commission recommended the introduction of special standards regulating the production of television programs; the addition of two members to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to present the interests of the public; and the establishment of a children's advisory committee to advise the Broadcasting Control Board. Other inquiries into television which have demonstrated community concern about children's television include a Senate Select Committee inquiry into the encouragement of Australian products for television (1963); a Senate Standing Committee inquiry into ``all aspects of television and broadcasting, including the Australian content of television programmes'' (1971-1975); and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board's standards inquiry 1975. In 1977 the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts began its inquiry into the impact of television on the development and learning behaviour of children. It concluded that there was genuine widespread public concern about children's television and that given the economics of commercial television, the prospects for improvement were not bright. This inquiry was conducted concurrently with the Tribunal's self regulation inquiry of 1977. That inquiry was also highly critical of children's programming. It recommended the establishment of a new classification for children's programs, the establishment of the children's program committee, and the introduction of a pre-classification system for children's programs. The pre-classification system was introduced in 1979. In 1981 the Senate Standing Committee presented its report entitled ``Children's Television Revisited''. This reviewed progress in children's television since its earlier report of 1978. At the time of that review the powers of the Tribunal were under consideration by the Government. The Committee therefore did not pursue the matter in detail. Nevertheless, it placed on record its opposition to any amending legislation that would, in any way, diminish the Tribunal's powers and obligations to regulate in the area of children's television. Earlier this year the committee examined children's television standards in its examination of annual reports. Its report recommended that the Broadcasting and Tele- vision Act be amended so that the Tribunal has the clear power to regulate in the field of children's television including the power to pre-assess ``C'' programs. In 1984, the Tribunal thoroughly reviewed its approach to children's program regulation and decided that the requirement for preclassification should continue on the basis that it had produced a marked improvement in the quality and variety of children's programs since 1979. At that time it also introduced a new requirement for Australian children's drama programs, which was that licensees televise a minimum of 8 hours of first release Australian children's drama each financial year and that this also be submitted to the Tribunal for prior approval. Mr President, the justification for preclassification of children's ``C'' programs is overwhelming. Independent inquiries have consistently concluded that children's programs need special treatment. There can be no doubt that preclassification of this very small proportion of programs is not only appropriate but necessary at this time. The Bill will affirm the Tribunal's power to make program standards for ``children's television programs''. The standard may require prior approval for children's programs which are shown during specified hours (referred to as ``C'' time). These are usually 4-5 p.m. on weekdays. They may also provide for the preclassification of children's drama programs. In addition to the affirmation of these powers the Bill will permit sub-classifications of standards for programs designed for children under the age of 14 years. At present the Tribunal standards for children's programs are for those designed for the 6 to 13 years age group as a whole. It will also enable the tribunal to extend its preclassification standards to programs designed for younger children-that is, children up to 5 years of age. The Bill will provide the tribunal with the power to require preclassification of programs which are to be televised at times other than ``C'' time but which a licensee wishes to present as meeting the tribunal's conditions for ``C'' time programs. I would like to point out that under the principal Act any revision of standards by the Tribunal can only be undertaken after consultation with broadcasters. Some concern has been expressed about the application of the preclassification requirements to the production of programs classified as ``children's drama''. Commercial television licensees and the television production industry have expressed the wish that children's drama programs be awarded a full ``C'' classification at script stage prior to actual production of the program. In the past, the Tribunal has awarded a ``provisional C'' classification at script stage with the subsequent award of a full ``C'' classification of the completed program. With these concerns in mind the tribunal is considering the most appropriate form of preclassification arrangement. It will be consulting with representatives of the television and production industries and other interested organisations about the options available. The Government is not in favour of a general power of preclassification. The Bill, therefore, expressly limits the Tribunal's power to require preclassification to that of children's programs. Mr Deputy President, I would also like to emphasise that ``preclassification'' is not a form of censorship. Programs which are rejected as unsuitable for a ``C'' classification can be broadcast at other times. It is also important to remember that ``C'' time is normally 4 to 5 p.m. in the afternoon Monday to Friday-that is one hour only, 5 days per week. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS The Bill provides for a significant change in the enforcement of program standards. A breach of a program standard will no longer attract a criminal penalty. The Bill will, of course, require that licensees supervise the broadcasting of their programs to ensure that the program standards are observed but the enforcement of this provision will be decriminalised. The Bill will retain, in a slightly modified form, the power to give directions to a licensee for the purpose of ensuring that the program standards are complied with. A failure to comply with such a direction will remain a criminal offence. The giving of such a direction will, however, be the exercise of a ``substantive power'' by the tribunal and thus must result from an ``inquiry'' under the Act which will be subject to the uniform inquiry procedures provided for in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985 which was passed during the 1985 Autumn sittings. The Amendment Act also provides, that in matters of urgency, the Tribunal may vary the inquiry procedures or adopt different procedures, as appropriate. In its 1981 report the Administrative Review Council proposed that the Tribunal be given the power to impose temporary restrictions on advertising by licensees as a penalty for breaches of the act or program conditions. This would however have raised a number of problems with respect to the separation of executive and judicial powers. The Government decided that the current Tribunal's powers to give directions be modified to complement the new scheme of enforcement of program standards as outlined above. A history of breaches of program standards may also be relevant at licence renewal inquiries as such a pattern of behaviour could amount to a breach of licence conditions and of the undertakings given by a licensee on the grant or renewal of a licence. The Bill also includes a new defence provision which applies where the failure of the licensee to adequately supervise broadcasts was due to: a reasonable mistake; reasonable reliance on information supplied by another person; or the act or default of another person or any accident or other cause beyond the licensee's control and the licensee took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the breach. This defence is based upon a similar provision in the Trade Practices Act 1974. The Bill also adopts a specific recommendation of the ARC to empower the Tribunal to reprimand or admonish a licensee for a breach of program conditions and most importantly, to direct the licensee to broadcast the reprimand or admonishment in such form and manner as is specified by the Tribunal in its direction. This will be a ``substantive power'' of the Tribunal and thus subject to the uniform inquiry procedures provided for under the Act. In addition the Bill extends the circumstances in which the Tribunal may issue directions and give orders under section 119 of the Act. This section currently permits the Tribunal to place restrictions on individuals broadcasting material or rendering or selecting material for broadcast where they have been either convicted of broadcasting or selecting blasphemous, indecent or obscene matter or where the Tribunal has reason to believe a person has rendered or selected for broadcast an item which has, or may, cause offence to a section of the public. The Bill will amend these provisions to enable the Tribunal to call upon an individual who has presented in live broadcast, or who has selected material which has been broadcast, in breach of the program standards, to show cause why a direction should not be issued. Such a direction may prohibit or impose restrictions on a person from presenting live broadcasts or from passing or selecting programs for a broadcast. A direction may only be given where the person fails to show cause in accordance with the Act. Further, the issue of such a direction will be the exercise of a ``substantive power'' of the Tribunal and thus must result from an inquiry under the Tribunal's new uniform inquiry procedures. The objective of this clause is to give the Tribunal a means of enforcing program standards against individuals who may otherwise be able to infringe the standard in circumstances where licensees have limited, practical, supervisory powers. The classic example is where live broadcasts are involved. In fact the Tribunal will not be empowered under this provision to censor material. A licensee may pre-record any such material and subsequently broadcast it. In these circumstances it would, however, be the licensee who would be clearly responsible. Although not specifically stated in the Bill directions made by the Tribunal in relation to the above mentioned provisions must be reasonable having regard to the breach involved. An ``unreasonable'' direction given by the Tribunal would be subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. TRANSITIONAL AMENDMENTS The Bill will amend the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985 to provide that regulations may be made to extend the application of the new, streamlined, uniform inquiry procedures. These procedures will come into operation on 1 January 1986. As the Act currently stands the new procedures could not be used for Tribunal inquiries involving old system licences. The Bill amends the transitional provisions of the 1985 Amendment Act to empower the making of regulations to apply the new procedures to old system licences. The effect of this will be to enable all inquiries conducted pursuant to notices issued after 1 January 1986 to be conducted under the same procedures, that is, the new procedures. The Tribunal inquiries and new arrangement will streamline the Tribunal's inquiries and will overcome the administrative difficulty of having two inquiry procedures operating concurrently. It is proposed to make regulations under this power to apply new procedures to: (i) inquiries into the grant of licences under s.82 of the amended Act where the return date for applications for licences to the Tribunal (that is the specified date under s.82 (1) (b) (i) ) is later than 1 January 1986. This will, however, result in the grant of an old system licence which will need to be subsequently converted to a new system licence pursuant to s.99 of the 1985 Act; (ii) new inquiries on applications for supplementary licences referred by the Minister to the Tribunal after 1 January 1986, that is, where the date of referral under s.82A (4) (a) of the amended Act is after 1 January 1986. Licences issued following applications made prior to 1 January 1986 but not referred until after 1 January 1986 would result in old system licences granted pursuant to a Tribunal inquiry conducted in accordance with the new uniform inquiry procedures. Conversion of old to new system licences would then subsequently occur; (iii) other applications to the Tribunal made after 1 January 1986 for the exercise of any of its substantive powers (as specified in s.17A (2) of the Amendment Act) in relation to old system licences; (iv) inquiries into the exercise of the Tribunal's sunstantive powers into old system licences which are initiated by the Tribunal of its own volition, after 1 January 1986. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill is to amend the legislation governing the operations of the CTEC to give effect to Government decisions taken following consideration of the report by the CTEC Chairman on the structure of the Commission and arrangements for co-ordination and consultation with States and institutions. As indicated in the Supplementary Guidelines to CTEC the report has received broad based support for its general objective of more co-ordinated consideration of State and national needs in tertiary education. The Government has largely endorsed the report's recommendations which will have the effect of reducing the costs and complexities of existing arrangements while supporting a more efficient and effective process of advising the Government on the development of tertiary education. Many of the recommendations of the report do not require legislation. Action has already been taken to reorganise the CTEC Secretariat along functional lines and to improve arrangements for the formal consultation processes between the Commission and the States and institutions, for the triennial planning processes. The changes embodied in this Bill will: extend the charter of the Commission to include in its functions the promotion of developments across the various sectors of tertiary education. The Report concluded that the present structure impedes the promotion of the Government's participation and equity objectives as it acts as a barrier to cross-sectoral developments. The amended Act will include ``institutes of tertiary education'' in the types of tertiary institution on which the Commission can provide advice and will include provision for the Minister to declare a specified institution or authority to be an institute of tertiary education for the purposes of the CTEC Act; re-designate the sectoral Councils as Advisory Councils with the function of advising the Commission on needs and new policies in their respective sectors. The Report concluded that the existing system of sectoral Councils advising the Minister, with the Commission in turn developing its advice to Government, results in excessive report writing, considerable duplication and leads to unrealistic resource bids. Each Advisory Council will publish a triennial report on the state of its sector, its problems and priorities for future development but will no longer develop detailed financial recommendations for Commonwealth grants. reduce the part-time membership from 8 to 6 in the case of the Universities and Advance Education Councils and from 8 to 7 in the case of the TAFE Council. In addition, a part-time member of each Council will be appointed to membership of the Commission (in addition to the full-time Council Chairpersons) to provide expertise in sectoral matters. Part-time membership of the Commission will be increased from 5 to 6. Savings of approximately $100,000 per annum will result from the changes arising from this legislation, in particular the reduction from 29 to 22 in the part-time membership of the Commission and the Councils. The Bill also provides for the insertion of non-sexist terminology in the legislation in place of existing sexist language such as ``Chairman'', etc. In addition a replacement listing of recognised colleges of advanced education is provided, reflecting name changes in a number of institutions and the establishment of the new Gold Coast College of Advanced Education. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff)-by leave-agreed to: That General Business, Orders of the Day Nos. 17, 18, 78, 133, 169 and 171, be discharged from the Notice Paper. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.13) —The Opposition will not support the Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill 1985. We have very serious reservations about the nature of the proposals in the Bill and the implications for Commonwealth and Australian taxpayers. In particular, we are concerned about the proposal to remove pipeline construction proposals from prior legislative approval, the willingness of the Government to provide significant concessions to enable politically inspired objectives to be met, continuing Commonwealth commitments to uncertain and prolonged debt recovery and the refusal of the Government to recognise the potential benefits from privatisation of the Pipeline Authority. While ministerial controls and some external scrutiny of financial commitments will continue under the proposals in the Bill, the proposal to remove proposals for pipeline construction from parliamentary authorisation will remove potentially significant financial outlays from prior parliamentary scrutiny and possible veto. Given the huge outlays involved in pipeline construction, it is essential that any commitments should receive detailed and objective analysis prior to authorisation. Despite the best intentions of Ministers, shortsighted political objectives often override sound financial considerations. It is the role of this Parliament to review such proposals and protect Australians from pet projects of Ministers of whatever government may be in power. The excesses of the Whitlam years and the unrealistic dreams of Rex Connor are revived very powerfully when we talk about the Pipeline Authority and pipeline proposals. All that memory provides a powerful example of and precedent for the need for countervailing controls on unlimited government powers. Following this experience the Fraser Government, when elected in 1975, amended in 1976 the Pipeline Authority Act to require legislative approval for pipeline construction. This statutory requirement to report to Parliament should remain. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, should not so readily dismiss images of Mr Rex Connor-this is his own image, conjured up recently-riding over the horizon on a large horse with a resource development blueprint in hand. It is obviously a memory which somewhat haunts Senator Evans as it haunts all of us who had the experience of the years involved. In fact, Senator Evans's own revelation of an energy policy is an ominous sign of future Federal Government attempts at ownership and control of resource industries in Australia. In the tradition of Rex Connor, Senator Evans clearly envisages Federal control over all resource development, including gas pipelines and electricity generation, which principally have been under State control. These proposals run counter to recent State initiatives to privatise these functions. Despite the rhetoric of consultation, this Government rarely accepts industries' views when decisions are made. All of its decisions relating to the resources industry have either maintained the status quo or proposed further regulation and new and increased taxes. The recent cash bonus bidding fiasco is a prime example of this. Throughout many months of discussion with industry and with others earlier this year, Senator Evans refused to accept all logical and rational arguments opposing cash bonus bidding. So logical and rational were those arguments, I might say, that they even appealed to the Australian Democrats at that stage. Senator Evans did a back room deal with some Democrats while at the same time leading industry representatives to believe that they were only negotiating with him about new proposals for signature bonuses and retention lease premiums. This Parliament has very good reason to be sceptical about the intentions of the Minister. Although Senator Evans may have been able to persuade enough Democrats to change their mind on the subject of cash bonus bidding-they not only changed their mind but also some of them changed their vote of a few months before-at least the Parliament achieved a two-year sunset clause as a result of that rather disgraceful episode in the Senate this year. This sorry episode highlights the role of Parliament in limiting excesses of government power via the requirement of prior legislative approval of major policy proposals. The Government considers that pipeline construction proposals, as I have said, should continue to require prior legislative approval. The first thing that the Bill does is to remove that requirement. The revision of the haulage agreement, as it is called, has provided Senator Evans with another opportunity to grandstand. He has claimed that the revised pricing formula will apparently enable the Commonwealth to recover all of its past and future costs by the year 2006 and thereafter provide a profit component. This unserviced debt is estimated to reach $2 billion by 2006. The Minister is grandstanding because he says he now has a formula that will save that sort of debt that would otherwise have accumulated by then. He also claims that future price increases will never exceed increases in the consumer price index, and may be considerably lower. Other apparent achievements claimed include a $20m expansion and refurbishment program of supply facilities for the Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow region by the Australian Gas Light Co., which is referred to as AGL, and the construction of a spur line to these areas by 1988, which is a familiar political milestone from this Government. The Opposition is concerned to prevent the financial excesses of other Hawke Government so-called achievements such as the deal concerning the former Executive Director of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. We suspect that the costs of the Bill will probably outweigh the apparent benefits. Senator Evans in his second reading speech, public statements and even in answers to questions in Estimates committees has disclosed far too little information and data to permit a proper assessment of the true position relating to the pipeline deal with AGL. These future claims cannot really be assessed by this Parliament because it has not been given sufficient information. All his statements have been in very general terms, are certainly contentious and may well prove to be just as dreamlike as the ideas of his famous predecessor, Mr Rex Connor, some years ago. Some of the major costs of the revised agreement, which one can identify, include the potential profits forgone by the Pipeline Authority; significant price concessions to AGL; AGL's control of existing supply facilities in certain regions; and the participation of AGL in the decision making process of the Pipeline Authority. The Opposition will not support the proposal in the Bill for AGL to be given a position on the board of the Pipeline Authority. I will deal with that in a moment. Before completing my remarks on the financial situation with which we are faced as a nation, I say that the arrangements that have been made by the Pipeline Authority with AGL have been around for some time. The advice that we have received indicates that the Pipeline Authority probably would have been able to negotiate a commercial tariff in the future, but that may have been some time down the track, perhaps at the end of the century. That would have recovered previous losses and offered more than the revised agreement which will provide only cost recovery plus a small return while giving AGL security of supply at a low price for approximately 20 years in advance. AGL appears to have done very well out of the revised arrangements, which Senator Evans has lauded as a great achievement for the Government and, no doubt by deduction for himself. All we can hope is that the Government has not sacrificed long term revenue for the sake of short term political benefits and commercial convenience. While the revised agreement apparently rectifies the growing debt problem of the Authority, the success of the agreement depends upon a number of critical assumptions about inflation, interest rates, costs and sales, which all may, and no doubt will, vary considerably from the data on which the arrangements have been entered into. Past experience highlights the uncertainty of such assumptions and the potential adverse impact of providing a commitment on the basis of such assumptions. The Opposition is concerned about the apparent conviction of Senator Evans that future price increases will never exceed increases in the consumer price index and may be considerably lower. For one thing, no doubt consumers will claim compensation if this commitment cannot be fulfilled and the end result may well be a further drain on government revenue. The Opposition is very concerned about, and will oppose, the participation by an AGL representative which effectively creates a joint Commonwealth-State authority and may inhibit the future privatisation opportunites of this Authority. Senator Evans has not demonstrated the rationale and merit in having a buyer-in this case the major consumer, AGL-represented on the board of management of the seller, namely, the Pipeline Authority. While the AGL representative would be bound by the conflict of interest provisions which are set out in the Bill, AGL would gain access and control which may provide an advantage over potential competitors and may be an effective barrier to entry into the industry. As the bulk of the Pipeline Authority business relates directly or indirectly to the contracts with AGL, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the AGL nominee not to be in breach of this conflict of interest provision if he is to participate effectively on the Pipeline Authority board. Clearly, we have a farcical situation which needs to be explained and resolved by the Minister. He has failed to do so. As I said, the Opposition will not accept that. The Pipeline Authority will be considered as part of the privatisation policy of the coalition when we make our general review of the commercial activities and operations of the Government. The recent financial restructuring of the pipeline agreement has been hailed by Senator Evans as a great achievement. He also claimed that having achieved that, he had negated any Opposition arguments for the privatisation of the Authority. How on earth he arrived at that reasoning completely escapes me. Perhaps not surprisingly, Senator Evans clearly misunderstands the arguments of the Opposition on this issue. Even if the revised financial agreement enables the Government to recover huge accumulated losses of the Authority-at this stage some $59m, as Senator Evans mentions-and even if the agreement does save probably $2 billion in losses which would otherwise accumulate over the years, of course, that is a situation which should never have occurred in the first place. Even if that money will now be recouped, there are, of course, still other possible future benefits to be obtained from privatisation of the Authority. We believe that the commercial activities and operations of government should be within the private sector where that is appropriate. We in government would certainly dispose of commercial enterprises or their assets, either wholly or partly owned by the Government, which should in our view be more properly in the hands of the private sector. We have already indicated such bodies as the Australian Industry Development Corporation, Medibank Private and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation as public authorities which ought to be disposed of without delay. Further, we will undertake an examination of the role, structure and level of government ownership and control of enterprises generally. Of course, that will include the Pipeline Authority. This examination will include an assessment of the desirability and feasibility of disposal of the whole or part of the Government's interest in such assets or enterprises. Of course, we will also give consideration to whether the public benefits of disposal outweigh the public benefits of retaining such a utility and, of course, to the various conflicts of interests which may arise. But we are determined to expose government enterprises to greater competition from the private sector, particularly where monopolies or near monopolies currently exist. All of these matters will be canvassed in greater detail with industry and others before any specific coalition proposals on privatisation are made. I emphasise that we are certainly pursuing that policy with great seriousness. Absolutely totally superficial arguments, which Senator Evans has made, that his wonderful new agreement negates our arguments, are absolutely beside the point and indicate a complete misunderstanding of the Opposition's policies. In fact, Australians clearly recognise the benefits of broad private ownership of commercial undertakings and activities. Recent opinion polls have shown that that is the case. There is very clear recognition and understanding of what the Opposition's privatisation policy is all about. Clearly, a reduction in government expenditure which would be achieved by such a policy will provide significant benefits in terms of reduced taxation. The Hawke Government, of course, is quite unable to achieve lower levels of taxation because it is quite unable to achieve the required expenditure restraints. It is for these reasons that the coalition will not support this Bill. It seeks to achieve only two things. It does not seek approval of the haulage agreement. Unfortunately, that is not something upon which Parliament is called to vote today. Indeed, as a parliament we cannot even get adequate information to make a full judgment and assessment of this so-called achievement of Senator Evans. He comes here with two proposals which arise out of that agreement, neither of which commend themselves to us. We will vote against them. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.31) —The Australian Democrats support the Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill 1985. I would like first to address some of the remarks of Senator Durack. He took the usual, unrealistic Liberal line of privatisation and deregulation, yet he did not really expand on his thesis to point out how a bloated private industry can be any more efficient than a bloated bureaucracy. There is no evidence to suggest so. The big, bloated private companies around the world, such as IBM, Exxon, Westinghouse and General Electric, have problems which basically are related to their size. They have nothing to do with whether the companies are private or public. The basic difficulty is that they are too big. Whether it be private or public, once an organisation gets that large it is full of inconsistencies and inefficiencies. Senator Durack raised the cash price bidding issue. I noticed that the oil shares did not even quiver-perhaps Senator Durack does not watch the stock market-when that legislation went through. The oil companies did not really mind. They are used to cash price bidding elsewhere around the world. Of course, they do not like to have any legislation going through this Parliament which might in any way control them. They lobbied against it, but that is what their lobbyists are paid to do. It made no difference to the oil companies. They are very happily arranging their bids for the Timor Sea leases. Senator Durack says that somehow it is a crime and a sin for anyone to change his vote, or indeed his mind, in this Senate. I suggest that Senator Durack has been living in this rarefied atmosphere for so long he has forgotten about the real world, where issues really are not all black or all white but exist in shades of grey. If they exist in shades of grey in the real world, it follows that sometimes decisions must be changed. The situation alters. New facts come to light. In the real world, votes or decisions can be made which are different from previous ones, and the same pertains to this Senate. The Bill provides that the Australian Gas Light Co. be given one representative on the board of the Pipeline Authority. As a Democrat I was disturbed about that. I do not automatically like to see a purchaser of a substance being put on the board of a firm or an agency which supplies that substance, in this case natural gas. We had conversations with the Department on this matter. We have satisfied ourselves that in this instance it will be in the best interests of the Commonwealth of Australia if this appointment takes place. Senator Durack —You are selling out to the Government on every issue, aren't you? Senator SANDERS —We talked to the Government because it is the Government's Bill. If we did not talk to the Government, if we merely opposed for the sake of opposition, we would not be fulfilling our responsibilities to the Australian public. That is the problem now with the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia. They oppose for the sake of opposition without really studying the issues. As Democrats, we study the issues. Senator Robertson —Well said. Senator SANDERS —I thank the honourable senator. It is our responsibility to make ourselves aware of the issues so that we can make an intelligent decision and cast an intelligent vote, not just give a knee-jerk reaction on some political line or other. We have decided that it is a logical step to have a member of the Australian Gas Light Co. on the board of the Australian Pipeline Authority. The other major facet of this Bill relates to the fact that the TPA may be permitted to construct new pipelines without the requirement for specific legislative approval. Senator Durack —How do you get around that one? Senator SANDERS —That one does bother me, although not for the reasons Senator Durack may think. It bothers me because I feel that in general in Australia we do not have enough control over the potentially environmentally damaging projects which come up so often. I feel that we should have more avenues for examining environmental impact. We should have more hearing procedures; we should have more good, solid environmental impact statements, not the impact statements compiled by the developers, as is the case with the woodchip industry. We should have environmental impact statements compiled impartially by the Government itself. Such impact statements should be acted on impartially by the Government, with hearing procedures and legal access to the courts by interested parties so that we can in fact monitor environmental problems in the country. Of course, the other thing that worries me about the Australian setup is the fact that the States have so much power in environmental and other areas. I think it is time that Australia faced the fact that it is a country and therefore needs to develop strong Federal controls. That, of course, is another matter. I am concerned about the removal of approval from the Parliament in this matter. The Parliament's record is not very good in relation to environmental situations in any event. For the purposes of this pipeline I feel that probably this Bill is a logical step. As Senator Durack noted, the Pipeline Authority was established in 1974 by Rex Connor. This pipeline carries gas from Moomba in South Australia to Sydney. It will now have minor branch lines. The AGL purchases its gas from Santos Ltd and pays the pipeline on a volume basis for the cartage of gas, which the Australian Gas Light Co. markets in Sydney. The volume of gas put through the pipeline has not been as high as was anticipated in 1974. As a conse- quence the TPA has not received enough revenue to cover its costs. Of course, this is the main consideration in the Bill. This raises two questions. Firstly, why was the volume of gas to be put through the pipeline overestimated? Secondly, was the actual pricing schedule done with a view to the future? In the first place I think that energy experts in Australia, in fact all around the world, have tended to overestimate the amount of energy required in the future. We see an overcapacity of energy production in all States. I refer to electricity production and, in this specific case, an overestimation of the volume of gas required. Unfortunately this all stems from the idea that the earth's resources are infinite and that we will be using more and more of everything. Of course, this is false. This consumption cannot take place over any length of time. It is an attitude that engineers are now finding is untenable and, to their credit, they are changing their ideas. It is a common occurrence in our society that we overestimate the amounts of things that we will use in the future. We hope that there will be ever more substances to fulfil our needs. It is time we faced up to the fact that we live on an earth with finite resources and that we should sculpt or model our demands to meet our resources. The deal between AGL and the TPA is one that will actually save-even Senator Durack has admitted this-at least $1 billion and perhaps $2 billion. A mistake was made in the past. I do not think anyone will argue that point. I think it is to the Government's credit that it now wants to rectify this mistake. If we do not rectify this mistake the $59m which is now owed by the Pipeline Authority will mushroom; it will balloon and get totally out of control. Hopefully, this Bill will keep the monetary expenditure under control, it will in fact pay off the pipeline, all TPA losses will be paid off by the year 2006, and the taxpayers of Australia will benefit. It is for those reasons that I and the Democrats support this Bill. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.40) —The Senate is debating the Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill seeks to do three things: It seeks, firstly, to report upon an agreement on future haulage tariffs between the Australian Gas Light Co. and the Pipeline Authority; secondly, it seeks authority for a member of the Australian Gas Light Co. to sit on the Pipeline Authority Board; and, thirdly, it seeks to remove the necessity for the Authority to seek annual approval for particular works programs. To understand the situation and to understand the Bill itself one must recognise that the Pipeline Authority was set up as a Commonwealth statutory authority in 1974 to be the only haulage contractor-it held the monopoly-for the pipeline that was to run from Moomba in central Australia to Sydney, with laterals and spurs. As it is a fact that, as previous speakers have said, the haulage tariff was calculated on false assumption-an overestimation-I believe of the order of some six or seven trillion cubic feet, of the gas traffic on the pipeline for the period. In other words, the AGL Co. found that it was using only about half of the estimated traffic on the pipeline. As a result, the Auditor-General drew attention to the fact that a debt would be incurred. As the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) said in his second reading speech, a long series of discussions were held over a period of some seven years or more. I want to put the situation into perspective. It is true that there were protracted discussions, but any suggestion that there could have been any solution other than the Australian Gas Light Co. conceding to an increase in tariff is ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that the increase in the price of gas required to cover the increase in tariff and to wipe off the debt was minuscule in itself. Perhaps the Minister, when he replies in this debate, will indicate that that is so. It is a simple fact that it was imperative for the Australian Gas Light Co. that the agreement be reopened at an early date, for a variety of reasons. All was not well in the hands of the Australian Gas Light Co. at all. It needed certain rearrangements of the agreement to suit its purposes. It needed compression points to be established progressively along the pipeline to boost the flow of gas. If this were to be allowed, the Government had a great argument for reopening the agreement to renegotiate prices. So it should not be considered that somehow or other a magic formula was reached. It was absolutely inevitable-it was only a matter of time and attrition before that became necessary. I say that as one who has had something to do with the progress of the pipeline and as one who knows something about the basis of the operation of the Australian Gas Light Co. I should add that the AGL Co. is almost unique in Australia, being not just a limited company but a chartered company-a company that is formed by an Act of the Parliament and given a total monopoly, and rightly so, and which has an arrangement with the government of the day regarding pricing. It think that the former Bank of New South Wales was one of the few other chartered companies that existed in Australia. AGL was made a chartered company in the light of the experience in Victorian England, where there was no monopoly. In Pall Mall in particular, three or four pipelines which were operated by various gas companies ran down the road. In the absence of meters, an exhaust pump was put on at night times and bills were sent to those whose gaslights went out. That in itself did not appear to be a particularly successful way of running a gas company, so AGL was given a monopoly in Australia. Also, Queen Victoria had quaint idea about the habits of gas and insisted that gas pipes be put at a distance from the wall in case of fire. So we have a unique situation of a monopoly company-and rightly so-a company that, unless it takes methane gas from the Picton area, is entirely dependent on gas supplied, a company that needs compressors along the way and therefore has to have renegotiations of the agreement, and a company that needs new laterals built. It is not a question of a one way bargain. Inevitably the price would have been adjusted; it was a matter of doing that at a price which everybody knew, and which the government of the day knew, would not affect the consumer price index at all, or only marginally or insignificantly. That is the basis of the situation. The tragedy of this debate is that the agreement between the New South Wales Government and AGL and this Government is confidential and, therefore, we do not know what the agreement will be. For instance, I cannot make head nor tail of this statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy: But a settlement has now been reached between the three parties under which AGL and the New South Wales Government can receive the benefits they seek . . . I do not know what benefits the New South Wales Government sought and got. I would be very interested to know because, if one thing is certain, it is that if there is any question of the pipeline getting into private hands, the first nationaliser of the pipeline will be the Wran Government-if it is still in existence. It will want a monopoly control to use political interest to spread its laterals and spurs throughout New South Wales. So let us be perfectly clear on that situation. It was known all the time that the Australian Gas Light Co. would be given the right to acquire Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow gas companies, so that is not a bargain in terms of this agreement. I am not in any way knocking the agreement. I am delighted that it is reached, but I am reducing the agreement to a sensible size. It was inevitable; it had to happen; and it was only a matter of time. There is no question that there would have been an ultimate denial to the Australian Gas Light Co. of taking over Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow gas companies; no question that the New South Wales Government would resist the extension of gas pipelines to that central area of New South Wales. That is a ludicrous situation; there is no question of that. There is no question that this will be an essential part of the bargain. Therefore, when one puts it into perspective, one would have to say-and governments of the past decade have known it-that inevitably there would have been a readjustment of the tariff. It would have been a minor one. In any case the Pipeline Authority was making a profit on its other ventures. It was making a profit on Canberra. The long term effect of that has not been disclosed. I commend the fact that the agreement has been reached. I commend the fact that a lateral will be extended to Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow. That was sought in the past. No one could argue against that at all. I now come to question No. 2-whether a representative of the Australian Gas Light Co. should be on the Pipeline Authority. Lest anyone should have any thought that I am criticising the AGL Co., I should say two things: I have the highest respect for it, and I should disclose an interest. Pre-war I worked for the Australian Gas Light Co. for a short period and therefore I have had some insight into the way it has worked in the past. It is a chartered company of high repute. It is a company that has a reputation, because of its nature, its price fixing and its stability, somewhat, like that of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd., whereby superannuation investments are major shareholdings of the whole company. The Minister says there ought to be a representative of the Australian Gas Light Co. on the Pipeline Authority board. It is interesting that he has not said that therefore there ought to be a representative of the Pipeline Authority on the Australian Gas Light Company board. If the need to know of the workings of both and an intimate knowledge of both is such, I cannot see why there is a unilateral situation. There is a complete paradox in the Minister's speech because he said that for seven long years-it is a little longer than that because I fancy that I initiated, or at least spurred on, the discussions on the re-adjustment of the tariff-there has been a conflict between the company and the Pipeline Authority as to what ought to be the tariff, and there have been discussions on this. So it is recognised that there has been a major conflict of interest over the one link between the two; that is, that the haulage contractor fixes a tariff for the consumer. If that is so, how can the Government now say, there having been seven long years of a major conflict of interest, that one of its resolutions is to put the company which was in conflict with the Pipeline Authority into a position where it knows every intimate detail of what the Authority is doing? Also, the Pipeline Authority is the monopoly supplier and the major consumer of gas is being put on the board but not others. After all, the Wagga Wagga City Council is a consumer. What right has the AGL company to have intimate knowledge that another consumer does not have? I ask the Australian Democrats to discuss this problem in an attempt to find a resolution. Perhaps they will tell the city councils of Wagga and Albury why they felt that this was a good idea at the time, having sat too close to Senator Gareth Evans over the years. No doubt as the years go by and other consumers come in, as we hope they will, we will have the strange situation of one consumer being allowed to know everything and other consumers not being allowed to know anything. That would be demonstrably a nonsense situation. It is no criticism on my part of the Australian Gas Light Co. I have to say that, as a former Minister for Resources and Energy, I resisted the approach for such a move because I believed that there ought to be a proper relationship between the supplier and the consumer and that they should be at a distance from each other and the true interests should be demonstrated. I believe this move is a fundamental mistake. As I say, I am not seeking to criticise the Australian Gas Light Co. One of the fundamental principles that we have to keep in mind in looking at this whole situation is that unlike most other countries, where natural gas is supplied to the people through various sources, Australia exists on a single pipeline from Moomba to Sydney and laterally out through Young to Wagga. Therefore, we have a single pipeline with a single source of supply. I have urged, and I will continue to urge, that we should build an extra piece of pipeline some 90-odd kilometres or thereabouts between Wagga and Albury so that two gas fields, Bass Strait and Moomba, can be connected to the pipeline to overcome the enormous monopoly of the gas supplier, but nothing has been done on this. We have to be terribly careful because if we put a vested interest onto the Pipeline Authority and it thinks that if Bass Strait is linked to the New South Wales pipeline there might be some increase in the price of new gas, it will resist, on what it sees as sound business principles, something that could be of immense importance and interest nationally. Fundamentally, we have the most delicate of circumstances. The fact that we are totally dependent on a single pipeline cannot be better demonstrated than by the fact that four or five years ago early one morning an enormous explosion occured some four kilometres out of the well-head at Moomba, resulting in a huge piece of the pipeline being blown up and a crater of enormous size. The only thing that saved Sydney consumers and the rest of the consumers from running out of gas was that there was four days of supply in the pipeline; there was a four-day period to patch it up. For many months afterwards there was an enormous concentration on how we could secure the pipeline, how we could make sure that no further difficulties occurred and how we could ensure that stress corrosion-which caused that explosion-would not happen in other parts of the pipeline. In this Senate many people have heard me tediously drawing attention to the need to secure an instrument to run along the pipeline, known quaintly as the intelligent pig, to ensure that the pipeline does not have such breakdowns. Indeed, I am delighted that the work that was started on this by the Fraser Government is now going to emerge with the securing of such an intelligent pig. These decisions should be made in the national interest, not just in the interest of New South Wales. Let me give another illustration. South Australia has had a difficulty in its supply of gas. Its contract with Santos Ltd, from memory, is to expire in 1987. There are now considerable discussions and turmoil in respect of this. An interstate and a national decision to link Wagga and Albury to take gas from Bass Strait into New South Wales and reshunt gas coming to New South Wales back into South Australia would be one way to aid South Australia. Such national decisions may involve stresses in terms of cost and stresses in terms of new development of compression and so on along the way. We should not have a consumer on the Pipeline Authority Board whose commercial interests might be diametrically opposed to decisions made. I would have expected the Government to come forward and tell us about the unique situation in Australia, a country dependent on one pipeline with one gas field feeding in; the danger of damage to the pipeline; the need to look nationally; the need to see whether we can link gas fields; the need to see whether we can help another State; the problems that arise from the size of the pipeline; the need for compressors and all these kinds of considerations, all of which have a national character and a very important character. If there has been the complete conflict of interest for seven years which the Minister claimed in his second reading speech, the Government should tell us why that situation will be continued forever afterwards and why AGL should be invited aboard. I repeat in no subjective way that I have the highest regard for the reputation of the company and its directors. It is a company of great integrity. It has done a very great service to the people of Australia, but that is beside the point. It is a matter of principle and I ask the Australian Democrats, on the basis of that and on the basis of the second reading speech, to reconsider where they stand. The argument is incontrovertible that, if there was a conflict in the past and if national interest is to be considered in the future, there should not be such a link. Equally, in the future, as in the past, we should persist in having the Pipeline Authority bring once a year to the parliament of the day its program for approval. We need to know whether it is a program that is in the best interests of the community or whether some commercial pressure has driven it a particular way. Is that not an important thing for us to know? We ought to know, and the Australian Democrats ought to know, that environmental factors of enormous consequence can be involved. It is very interesting that the Democrats are not interested in this fact. They get terribly excited about woodchips and the Daintree but not this. Senator Mason —I am interested in the Sydney-Newcastle pipeline. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, and that is what is called selective morality. Senator Mason is interested in the Newcastle pipeline. When I listen to the Democrats, I am sure that Benjamin Disraeli was right. He referred to the newspapers and said that they were like the courtesans of old-all power with no responsibility. I cannot think of a better description for the Democrats than that with which Disraeli provided us. The Democrats know about being selective, whether it is do a fiddle overnight on some tax policy or anything else-- Senator Walsh —You voted for their silly amendment last night. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I do not mind the Minister for Finance joining with the Government's allies. I wish the Government would declare that alliance and make the Democrats the fourth faction in the Australian Labor Party. I would then understand it and there would be greater honesty in this place. I repeat that the Democrats are showing selective morality on this. Let us ask ourselves why they think that woodchips, the Daintree and the Newcastle pipeline are important, but no other pipeline that is to be developed. Quite clearly, their attitude is wrong. If we look at the Bill overall, we have to congratulate the Government, and I do without qualification, for bringing to an apparently good result-one hopes it is-an agreement which has been difficult for many years and for a number of Ministers to negotiate. Nevertheless, I say without churlishness: `Do not overstate that' because there was an inevitability about it. The Australian Gas Light Co. could not have continued for an indefinite period to seek things from the agreement without having to concede to a minor adjustment of price. So do not let us engage in any nonsense about that. Let us not think that it was entirely a tight packet. Let us not imagine that the packet depended on offering to the Australian Gas Light Co. the extension to Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow. We have to be honest and say that the State Government had let the company know long before that that was what it wanted. I have said before quite clearly that it would be highly desirable for spur lines to go to those areas. There is nothing new in that. The great thing is that on the facts before us an agreement has been reached. I am very interested indeed to know what is meant by the interests of the New South Wales Government as referred to in the second reading speech. That has not been disclosed to us. I would be delighted to know whether the announcement of other financial arrangements, including the establishment of a financial pool that was announced recently between the Australian Gas Light Co. and the Wran Government, had anything to do with this. However, I say without churlishness that, thank goodness, we have got this far. In summary, with regard to the two parties affected by this Bill, how can the Government say: `Look. We are reporting with immense relief and satisfaction the end of a massive conflict of interest involving the one overriding factor in the whole of the life of the pipeline, the one thing that exists as the function of the hauler, that is, the price, the tariff. We are reporting that there has been an immense conflict of interest but, don't worry, we will put the consumer who caused the conflict of interest on the Board and we will give that consumer all the details of everything we are doing so that that consumer, above any other consumer, be it the Wagga City Council or anybody else, will have a unique privilege'. I cannot understand, therefore, why the Government should not say: `Let us put a representative of the Pipeline Authority on the AGL Board, and then perhaps the Authority will have the advantage of knowing what the footwork of the Board is'. If it is interesting for one to know something about the footwork of the other, let it work both ways. Then again, it is very quaint to say: `We do not need to bring before the Parliament the intentions of the Pipeline Authority to see whether there is a national interest involved, a State interest involved, or an environmental interest involved, or to see whether a conflict of interests is involved. After all, we do not need to do that at all, so let us take it out'. I regret very much that in any discussion on pipelines this Government has not pointed out to the Australian people the fundamental problem of the single pipeline and the monopoly hauler. That is that we have, as I have said, one pipeline drawn from one gas field and with no subsidary feed-in should anything happen to that pipeline. It is almost unique in the world. Throughout the world the major safety factor for pipelines is that other fields around are brought in so that any kind of collapse or need for repairs can be offset. Senator Jessop —The point is that one field is exhaustible. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes. So I should have thought that I would have heard about some comtemplation of either linking Wagga and Albury or running a new pipeline from Bass Strait northward. I should have thought that we would have had, in any discussdion on the Pipeline Authority, some estimation of what the Bureau of Mineral Resources now thinks the Bass Strait gas field really is-a work program that the Fraser Government asked the BMR to do. It is absolutely essential to the knowledge of how a pipeline is operated. With those facts in mind, there are many questions to be answered. Why is it being done this way? Why was this story of the agreement overplayed? It is an agreement of which I thoroughly approve-although I make one qualification to that. None of us here can make the calculation, first, that the tariff now struck will provide the result in the year 2006. The Minister cannot say that in the journey from now until the year 2006 there will not need to be half a dozen changes in the tariff, and that there will not be a need to renegotiate the agreement altogether. So the presentation of the second reading speech leaves so much to be desired, because it suggests that by this action everything is solved. One thing that is put in perspective is that the journey looks better; but on the way will it be suggested that this will be the eternal price? Can anybody say that? Could anybody have predicted, for example, the way in which the ecomony has gone in the last three years? Could anybody have predicted the value of the Australian dollar, or the cost of wages, or the cost of inflation, or interest rates? How could anybody talk about these things? What is the effect of the upsurge of inflation and interest rates on the future cost of building pipelines? Of course one cannot predict for the future. On balance, I commend the agreement of tariff. I take on board that the Government says that it is watertight. I commend this Government and the Government of New South Wales for it, and AGL; but I cannot go along with two things which are in direct conflict with everything else that is said in the second reading speech. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.09) —It is always a pleasure for me to sit here and be subtly flattered by Senator Sir John Carrick. Senator Sir John Carrick —I did not think that what I had to say was flattering. Senator MASON —It was flattery; I took it as flattery, anyway-taking a charitable view, as I do, of Senator Sir John Carrick-because obviously, like the rest of the Liberal Party, he is now beginning to regard the Australian Democrats as a sort of father figure, the Liberals feeling that they can rely on us to do things instead of doing them themselves. As Senator Sanders said earlier, this is something they have to look at. It is interesting that Senator Sir John Carrick raised, in what I thought was an excellent speech, some very good points which I would have thought the Liberal Party might have brought forward as amendments to the Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill. But no; we have again this situation of blank opposition to something, a sheer blocking technique, which I think is not at all good or sensible. Senator Sir John Carrick —What kind of amendment? Senator MASON —The honourable senator mentioned three or four things in his speech. He should look at it in the Hansard. Senator Sir John Carrick —You name them. Senator MASON —I will not do the honourable senator's work for him; he should do it himself. Senator Jessop —Senator Sir John Carrick was being constructive. Senator MASON —I agree; he was being constructive. I am surprised that nothing has come forward from the resources and energy area of the Liberal Party which was rather more constructive and along the lines he had suggested. I have taken on board what he said. I am afraid that he tends to overestimate our ability to influence legislation. We do what we can for the community. As honourable senators will know, over the last few days we have done an enormous amount of good for the small business sector and for the farmers of this country by reducing the tax burden on them by $48m in a full year. We feel that that is a not inconsiderable achievement. It can be done-I think the Liberal Party ought to take note of this-by negotiation with government. Government is there to govern; it is elected to govern. Oppositions are there to oppose, one might say, but it is not quite as simplistic as that. I think oppositions are also there to assist government, if they can, towards a better and more reasonable way of doing things. As far as the community is concerned, it would rather see results than blank opposition, and I commend that thought to the Opposition. Senator Sir John Carrick made the point, which is quite spurious, that the Australian Democrats are interested only in woodchips. Of course we are interested in woodchips. It is a source of great concern to me that people in Japan would not allow their trees to be cut down but our trees can be cut down to provide paper bags and lavatory paper for the homes of Japan-at a net cost to the Australian taxpayer, of course. We do not sell the stuff at any profit; we lose money doing it. So naturally we are concerned about woodchips and rainforests. I have also been concerned over the years with pipelines, and indeed that is what I now intend to turn to. I have a few things to say about pipelines. I will preface them by saying to Senator Sir John Carrick, just to meet his point, that on a number of occasions over the years I have been one of the few people who have pointed out consistently the appalling dangers which exist in the pipelines between Sydney and Newcastle, the incredible folly of putting together a pipeline to carry gas and, right alongside it, a pipeline to carry dangerous flammable fuels, even high octane aviation spirit. It seems to me to be a dreadful thing to have done and something we will pay for in New South Wales before we are through with it. I have said that again and again. No notice has been taken of it. I hope that there will be no appalling consequences. We have to imagine what the consequences could be if there were a bad break in that gas pipeline while the other pipeline was carrying liquid fuel. Senator Sir John Carrick —And you are going to give away parliamentary scrutiny of any further matters? Senator MASON —No, parliamentary scrutiny was one of the things the Liberal Party might have brought forward as an amendment, now that I come to think of it. Senator Sir John Carrick —You may do it, I will commend you. Senator MASON —As I have said, I will not do all the honourable senator's work for him. I will say that I have taken what he has said on board. The Democrats have discussed this question of whether or not it is desirable that the Australian Gas Light Co. should be on the Board. What this Parliament can do it can undo. I suggest that both the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats keep an eye on this situation in the future. If we find that problems emerge it is a matter that can properly come to attention at that stage. I do not think we need to damn this arrangement out of hand before it begins. I think it is reasonable that we give it a fair chance. As I have said, if a problem arises it the future, I suggest to the honourable senator that it is possible for us to do something about it at that stage. I am concerned that, while this Bill covers large costs of pipelines which would otherwise be met by government-that has to happen-it remains a fact that the costs will now presumably be passed on to the consumers of gas in the form of higher tariffs. I would like the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) to give us some idea at some stage of what is involved there. How much higher will the tariffs be? What sort of deal has been done with the supplying company? What can people expect from this? If we are talking about costs to the Government, which might be $1 billion to $2 billion, I point out that money does not come from nowhere. Presumably that cost will be passed on to the consumer. If that is not correct or is an overly simplistic view, I would appreciate guidance from the Minister, and I think the public and the gas consumers of this country would also like guidance. On the whole the Democrats are not opposed to the user pay principle, but it ought not to be applied in total isolation from other considerations. I have risen to speak in this debate mainly in the interests of the New South Wales cities of Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow, which Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned, they being his constituency, just as they are mine. After many years of negotiations those cities are to get a spur line which will provide them with natural gas, but at a cost agreed to be no more than 10 per cent higher than that paid for gas in capital cities. I think we can take it that means it will be 10 per cent higher because wherever something like that comes in honourable senators can be sure that government will exert the maximum it can to get what it can out of that agreement, and I do not argue with that. I have discussed this matter in some depth with the mayors and town clerks of those three cities-Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow-and there can be no doubt at all that they have been at a very severe disadvantage and are still at a severe disadvantage because industry tends to follow gas now as a cheap fuel. It has been quite ridiculous to expect new ventures to start or old businesses to relocate in Bathurst or Orange when cheap gas is freely available in the western suburbs of Sydney, with all the other advantages of not being very far away from their source of sale. It is the old problem that this nation has of decentralisation, which is probably the most talked about and least done about issue in this country, and perhaps the most important we could consider. We are one of the two or three most urbanised peoples in the world. That is a disgrace. We are a single nation occupying a whole continent. That is a privilege which we should deserve. If we consider those two facts together, I think we can see the most appalling consequences for the future. The logic of the future is that we ought not to be allowed to continue to occupy one continent when we simply abuse or do not use most of it. When one goes out into the western areas of New South Wales, one finds-I am sure Senator Sir John Carrick will agree-some of the most beautiful and productive country in the world. One could not find a better place for human beings to live. Yet we underuse it to an increasing degree as time passes rather than otherwise. This is not only stupid and uneconomic; it is dangerous. It is dangerous because societies in the future which have placed all of their emphasis on locating their populations in large cities may find, if there is any major disaster such as a nuclear war, that the bulk of their facilities and populations are wiped out. That reminds me of a cogent point. I was in China some 10 years ago before I came to this Parliament. In the course of that visit I had occasion to meet the gentleman who was then the responsible member of the revolutionary committee for Shanghai. This is the grandiloquent terminology of the cultural revolution which some honourable senators will recognise. In effect, he was the mayor of Shanghai. He said that China was moving industry and people out of Shanghai as fast as it could in order to avoid the disgrace-this is how he put it-of Shanghai becoming the largest city in the world. I give him credit. The Chinese say, and I believe them, that because of the enormous decentralisation that they have achieved, initially through the commune system, they will be the major race which survives a nuclear war-which they, I might say, believe will come. They have got themselves in a position where they are decentralised. If there is a catastrophe they will indeed survive it in greater numbers than we will in Australia. I think that is something that we ought to bear in mind. I ask the Minister, because I think there is a point to this, whether the Government will, for the very first time actually consider some concessions to this matter of decentralisation. It is not necessarily, plainly, for this $1 billion to $2 billion to be used for that purpose. The cost of providing the spur lines to the regional cities will represent only a fraction of this cost. What I am saying is that in light of the relatively small amounts involved when the weight of decentralisation is involved, will the Minister consider some mechanism by which Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow can obtain gas at a price at least competitive with the price for the western suburbs of Sydney; in other words, that the price is not 10 per cent higher but the same price. If that happens those three cities will thrive. There will be a growth of industry there and this will mean that we will have some chance of breaking the appalling problems of the western suburbs of Sydney. The social and economic problems there are due to the fact that it is choked, that it lacks facilities and that it is overcrowded. Anybody in his right mind would realise that it would be far better to have people living in Bathurst, Orange or Lithgow if there was industry there-if the jobs were available people would go there-than to have them cluttering up an increasingly choked urban mess like the western suburbs of Sydney. Does the Government not have the vision to see that this sort of thing is important to us in the future? If it has not got that vision then I suggest that it look at the situation. For heaven's sake, let it look beyond next pay day or the next public holiday in its policies and see whether something can be done for these three cities which have a tremendous potential. They are in one of the most fertile areas of Australia and obviously there is a reasonable, convenient and useful potential there for decentralisation, in both the economic and social sense, so that many thousands of Australians who would otherwise have grown up in Green Valley or somewhere like that can have a new and better life in a place where there is more room and more opportunity to live reasonably as decent human beings. It is not as if we lack room. We are not like Japan, after all, where everything in crowded. We have all the space. I am not talking about cities which are 1,000 miles away from Sydney. These cities are relatively close to Sydney and already have good communications with that city. They only need an extra little gesture from the Government-the equalisation of telephone charges and the equalisation of fuel costs-to have them boom and go ahead. Some cities, such as Dubbo and Wagga Wagga, are going ahead without that encouragement in spite of Government policy. Just think what could be done if Government policy were taken in the right direction. I urge the Government to take a broad view of that matter. The second matter I wish to raise concerns something that was raised by both Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Jessop. They are concerned about single sources of supply. Senator Jessop made the point that the sources of supply of natural gas are exhaustible. Again I make a plea to the Government. I have been saying this for the past seven years and other people, perhaps wiser than I am, have said it before me, including one of the Labor Party's own more gifted people, Rex Connor. It is inevitable logic that this country should have a link which will bring the North West Shelf gas to the eastern States-- Senator Walsh —Why? Senator MASON —Because we will need that gas before we are through, Senator Walsh. The predictions of the Department of Resources and Energy-and I spoke to its annual report only yesterday-show that there will be a very significant drop off, back to about 42 or 43 per cent, in our sources of supply for petroleum and other fuels from indigenous resources by 1992. That is not very far away when one thinks of lead times for these sorts of things. Yet Senator Walsh asks me why. If he cannot work out why for himself, it is about time he did a little bit of homework and reading. He should read the annual report of the Department of Resources and Energy and then he will see why. It will be necessary for us eventually in this country, unless we find another major oil field-and the computer enhanced pictures that I have seen at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation show that there does not appear to be another major off-shore oil field-we will need to be able to provide liquid fuel through the conversion of natural gas to methanol or petrol, as is done in New Zealand. The whole of the Maui gas field in New Zealand has been dedicated to that purpose. If we do not have the vision to realise that when our liquid fuel runs out we will not be able to get it automatically from elsewhere, where will we be? We are more dependent on liquid fuel than any other Western society. We do not have the railway lines and canal systems of Europe. This is one of the rationalisations for a link which would bring the North West Shelf gas to the eastern States. I am not a dog in the manger; I am not saying that some of it should not go overseas. We should not sit on that huge reserve ourselves and it is not necessary for us to do so, but it is reasonable that Australia should have the first priority of benefit from that gas in the future. We need employment; we need another Snowy Mountains project in this country. Something like that is desperately needed and we can afford it if it is a genuine investment in our future. I have no complaints about deficits, provided the money is being invested in something that will produce jobs and income and do something for this country in the future. We should not mess around with stupid little schemes like the community employment program, which everybody knows are a complete disaster and a waste of money. Those young people should be put to work on a project like a gas line across the country. That is something which would appeal to their sense of patriotism; it is something that would appeal to their sense of doing something for this country. If we give them such a project they will work. If we do not, what can we expect of them? I say to the Government: This is a project which should be looked at. The steel towns-Newcastle and Wollongong-are in a depressed state now because no government in this country in recent years has had the guts to bring forward major schemes of development. Is it a fact that we do not need such things? Of course we need them. We need more water storage in this country. We need a broad approach; we need somebody to think big instead of thinking in petty terms all the time. The gas pipeline and the tubes it would need and other equipment that would need to be pushed through very difficult country-a huge task, I agree-would bring our steel towns back to life. There again there would be a multiplier effect. Instead of people going on the dole, they would be paying tax. I took to heart the comment by Senator Sir John Carrick that I was not interested in pipelines. Perhaps I spoke a little more about pipelines today than I would have done because I wanted to convince him that, among other things, I am very interested in pipelines. I am very interested in anything that makes this country better, develops it and provides something better and more productive for the generations to come. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.27) —I do not intend to speak for very long, but I wish to make a couple of comments on the reasons that have been given by the Opposition for opposing the Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill 1985. Before doing that I should point out that although the provisions of this Bill really relate only to the construction of new facilities in the pipeline or extensions to the pipeline and for representation of the Australian Gas Light Company on the board of the Pipeline Authority, it is part of a package deal, so to speak, resulting from the renegotiation of the gas haulage agreement. This renegotiation provides for full cost recovery by the year 2006 by the Authority and for compression stations to be constructed as necessary. In that renegotiated agreement the construction of the spur to Orange, Bathurst and Lithgow is also provided. That is a significant achievement because had that haulage agreement not been renegotiated or some equivalent action taken, depending upon the discount rate assumed and the rate of inflation and so on, in 2006 dollars, within a reasonable range of probability for discount rates and inflation, the Authority would have been left with a deficit of something between $1 billion and $2 billion. It was very important, therefore, that the agreement be renegotiated and Senator Gareth Evans should be commended for having organised that renegotiation with a company which has not always been easy to deal with in the past, as I am sure Senator Sir John Carrick would know. Senator Sir John Carrick —I certainly acknowledge that. Senator WALSH —Yes. The reasons given by the Opposition for opposing the Bill include its doubts about AGL having a member on the Pipeline Authority. Prima facie I think that is a reasonable objection on the ground that there may be seen to be some conflict of interest. However, the major issue on which the conflict of interest question could arise is the renegotiation of the agreement and that has already been done. Although it is fair enough to acknowledge that, I think the risk is slight. The Opposition's second objection is that the legislation removes the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny of pipeline spurs and other major capital works. That would have been a reasonable proposition if it had come from an opposition or a political group which had consistently applied the principle of accountability to Parliament for the expenditure or availability of public moneys. The present Opposition, the Liberal Party of Australia, however, has no such record of having consistently applied that principle. I need go back only to 1979 when the present Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr Howard) and then Treasurer stitched up an arrangement-a bit of cosmetic accounting-with Telecom Australia under which a total of some $600m was loaned back, to use the euphemism used by the Treasurer of the day, to Telecom in order to reduce Telecom's borrowing requirement for capital works and therefore achieve a consequential cosmetic reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement. That loan back arrangement was never approved by Parliament. No interest was payable by Telecom on the loan back until this Government came into office and corrected that in the 1984 Budget. No formal repayment obligation was imposed on Telecom. In other words, the present Leader of the Liberal Party, who was then the Treasurer, presumably with the knowledge of his Cabinet colleagues and the rest of the parliamentary Liberal Party of the day, had no qualms at all about handing over to Telecom $600m free of interest, with no obligation to repay and no requirement for parliamentary approval. It was never endorsed by Parliament. I find it somewhat distressing that a political party with that sort of record could come in here and sermonise about the need for accountability by Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny of the expenditure of public money. I gather from Senator Mason's comments and from what other people have told me that the Australian Democrats will support the legislation, and I thank them for that. Therefore, the Bill will be passed. I endorse Senator Mason's comment about the Bathurst-Orange-Lithgow spur; something which has been on the agenda for a very long time and something which is likely to be achieved-I think it could be said to be guaranteed-in the not too distant future. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Aulich, T. McIntosh, G. D.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J.Coates, J. Morris, J.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K.Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Georges, G. Siddons, J. R.Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Knowles, B. F.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Coleman, R. N. Parer, W. R.Evans, Gareth Withers, R. G.Button, J. N. Hill, R.McClelland, Douglas Crichton-Browne, N. A.Grimes, D. J. Townley, M.Tate, M. C. Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.38) —In my speech in the second reading debate I raised the question of the increased cost for gas. I asked the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) to give some sort of indication to the Senate and the community on what will be the cost. The point is of some importance to the community and I would have thought that it is one of the most important aspects of this legislation. Plainly there will be an increase in the cost of natural gas. As Senator Sir John Carrick said in his speech on the second reading debate, so far we have had only gobbledegook from the Government on this. I ask the Minister to tell us what order of increase there will be. I cannot believe that the Government would have gone into this legislation without taking that into account. What sort of deal has been done? What will the increase be in rough percentage terms? What will it mean to consumers, especially industrial consumers? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.40) —I apologise for not responding to this matter at the end of the second reading debate. The answer is that the Commonwealth has no control over the matter. It is a matter to be determined by the New South Wales Government and the company. I am also advised that New South Wales is in the process of setting up a price stabilisation scheme-I do not think that is quite the right name-as a result of which it is anticipated that increases in the next two years will be minuscule and are not expected to be large in the longer term. I cannot be more precise than that. It is not a matter over which we have any control, anyway. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 17 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a first time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.42) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- SALES TAX LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1985 Mr President, this is the last Bill in this series of 11 Bills. This Bill will amend several sales tax statutes to make a number of technical changes and correct certain drafting errors that have been identified in connection with anti-avoidance amendments of the sales tax law enacted earlier this year. In this area, the amendments proposed by this Bill are, without exception, not substantive in nature. The Bill will also make consequential changes to the Sales Tax Regulations to ``mirror'' changes, associated with the imposition of tax at the 10 per cent rate on biscuits and ice cream products, that are to be made by the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1985. As I mentioned earlier, Mr President, when introducing the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1985, this Bill contains an anti-avoidance provision that will strike down last minute transactions carried out by persons in an attempt to avoid a liability for sales tax that would arise out of the amendments of the sales tax laws being made by these Bills. Mr President, the explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable senators also contains detailed explanations of the technical aspects of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. SALES TAX (Nos. 1-4 AND 6-9) AMENDMENT BILLS 1985 SALES TAX (No. 5) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1985 Under the present structure of the Sales Tax Legislation, each of the Sales Tax Assessment Acts (Nos. 1-9) has a complementary Taxing Act. These Taxing Acts impose the Sales Tax and prescribe the rates of tax payable in respect of goods. The rate depends on the particular schedule, if any, of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, that the goods may be listed in. These nine Bills will amend the Sales Tax Acts to rationalise the wholesale sales tax rate structure by reducing the number of rate categories from four to three. The specific changes are as follows. Goods that continue to be covered by the second schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act will, under these Bills, be subject to tax at the new rate of 30 per cent. As I mentioned in my second reading speech on the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill goods including jewellery, furs, cosmetics and certain electronic equipment will be in this category. At the same time, the Bills will increase the rate of tax payable on goods covered by the third schedule to that act from 7.5 per cent to 10 per cent. Finally, Mr President, the Bills will re-impose tax at the existing rates on goods covered by the fourth, fifth and sixth schedules to that Act, as well as goods that are subject to tax at the general rate. Details of these Bills are also set out in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to senators. I commend the Bills to the Senate. SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Mr President, on 19 September 1985 the Treasurer announced a number of significant initiatives, as part of the Government's tax reform package, that will rationalise the structure and broaden the scope of the present wholesale sales tax system. This is the main Bill in a series of 11 Bills that will amend the sales tax law to give effect to those rationalisation and base broadening measures. At this stage, Mr President, it would perhaps be useful to honourable senators if I were to outline briefly the changes to be made by these Bills. First, the wholesale sales tax base is to be broadened, principally with the intention of reducing anomalies by subjecting to tax certain goods that are presently exempt. Secondly, the rate of sales tax payable on records and sound and video tapes, a number of household and personal care items and certain other goods is to be substantially reduced. Finally, several classification anomalies and inconsistencies that presently exist in the sales tax law are to be rectified. The Bills will also effect some rationalisation in the present multiple rate structure of the wholesale sales tax by reducing from four to three the number of rates that apply to various goods. The Bills will also give effect to the Government's decision, announced in the 1985-86 Budget speech, to provide an exemption from sales tax for horses imported into Australia after 20 August 1985. The opportunity is also being taken to make several technical changes and to correct certain drafting errors associated with amendments of the sales tax law enacted earlier this year. Taken together, these measures are estimated to produce a net revenue gain in 1985-86 of $75 million and $110 million in a full year. I turn now to discuss in detail the changes to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act proposed by this Bill. Base Broadening Measures The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, Mr President, is a key element in the legislative structure of the wholesale sales tax. Its first schedule describes all classes of goods that are exempt from the tax. It also contains five further schedules that specify goods or classes of goods that are taxable at the rates specified in the sales tax Acts. Goods that are not described in any of those six schedules are taxable at the general rate of tax. That rate is presently 20 per cent. Confectionery is presently taxable at the 20 per cent general rate. This Bill will specifically include confectionery in the third schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. The effect of this, Mr President, together with certain changes to the Rates Acts that I propose to introduce shortly, will be to reduce the rate of tax payable on confectionery items from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. There is, however, a wide range of goods that are non-staple food items and close substitutes for taxable confectionery that is presently exempt from Sales Tax. These goods, that might generically be described as snack foods, include potato crisps, nuts, ice creams, flavoured ice blocks and most biscuits. These goods are often used in substitution for confectionery and compete for sales in the market place with it. In order to remove inequities in taxation treatment between confectionery and snack foods, the Government has decided to bring snack foods within the sales tax base. The effect of these measures will be to tax these goods at the 10 per cent rate, on and from 20 September 1985. I turn now to the other base broadening measures in this Bill. Goods that are ordinarily used for household purposes are presently subject to tax at the rate of 7.5 per cent. Examples of these goods, that are included in the third schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, are refrigerators, washing machines and portable cooking appliances. There are, however, a number of other similar goods such as domestic stoves and ranges and water heating and storage equipment that are specifically exempt from sales tax by reason of their inclusion in the first schedule of that Act. This Bill will bring the sales tax treatment of all these household goods into line by incorporating them in the existing third schedule. Mr President, I will shortly introduce further Bills to set the rate of tax for goods in this schedule at 10 per cent. Various goods presently exempt from sales tax will, by virtue of the changes proposed in this Bill, also become taxable at the proposed rate of 10 per cent by reason of their inclusion in the third schedule. These include wrapping materials, bags and fastening materials for domestic or household use, water filtering and sterilizing equipment and books of maps. High Rate Goods The second schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act specifies goods that are presently taxable at the highest rate of 32.5 per cent. Many of the goods covered by the second schedule are everyday household or personal care items. Other goods in that schedule, such as totalizators, are more akin to computers that are taxable at the lower 20 per cent rate. Consistent with the Government's broad objective of rationalising the wholesale sales tax system, this Bill will remove a range of these goods from the second schedule. As the goods to be omitted will no longer be specified in any schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act they will generally fall to be taxed at the lower rate of 20 per cent. Some goods will, however, remain in the second schedule and fall to be taxed at the rate of 30 per cent-a reduction of 2.5 percentage points. Among the goods that will in future be taxed at the 30 per cent rate are jewellery, furs and fur garments, cosmetics, television and radio receivers, video recorders, photographic equipment, watches, clocks and gambling and amusement machines. Anomalies and Inconsistencies The need to specify in the law and in some detail the various goods and classes of goods that are subject to sales tax at differing rates has led to anomalies arising from time to time as new and changed products come onto the market. Unless corrected, the existence of such anomalies involves particular goods, etc. being taxed at higher rates than broadly comparable products or close substitutes. For example, while tea as ordinarily understood is exempt from sales tax, herbal teas are taxable. Anomalies of this kind have, by governments past and present, regularly been addressed by amending legislation. In yet other cases, goods which ought in logic to be taxable are exempt, often because of drafting defects or oversights in specifying the category of goods to be exempt or taxable. For example, ships and vessels designed for use for private purposes such as pleasure or recreation are generally taxable. If however, a ship or vessel is purchased to be used for private transport or accommodation, it is exempt from tax. The Bill will correct these and a number of other anomalies, details of which are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Imported Horses As part of the Government's 1985-86 Budget, the Treasurer announced several measures to assist the Australian horse racing industry. This Bill will give effect to the decision to exempt from sales tax horses imported into Australia after 20 August 1985. Finally, Mr President, I refer to the Government's decision to exempt from sales tax earth stations, designed to receive the household and community broadcasting satellite services, that was announced when this Bill was introduced in another place. That exemption will apply on and from 20 September 1985. This proposal is not contained in the Bill. However, the Government proposes to move an amendment during the committee stage of debate on the Bill to give effect to its decision to exempt these earth stations. At that time, the opportunity will also be taken to effect some minor changes to correct deficiencies that have been identified since the introduction of the Bill in the other place. Anti-Avoidance Provisions The amendments of the Sales Tax Law that I have just outlined for honourable senators will have effect from midnight on 19 September 1985. Sadly, Mr President, there are still those in the community who, between the time when these measures were announced by the Treasurer on 19 September and midnight of that day, may have entered into transactions in order to avoid sales tax liabilities resulting from classification and rate changes which would clearly arise after that time. Against that possibility, I mention that anti-avoidance provisions designed to protect the revenue from such last minute transactions are included in the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 which I will introduce shortly. Mr President, an explanatory memorandum containing detailed explanations of technical aspects of the Bill is being circulated to honourable senators. I do not, therefore, propose to further address the matters covered by this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.44) —The Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 and associated Bills are the first Bills in a series of legislation relating to the Keating tax package. As we all know, the Keating tax package was brought down on 19 September, earlier this year, and these Bills represent a significant part of that total package. As has been made quite clear by the Opposition, we will be opposing various parts of the total Keating package and taking positions as and when we see the legislation in respect of other parts of the package. We will not be opposing these Bills, which represent a rationalisation and reclassification of many types of goods that are subject to sales tax and a reorganisation of the rate structure for sales taxes that apply to various goods. That does not mean, however, that the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia do not have very significant views about some of the matters incorporated in the legislation. I make the point that many of the anomalies that were supposed to have been cleared up as a result of the introduction of these measures appear to have been regenerated by them. Let me give some examples. This Government is determined to treat products such as ice cream as a fad and not a food and so tax it as though it were some kind of hobby rather than as a major food item, which I am sure most Australian people would consider it to be. There are also the questions which were resolved yesterday by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in relation to sales tax on solar hot water systems and goods such as atlases. Consequently, by virtue of the announcements yesterday-I see that before us we now have amendments proposed to the Bills-those matters have been clarified. However, many anomalies remain in the legislation. For instance, it seems to me to be illogical and unfair that products used principally by men, such as safety razors, razor blades and electric shavers-although I must say that I do not use them-shaving brushes and shaving creams and pre-shave and after-shave lotions, bear a 20 per cent rate of tax. However, comparable equipment and lotions for skin and personal care which are used by women attract a rate of 30 per cent sales tax. It is quite unusual that this Government, which is so equalitarian in its approach to matters sexist, should penalise women in this way in regard to toiletries whereas men who choose to shave-I cannot understand why they want to spend their money on shaving equipment when, obviously, nature can take care of the problem-are penalised by a 20 per cent rate of sales tax. That situation seems to be rather anomalous. The Government, in its haste to get in place some legislation in order to save Mr Keating's face-literally-obviously has not considered all the effects of its rationalisation process. Perhaps one of the silliest and most absurd anomalies that result from this legislation is that dog shampoo attracts a tax at a rate of only 20 per cent, but human shampoo has to bear a tax at a rate of 30 per cent. It is rather strange that this Government has seen fit to introduce such anti-human legislation. It takes the prevention of cruelty to animals to a ridiculous extreme. Senator Peter Baume —If humans used animal shampoo, what would happen then? Senator MESSNER —I guess we will see that happening. Do you not think, Madam Acting Deputy President, that many people will use dog shampoo in future? We cannot predict what the outcome of that might be for future generations. No doubt it will be a matter for Senator Georges and his Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare to investigate in due course, as no doubt there will be a run on dog shampoo and a shortage of it in the future. Consequently, dogs will be left out in the cold literally, Heaven knows what might happen with a growth in the number of smelly dogs around the place. No doubt many complaints will be made to Senator Georges's committee as a result. Senator Aulich —Canine dandruff could be a problem. Senator MESSNER —Canine dandruff will become a serious problem, no doubt, and there will be a rush on vaccum cleaners to help fix that problem. Some of the serious aspects of this legislation are of great importance. We must acknowledge that a measure such as that which has been taken against ice cream-although some people might say the ice cream industry is a small time industry-will have very significant effects on dairy farmers. We know that the dairy industry in Australia is not in the greatest state of health at present. I find it absolutely outrageous that the Government should seek to impose a sales tax, albeit at a rate of only 10 per cent, on legitimate and well recognised food items such as ice cream which stem from the dairy industry. Jobs will be lost in the dairy industry, which means jobs lost in regional towns and country areas where dairying is such an important part of community activity. That is certainly true of parts of my State of South Australia, particularly the south-eastern part around Mount Gambier which, of course, is very heavily reliant upon the dairying industry. From the estimates that have been provided to me by the industry, I believe that the ramifications of the new tax are likely to lead to a drop of 5 per cent in ice cream sales. This proposal will not only have a critical effect on dairying-I notice that some of my Queensland colleagues are present in the Senate-but also it will obviously have an effect on the sugar industry, which is going through a difficult period in the State of Queensland. All in all, it seems that the Government has rushed in in trying to organise its so-called rationalisation of sales tax. It has just created more and more anomalies and difficulties in the administration of sales tax. It also has not thought through the employment consequences and the effects upon the economy of some of the measures that it is proposing in this legislation. For that reason, we are a little surprised that the Government has not seen fit to listen to our representations on such important matters and to consider amendments along with those which were announced yesterday with respect to school atlases and solar hot water systems. I think it is also important to realise that there have been rather significant changes to the sales tax law in respect of such important consumer durables as stoves, refrigerators and white goods of that kind. That means that higher taxes will be imposed on those goods. This, of course, flies in the face of apparent Government concern for young people being able to obtain houses. We know that the Government is killing home ownership in this country through its fierce interest rate policies which deliberately keep interest rates high in order to make sure that the dollar does not fall any further on the world markets. As a result people have found that interest rates on a basic home loan have risen from a level of only 11 per cent about a year ago to at least 13 1/2 per cent. That is not the average cost of a home loan to a home buyer at present, because there is a drought in money available for housing. Banks and financial institutions are rationing the amount of money that people can borrow at the 13 1/2 per cent rate, so people are being forced to borrow topping-up loans, such as personal loans or overdrafts, or they have to go to the loan sharks, and they are forced to pay 19 or 20 per cent on the topping-up money that might be required. That means that the average interest rate that people are paying for new home mortgages at the moment is more of the order of 15 or 16 per cent than it is 13 1/2 per cent. The Government claims it is doing well for Australians by keeping a 13 1/2 per cent ceiling on interest rates for home loans at the moment. It is a farcical situation. We know full well that, come 8 or 9 December, immediately following the South Australian election, the Government will lift the ceiling on home loans and interest rates will rise. That will occur as a direct result of the political mischief that this Labor Government is perpetrating at the moment as it tries desperately to keep the Bannon Labor Government in power in South Australia. We know how desperate things are, because today the Bannon Government has placed advertisements in Adelaide newspapers and in other media outlets emphasising what it says is the false nature of the assertions of the Opposition in relation to interest rate policy. Those claims made by the Bannon Labor Government are false. It will be seen in due course by the people of South Australia and of the rest of Australia that the interest rate policy of the Hawke Labor Government is biting and will continue to bite more and more deeply into the flesh of the Australian community in the months ahead. The point that has to be remembered is that not only are people paying a great deal more for their home mortgages as a result of the Hawke Government's deliberate interest rate policies, but also they will be forced to pay higher taxes on the white goods that they purchase to put in their homes. This will be a direct result of this piece of legislation that is before us today. We find it extraordinary that this Government should seek to penalise young home owners and buyers in the way that it does. By taxing the necessities-the various white goods that are needed to furnish a house-the Government is making sure that young home owners will have less money to put into their houses. We find it extraordinary that the Government has not thought through more carefully its whole approach in this area and that it has not got together a more comprehensive package. We have to recognise too that part of the Keating tax package is aimed at attacking those who are renting homes. The tax package will introduce a capital gains tax. It will also abolish negative gearing for the purposes of tax allowances. That will mean that a shortage of rental housing will develop in this country, as there already is in the suburbs of Sydney. Rents in Sydney particularly, and in other parts of Australia, are rising fiercely at the moment. It is not unusual for housing rents to go up at the rate of $10 every couple of months or so. As a result of the Keating tax package, the capital gains tax and the negative gearing arrangements, low income earners will be hurt. These proposals come on top of the sales tax impositions that I have just mentioned on white goods such as stoves, refrigerators and items of that kind which are the subject of this legislation. This Government is really in a frightful mess in working out its policies to help Australian home owners. I certainly think that this tax package in its entirety will have an absolutely devastating effect on future home ownership in this country, and the sales tax Bills before us today are but one part of it. The broad thrust of the Government's direction with regard to sales tax is one which generally finds favour with the Liberal and National parties. We are in favour of a gradual and predictable extension of indirect taxes, with a commensurate reduction of direct taxes-taxes on income. It has been a matter of record for some years that that is the policy to which the Liberal and National parties subscribe. We believe that there should be more emphasis on indirect taxes in order to provide more incentives for people to earn more income. We have to recognise that this proposal before us today has defects in that it contains anomalies that I have mentioned. Also, it is not strictly neutral, although Mr Keating promised us that we would have a neutral rationalisation of the sales tax system as part of this tax package. Indeed, the net effect of all the changes that will occur with the introduction of his legislation is that the Government will raise an extra $110m from Australian taxpayers as a result of Mr Keating's apparent concern for justice for taxpayers. It seems a somewhat absurd notion that a government can rationalise a tax system but still raise an extra $110m-which will hit the pockets of the taxpayers of Australia even more. The various details of the changes are significant. I applaud the Government's approach in simplifying the classification procedure and in introducing a three-rate structure. Whether or not it has got the goods in the right categories is a matter for debate, as has been clear from some of my earlier remarks. The basic problem really is that the idea of broadening the tax base in the way contemplated by this legislation introduces all kinds of difficulties in respect of particular industries, and it is that which we have most quarrel with. As I say, the approach of the Liberal Party and the National Party to the extension of indirect taxes is one of gradualism and predictability. That means that the industries which will be affected by change in respect of sales tax-whether through reclassification, different rate structures or the bringing to tax of various goods that were not previously subject to tax-ought to be given the opportunity to adjust and take account of those effects. We have only to observe the effects on the wine industry of the sales tax changes last year. I am sure that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, coming from the great State of South Australia, would know full well that the sales tax increases on wine that occurred as a result of the Hawke Government breaking its promises last year have resulted in a fall in the sale of wine, which has affected very greatly the produce and the prosperity of the Barossa Valley and the irrigation areas of my own State of South Australia. That introduced a concept and a lack of confidence as far as the future is concerned for the wine industry in South Australia. That is something to be considered as a direct example of the problems that can occur through arbitrary measures, such as taxes, being imposed on particular industries without their having been given appropriate time for consideration as to change and restructuring. I believe that the elements of the legislation before us at the moment contain the same lack of consideration on the part of the Hawke Government for matters of that kind. No doubt we will see emerging as the months go by more and more problems in industries such as the ice cream and dairying industries, which I have already mentioned. I turn to the amendments that have been proposed in respect of this legislation. We note that, as a result of the deal between the Australian Democrats and the Government yesterday, one or two minor matters have now been taken care of by virtue of a Government amendment. It provides that tax will not be imposed upon atlases used exclusively for educational purposes and upon solar hot water heaters. Those are points which, in any kind of isolated consideration, are legitimate and worthwhile points to make, and we will not be opposing that Government amendment. The amendment that is being proposed by the Australian Democrats is of a different kind altogether. It seeks to extend an exemption for sales tax on goods that are available as special aids for the handicapped and the disabled. That is a general policy line which I think all of us would like to support. However, the problem with the Democrats' amendment is that it is such a loose amendment. In fact, it seems to give carte blanche to any kind of aid, without its necessarily being defined as being specifically helpful to the handicapped or to the disabled. Indeed, it does not require a specific authorisation from medical practitioners who are expert in that particular field, but instead seems to require a rather loose arrangement for approval by any medical practitioner who may prescribe any kind of aid or appliance. That seems to be somewhat loose but, more particularly, it does not seem to be aimed at assisting particular groups. Indeed, these goods may be shown, when they are subject to proper medical examination, not to be helpful to those groups at all. Consequently, we think that the Democrats have overstepped the mark in terms of what they are trying to achieve by this amendment, and we will not be supporting it on those grounds. I should mention that the removal of the sales tax on aids for the disabled and the handicapped has been part of Liberal-National Party policy. Indeed, it is something we would pursue in government in order to ensure that as much as possible is given to the disabled in that regard. Because no appropriate mechanism is recommended by which people can gain access to what are legitimate aids for the disabled, the amendment cannot be supported by the Opposition. As I pointed out at the outset, the Opposition will not be opposing the sales tax legislation but we do realise that there are very significant problems with it. Indeed, we wonder whether the Government has thought through the consequences of its actions, in much the same way as it seems that it has not thought through the consequences of its proposals in respect of other parts of the Keating tax package. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(11.07) —I rise to speak briefly on the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 and related legislation as there are one or two matters that the Australian Democrats would like to bring to the attention of the Senate. First of all, we agree that the rationalisation of sales tax into three categories is a good move. It has simplified the legislation to some degree. Senator Messner made great play about what products should be classified as luxury products and what ones should not. There is no end to that little game. We could go on forever asking what is or is not a luxury item. The fact is that sales tax is always a highly contentious matter. When I first joined the Senate in 1980 the first really lengthy debate was about sales tax, and that went on for about nine months. Sales tax is by its very nature a very unsatisfactory tax. It is an on-cost which Australian industry has to bear. I am advised that very few countries in the Western world have such a tax. It is a very serious on-cost and it is a tax that goes a long way, as does payroll tax, towards making Australian industry uncompetitive with the rest of the world. The Democrats would be very happy to see no wholesale tax at all. In fact, we brought down a responsible alternative Budget with a responsible deficit that eliminated completely wholesale tax. We did that in a very simple way. We said that if there was a flat value added tax of 10 per cent on all consumption goods in Australia, apart from the necessities of life, it would raise sufficient revenue to give very substantial tax cuts to attack the problem of the 46 per cent marginal rate of tax on average Australians, and at the same time would eliminate payroll and wholesale taxes. That initiative-a flat 10 per cent value added tax-would be a very worthwhile reform. I hope the Liberal Party will take it up one of these days. Looking at the figures honestly, if we want to get a responsible Budget for this country, something will have to be done about broadening the tax base. We believe that the fairest and most appropriate way that can be done is by a broad-based one value added tax. It is not for nothing that something like 30-odd countries, including all those in the European Economic Community and most South American countries have, and New Zealand will shortly be introducing, a value added tax. It is a tax that is very hard to avoid. It leaves a paper trail so that tax avoiders can be tracked down. It is the fairest broad-based consumption tax that has yet been devised. We hope that one day we will see a flat one value value added tax introduced at a retail level. At least, finally it is a tax that applies at the retail level although it goes right through the manufacturing chain. But it is a tax that is fair and equitable and, in the final analysis, an incentive for industry to be more efficient. Senator Messner —Is VAT your policy? Senator SIDDONS —No, it is not our finally voted policy. It is certainly the policy of the Victorian division of the Australian Democrats but the whole question of what is the best sort of consumption tax will be put to our members very shortly. I am glad that the honourable senator interjected. I am speaking as a Victorian member of the Democrats and as a Victorian senator. We would like to see a value added tax. I believe our Party will support that but I do not want to mislead the Senate as it has not yet been voted on by our members. But it is inescapable that there needs to be a consumption tax in Australia if we are to reduce rates of income tax. If there is a consumption tax, we can look to eliminate a wholesale tax such as that we are discussing today and remove a very serious impediment to the cometitiveness of Australian industry. I make it very clear that this is a Government initiative and we have adopted the attitude that we should not interfere with this tax in any way. But the two areas we have suggested should be amended, namely solar panels and atlases, seem to us to be such glaring anomalies that they at least should be raised. They were not matters on which the Democrats negotiated at any length. They were the least of our concerns, and those of the Government. But in the solar heater industry, Solahart Solar Hot Water Systems has done a magnificent job in developing a very big export market for solar heaters. Those who visit California will see Solahart hot water systems on many homes in that State. Solahart is the first Australian industry to succeed in getting approval for solar heaters in Japan, which is no mean achievement. It has taken a very large percentage of the Australian hot water industry and we commend Solahart and its staff. I know them well; they are young people who are very keen and very aggressive and they have done a magnificent job. Incidentally, it is an organisation which, when I last looked into it, had a very large percentage of employee share ownership. I am not too sure whether it still does but certainly in the development stages it did when it developed these great export markets. That is a glaring example. Every Democrat senator supports absolutely the need for, firstly, a sunrise industry and, secondly, the development of renewable energy sources. That is fundamental to the development one day of a sustainable economy. As Senator Norm Sanders mentioned this morning, the resources of our planet are finite. If they do not run out in our lifetime, it will certainly happen in our children's lifetime. We have to develop renewable energy sources if we are to sustain life on this plant. The sooner we get on with the job of finding the economical way of doing that, the better. We certainly have to find a way of harnessing the sun. The problem with that is that it is spread more or less equally all around the plant and in very small quantities. That sun energy is very difficult to harness. It is a deceptively difficult problem to harness the sun's energy. But it can be done and is being done. It is a challenge to do it in an economical way but I am sure that in the next century that will be the way that energy is produced. We do not want to stop new industries which have made a very good start in this vitally new area of developing renewable energy. We agree that in terms of this legislation it is a minor matter, but potentially it is a very important one in the future. Senator Messner raised the issue of ice cream and the dairy industry. We are also concerned about the dairy industry. We would have liked to suggest to the Government that perhaps ice cream should be exempt. But then one could go from ice cream to chocolate and to goodness knows what else; there would be no end to it. One can make out a very good case why a whole series of products should be exempt from sales tax. I stress again that this is the Government's initiative. This is the way the Government wishes to raise revenue to introduce tax cuts which are absolutely vital. We support the Government's legislation for the reason that it is the Government's initiative; we do not support it in principle. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.16) —I object strongly to the fact that in the Senate we are now hostage to the Government's incompetence. We have to rush through the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 and the cognate Bills because of the failure and the incompetence of the Government in handling its legislative program effectively. We are limited in what we can say about this legislation because it has to go back to the House of Representatives before that House rises and Government members scurry off to protect the Government from the continual and deserved attack it has been receiving in the lower House. Senator Peter Baume —Spoken like a true senator. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Indeed; I thank my cousin for his assistance. What is particularly irritating is that we are being held hostage at a time when the Parliament this year has sat for far fewer days than has been traditional in the past. I am not talking about recent years; I am talking about the days when governments-of course, this was particularly so under the many years of coalition government-regarded the Parliament properly as a place where legislation could be examined, not rammed through with people being asked not to speak and being required not to raise matters that should be raised in this House of review. What kind of review is it when we are given five minutes or so to talk about this major tax package with elements which obviously deserve significant attention? The Australian Democrats have done a disgraceful deal with the Government on this legislation, selling down the river the small businesses and the farmers which they claim to be protecting. One never knows what the Democrats really stand for but I was interested to hear that at least one of them stands for introducing the most expensive possible tax system, paid for, of course, by the private sector. I refer to a value added tax. The VAT system that Senator Siddons is enamoured of in many instances involves taxing the same item on multiple occasions as it goes through the production process. Who pays? Senator Siddons —That is not true. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Of course it is true. It involves repeated administrative costs through each link in the chain of production. Senator Siddons cannot deny that. That administrative cost is borne by private enterprise, which he pretends to represent. Senator Messner —It has sent small businesses to the wall in the United Kingdom. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It is disastrous for small businesses, as Senator Messner says. But this group, which has sold out small business and farmers, pretends to represent their best interests. Of course, some of the concessions that have been made are very useful indeed. It would be ridiculous to pretend that they are not but, having gone a bit of the way, the Democrats were so busy doing their disgraceful deal with the Government that they were not prepared to stand up for their principles. They made a gesture towards that. For example, with farm losses $40m will be saved out of $105m. Having gone so far, why not do the job properly? One cannot be partially pregnant. But the Democrats have managed to do that. Unfairness still exists in this matter. In this instance and on the issue of water conservation they have obtained only one-fifth of the-- Senator Chipp —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Will you allow members of that pathetic party to talk about the whole range of the tax package, including quarantining of off-farm losses as this honourable senator is doing now, during a debate on the sales tax legislation? If you are going to allow that, we shall be here till Christmas. I plead with you to exercise some discipline on members of this pathetic party who have remained thunderously silent about tax ever since it was announced. Senator Peter Baume —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Usage is very important in the Senate, and Senator Michael Baume is doing no more than debating these Bills in the terms in which they are traditionally debated. It is improper for Senator Chipp, even by any implied threat, to speak to the senator in the way that he did. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! There is no point of order, but several speakers have ranged wide of the Bills. I suggest to all future speakers that they keep within the confines of the Bills. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I can understand why Senator Chipp is so sensitive about his disgraceful deal which sells out the farmers and the small businesses of Australia. Naturally, he does not want to hear any more of this debate and is now moving. However, because there is so little time, I should like to deal with specific disasters that are involved in this legislation. For example, there is now a retrospective correction in respect of those elements where the Democrats have been successful in having some reduction in sales taxes. We see here that in respect of solar panels for domestic water heating systems, and school atlases, this is what will happen: Amounts already paid or remitted to the Taxation Office in respect of these items will be refunded. They should refund or credit to their customers any amounts they have collected on account of sales tax not remitted to the Taxation Office as well as amounts refunded to them by that Office. It is not the Government's intention that the proposed retrospective amendments of the Bills provides a windfall gain to such suppliers. A couple of matters arise out of that. Who pays the administrative costs of those people who have collected tax and then have to pay it back, acting as the Government's agents? That is just a little question, in passing. The essential question is this: Why should the Government have introduced that tax before it introduced the legislation? That is the essence. This demonstrates this Government's incompetence and the impropriety of this kind of legislation. It is a disgrace that before the Government has even worked out what will be in its legislation-and we can see that from the deal that it has done with the Democrats-it had this measure introduced, two months ago. It became operative on 20 September. Here we have a deal now done which changes the basis of that legislation. This is a disgrace. It demonstrates a totally improper course of action. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, said in Adelaide, in a very appropriate speech on 5 November: It is a totally unsatisfactory way to introduce key legislative changes. It might be justifiable to stop tax avoidance practices by issuing Press releases and then following up . . . with legislation. But it is quite unacceptable to introduce new taxes using this method. It now seems that six months will elapse between the Treasurer's statement and the legislation coming before Parliament. It is inconceivable to see how the operation of many of the new taxes would have been materially affected if they had not come into operation until the legislation was proclaimed. This is especially so in the area of capital gains tax, which will raise only about $25m after five years. It is absolutely indefensible that the Government should act in this way. Senator Messner —They propose a tax and will not tell you what they are taxing. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. In the tax package, on 19 September, the Government admitted that some design details remain to be settled. This relates particularly to capital gains tax. How dare they introduce taxes from 20 September when they do not know what those taxes will be, when they have no idea what the legislation will contain! And then they subsequently do deals with the Democrats which involve having to repay money already collected. I quickly pass on from that major issue, because we do not have time to discuss it and, as a result, next week I shall seek to raise the matter again as a most serious matter of general principle. Let me briefly simply deal with ice cream. I was astounded to hear Senator Siddons say that he was very sympathetic about the dairy farmers involved, and what a terrible shame it was, but that an end has to be put to it somewhere. How can he happily say that people can sit down and eat, say, fruit salad and ice cream and distinguish between the fact that the fruit salad part of it, produced by Australian primary producers, should be free of tax but ice cream, also the product of Australian primary producers, particularly the dairy and sugar industries, somehow deserves to be taxed? The incredible illogicality of the man astounds me. The reality is that ice cream is not, in fact, a snack food, as the Government claims it is. A survey shows that on 36 per cent of the occasions on which people eat ice cream, it is always as part of a dessert after meals. Another 22 per cent of occasions involved it mostly as a dessert. The final figure was that only 11 per cent eat ice cream mostly or always as an individual snack. This survey, which was done by Reark Research Pty Ltd for the Australian Dairy Corporation, is something that the Government has just wiped aside, and the Government has quite improperly said that ice cream is only a snack food. Because of lack of time, I cannot address myself further to this matter. All I say is that the key thing is that the Democrats' great deal, in which they are supposed to have done so much for small business and farmers, is a hoax. They have knocked off 3 1/2 per cent of the nasties introduced in this tax package-one cannot call it a reform; there is no reform involved; it is the most dishonest use of the word `reform'-and 96 1/2 per cent of these tax nasties will remain in place because of the deal that the Democrats have done and because the Democrats will vote for them in this Senate. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(11.27) —We are debating a series of tax Bills which will incorporate all sales tax legislation and, overall, the Government's whole tax reform package. The Government's stated intention with these Bills is to rationalise the structure and broaden the scope of the present wholesale tax system; but in fact, what it is trying to do is to squeeze another $110m out of the already overtaxed Australian public. The Bills make some goods taxable which are presently exempt, reduce from four to three the categories of sales tax, increase the lowest rate of sales tax from 7.5 per cent to 10 per cent, and reduce the highest rate of sales tax from 32 per cent to 30 per cent. They cover a third general rate of 20 per cent. The sales tax covers all goods which have not been exempted, produced in or imported into Australia for domestic use. The sales tax is ultimately borne by the consumer. But it is even worse than that. When we place a sales tax on a product, the retailer's margin goes not only on the cost of the product but also on the cost of the sales tax. That is reasonable, because the retailer has to outlay 30 per cent sales tax from his own money. He must therefore get a return on that money, so he must put a margin on that 30 per cent. Of course, what that does is to increase buyer resistance by increasing the costs in any retail store. I hope that Senator Button is well aware of this, because this measure will drive his consumer price index figure right up again-probably by a couple of percentage points-and that is something which the Government is trying to hold down. I do not believe that he took cognisance of that fact when he put this 30 per cent sales tax on. It will add probably 30 per cent to retail prices. These Bills are part of the Government's much-heralded reform of the Australian taxation system. The tax reform package has been nothing like a reform at all, and as for today's debacle-I can only call it that-what the Australian Democrats have agreed to, it is the greatest rort of all time. Let me address just a few of the problems. This Government is going to allow a 20 per cent capital gains tax deduction for farms. I have never seen a farm in my life that has been sold with a goodwill component. How do we assess a 20 per cent goodwill component on a farm? The Government has completely wiped off the farm industry. It has given the farm industry a capital gains tax. The Government is basking in the glory of helping the farmer and small business and it has not given them one thing. It has given them a capital gains tax and that capital gains tax has a death duty component in it. That is how much the Democrats have helped the farming industry. They have given them nothing. They have given them a capital gains tax and death duties. That is what these tax measures are all about. The Democrats did not think this through, nor did the Government, and the farmers have copped it right in the neck. That is what it is all about. Let us look at small business. What has this Government done for small business? It has given small business a 20 per cent capital gains tax on the goodwill component. Obviously the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) does not understand business. Not very many people on the Government side do. They are academics, union representatives and misfits, and they do not really understand business at all. Let me tell Senator Button that when a person runs a business he has so much stock and so much plant and equipment. When he wants to sell that business he adds a goodwill component, which may be only 5 per cent or 10 per cent. If he wants to sell the business for $100,000, he may have $70,000-worth of stock, $10,000-worth of plant and equipment, fixtures and fittings, and $10,000-worth of goodwill. This Government is all heart. The Democrats have given 20 per cent as a goodwill component, which I believe is about 10 per cent of nothing. They have given small business nothing, which is probably more than they have given the farmers. The Government has given the farmers capital gains taxes and death duties, something which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion-said would not happen. He said that there would be no new capital gains tax. What do we get? We get a capital gains tax on the farming industry of Australia, the wealth producers of this nation, who cannot cop it. This Government is driving them to the wall, and there is more to come. The Democrats say that they have helped the farmers. They have helped them get a three-year write-off on water conservation, but we were going to give them 100 per cent write-off. The Democrats go out and grandstand to the farming community and say: `We have helped you'. They have helped them all right. They have introduced an animal welfare committee that will drive the rural producers in this country insane. that is what the Democrats have done to the Australian farmer, and then they go out there and grandstand. I often wonder when the Government brings down a tax package whether it has a fall-back position for the Democrats so that it can allow them to grandstand, so that it can say: `We will let them have a little leeway because that is the only way we will get our legislation through'. Senator Button —You don't understand it. Senator BOSWELL —I understand it all. The Government just does not care about farmers. Let us look at the quarantining of farm losses. It has been reduced from $15,000 to $5,000. This Government is all heart. All that this Government has given the farmers is a lousy $5,000. It has given the rural industry nothing, and it wants to go out there and get their vote. The Government will not get a vote in Queensland because I will campaign heavily against it. I will go out and tell everyone what this Government has done to them. Let me return to the legislation. In the name of tax reform, the Australian public has suffered for many months-almost a year-since the last election. We have had a year of uncertainty, with business not knowing which direction to go or where to make investments. Taxpayers have been misled by promised meaningful tax cuts and they have not got them. What about the restaurant industry? It has just been sold right down the river. This Government has not even bothered to look after it. Thirty thousand jobs are on the line-jobs that employ the young people of Australia, the people who find it difficult to get jobs in higher places. The restaurateurs and the catering industry provide such people with jobs. As Senator Michael Baume has said, this Government brought down the tax on 20 September without bringing down the legislation. I will not cover that point because Senator Baume did an excellent job. He understands that issue and he has made that point. This Government has squeezed another $110m out of overtaxed Australians and it has given a lousy $45m in tax concessions by way of the Democrats. The 7.5 per cent sales tax rate is to rise to 10 per cent, which means that the entire 10 per cent will be passed on to the consumer. The White Paper admits that a wholesale sales tax increases business costs because retailers must carry stocks with tax included in the value. I have already covered that point. Small business cannot afford this. This will increase their costs, as Senator Siddons would know because he runs a very big business. Of course, if a small business has $100,000 in stock and it has to pay an extra 30 per cent sales tax, it will have to borrow an extra 30 per cent from the bank at the highest interest rates Australia has ever seen. Senator Button is supposed to be the Minister responsible for small business. He should go to his Leader and ask to be relieved of his position. He does not represent small business. I do not think he has the time to understand it. One day, if he has half an hour to spare, I will tell him about it. A new sales tax of 10 per cent will be imposed on household wrapping materials and bags and all sorts of household commodities. This will drive up the cost of the product in the retail outlets. These tax proposals make a mockery of the Government's concern for the dairy and sugar industries. The Government is taking $6m out of those industries, and they can ill afford to lose one cent. They are both hanging on by their fingernails, trying to survive, but this Government is taking $6m from them. There is to be a tax on ice cream. It is really a tax on the kiddies of Australia; that is what this Government has done. Someone who wants to buy his grandchild an ice cream will have to pay this tax. This Government has taxed the anklebiters of Australia; the poor little kids who want an ice cream. This Government will put a 10 per cent sales tax on ice cream. I really do not understand this Government. Why does the Government not admit that this whole tax package is a complete failure? Why does it not scrap the whole lot and start again? Then maybe it will get a few accolades from the Australian public. The Australian public would applaud this Government if it went back to the drawing board and started again. We have seen the Government's contradictory approach to solar energy equipment. I knew that the Democrats would jump up and down on that one. That is one on which they got their way and I wonder whether that is not one that was put into the legislation for a fall-back position with the Democrats, just to give them a little bit. This Government has backed off on the solar heating. We have a tax on pianola rolls, bird seed and men's toiletries. Men's toiletries will attract a 20 per cent tax but women's toiletries a 30 per cent tax. I do not know how the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) let that go. It seems to me to be a good case to refer to a sex discrimination commissioner, if one believes in that sort of thing. Senator Ryan certainly let her sisters down; they will be taxed an extra 10 per cent on cosmetics. Many women have told me that cosmetics are not a luxury, they are an absolute necessity. Senator Button —What about bird seed? Senator BOSWELL —If one has birds that would be a necessity too. All these inconsistencies and anomalies prove that the Government does not know which way is up when it comes to tax reform. It is no wonder, because when everyone was in Canberra in June or July to discuss tax reform at the Tax Summit, where was the Prime Minister? He was over at some sleeazy hotel with his Australian Council of Trade Union mates. We were all going through a charade here trying to give tax reform some credibility and he was out with his ACTU friends doing a deal. That is how Australia is run at the moment. Senator Button is merely a figurehead here; he does not have much say at all. Mr Kelty runs this nation and Senator Button knows it and is not game to say anything about it. Look at the complete sell-out of Australian business and small business when the superannuation legislation went through yesterday or the day before. It is an absolute disgrace. This Government does not care about it and it does not understand. One day in the very near future-I think it is happening now-small business and the community will rise and will get off their tails. They are apathetic, but they will react. We have seen how the farmers have reacted. The Government has got the farmers reacting against it and now small business, the biggest voting bloc in Australia, will rise up and smite it out of this Parliament. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.41) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate on this package of sales tax Bills. The debate has varied in quality between the sublime and the ridiculous. We have just finished with the more ridiculous part from Senator Boswell. Senator Boswell says that he does not understand this Government. I am not surprised about that at all; he does not understand anything. He did make a speech about Senator Michael Baume and congratulated him on his contribution, which was largely devoted to a lot of huff and puff about the Government introducing the sales tax measures on the date of announcement, prior to the enactment of legislation. That comment, which has been taken up by other speakers, is made out of either mock outrage or ignorance, I am not sure which. It has been the practice of all governments to introduce new sales taxes on the date of announcement. I point out to Senator Boswell that, as a matter of fact, the legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives on 19 September, the day of announcement. I only mention that because the honourable senator's speech, if I might say so, was riddled with factual errors and that point goes to the heart of this debate on the basis of the contributions that have been made by Opposition senators. Senator Siddons made a thoughtful contribution to the discussion. He pointed out things that he has pointed out in this Parliament on a number of occasions in respect of which the Australian Democrats sought concessions, as is their right to do and as is the right of Opposition senators to do if they had so wanted. I thank all honourable senators for their contributions. We will move to the Committee stage shortly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.45) —by leave-I move the following amendments to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1985: (1) Page 1, clause 2, line 13, leave out `Section', insert `Sections 2A and'. (2) Page 2, before clause 3, insert the following new clause: `2A. After section 6AA of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Goods incorporating solar panels, &. ``6AB. Notwithstanding anything contained in any Sales Tax Assessment Act, sales tax is not payable upon so much of the sale value under any Sales Tax Assessment Act of goods in which are incorporated goods covered by sub-item (1) of item 153 in the First Schedule as is equal to the amount which would have been the sale value of the first-mentioned goods under that Act if the transaction, act or operation in relation to which the first-mentioned sale value arose had been a transaction, act or operation in relation to the second-mentioned goods only.''.'. (3) Page 8, Schedule 2, leave out clause 35. (4) Page 9, Schedule 2, clause 44, add at the end of proposed sub-item 3 (3) `, but not including books marketed exclusively or principally for use in schools, colleges or universities'. (5) Page 9, Schedule 2, clause 47, leave out proposed sub-item 12 (1), insert the following sub-item: ` ``12 (1) Water heating and hot water storage equipment, being goods of a kind installed as fixtures in domestic premises, but not including goods covered by sub-item (1) of item 153 in the First Schedule;'. Senator Peter Baume —Can the Minister indicate briefly the purpose of these amendments? Is this merely to accommodate the arrangement which he made yesterday with the Australian Democrats? Senator BUTTON —Yes it is. Following discussion with the Australian Democrats, the Government agreed to make two changes to the sales tax measures. Under those changes, solar panels for domestic hot water systems and school atlases are to continue to be exempt. The most important of the other amendments will provide a sales tax exemption in respect of the satellite receiving dishes. That has been a matter of public discussion and is a Government amendment, which Senator Peter Baume will be aware of. The purpose of that amendment is to be able to disseminate dishes as cheaply as possible to country communities for reception of satellite broadcasts. The other amendments make minor drafting changes to the Bill. The other amendment I should mention is that under the sales tax law manufacturers are generally not liable to pay tax on their aids to manufacture. Under the amendments this exemption will be extended to retailers when they make certain items of confectionery-savoury snacks and things like that-on retail premises as distinct from manufacturing premises. The aids to manufacture exemption will be extended to them as well. They are the main points of these amendments. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.47) —I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) whether there is any particular rationale for confining to books the exclusion for educational material contained in amendment (4) to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill. Why does it not include any relief from sales tax which is levied on video or film which is also produced or marketed exclusively or principally for use in schools, colleges or universities? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.48) —What the amendment actually involves is that atlases were formerly exempt and, under the arrangement which the Government has agreed to, they will now continue in their exempt status. The terminology really just reflects that fact. The issue of videos and so on is not addressed in this clause. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.49) —I want to raise the question of the amendments relating to goods incorporating solar panels and the atlases matter in light of a comment made by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in his second reading debate summing up, when he displayed a very high level of selective amnesia on the matter. This selective amnesia relates to his ability to forget the fact that when major changes in indirect taxes were sought by the previous Government-I think it was in 1981-that Government in fact took a great deal of notice of a change in policy direction. As I remember, it introduced the legislation in outline on 25 August to take effect from 1 January to enable the matter to be thoroughly discussed in this chamber, where, by the way, it was defeated. It is simply not correct for the Minister to say or imply that when there are new taxes and new directions it should be done, and is habitually and always done, in the improper and disgraceful way that this Government has gone about doing it, requiring this kind of retrospective impact. I remind the Minister that in this case there is a change in direction. It is not simply correcting an anomaly. I notice that that word tends to be used by the Australian Taxation Office whenever it is conning a government into making dramatic changes. This Government has fallen for it. It is not simply correcting an anomaly to impose a totally new tax in a totally new direction on a primary product such as ice cream, which is not being given the benefit which is being given to solar panels, for example. It is worth pointing out that the case that the Minister has made is simply false. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.51) —I join this debate on sales tax to ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) whether there is any way in which the Government could avoid imposing rather severe economic burdens on small businesses. Senator Michael Baume mentioned this earlier. At the moment there is no way of avoiding the sudden impact, but I think there must be a way of doing so. I had a case of a person who provides in excess of 5,000 stock items to pharmacies and departmental stores in South Australia and the Northern Territory. The items are in the toiletry area. That person's small company last year turned over something of the order of $1.25m and paid something like $250,000 in sales tax. He had issued price lists recommending retail prices to be charged after September, leading up to the Christmas period, then suddenly at midnight on Thursday, whatever the date was, he found that all those 5,000 items had to be rescheduled by 9 o'clock the following morning. This small businessman found it impossible to get any idea of the details of these 5,000-odd items from the departmental officers. I am not blaming the departmental officers at all, but the time-wasting procedures created tremendous economic hardship for that small businessman who had to reschedule his prices and reprogram his computer-and that takes time-and he found that a lot of time was wasted unnecessarily on employing people specially to go through the schedule. I felt very sorry for the sales tax division of the Department of the Treasury. Perhaps I was rather unkind when I wrote to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), whom I blame entirely for this. I also sent a copy of my letter to the head of his Department and the director in South Australia, a very nice gentleman called Mr Kelton. Subsequently, and in a very co-operative way, Mr Kelton made an arrangement to see the businessmen to whom I have referred and help him as best he could. When I consider that sort of time wasting for small businesses and businesses generally, I think there must be a way to overcome the problem. The Minister shook his head when I asked the question originally-- Senator Puplick —I noted that. Senator JESSOP —I am glad Senator Puplick noted it. Certainly the answer will come back that if businesses are given a month's notice of the change, everyone will buy up the goods. What is wrong with that? If people buy the goods it is a darn good thing for the Australian economy anyway. I believe that it is not beyond the intellectual capacity of Senator Button and his colleagues-- Senator Messner —Obviously it is. Senator JESSOP —The Minister shook his head, so obviously it is. This matter is very important to small businesses particularly and these measures have caused them considerable difficulty. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.56) —The question of small business has been raised quite a lot in the course of the Committee debate. It seems to me that this tax package, which is now in tatters as a result of the Australian Democrats' interference with it yesterday, has totally ignored small business. I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to significant moves that are being held by this Government in the introduction of a capital gains tax. We know that that tax is part and parcel of this package. We know that the Government introduced its capital gains tax on 19 September by announcement, but without telling us what it intended to tax. Of course, we on this side of the Committee have been asking the Government for the past two months what it intends to do with such things as goodwill for small businesses. As a result of the negotiations undertaken by the Democrats, we see-- Senator Button —On a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. There is some licence allowed in a second reading debate on taxation matters, as Senator Michael Baume pointed out earlier. However, in the Committee stage of a sales tax Bill dealing with particular sales tax items, as the amendments do, it is quite improper for Senator Messner to canvass the one tax issue that he is concerned about-a capital gains tax-in this context. If he wants to turn this place into nothing more than a talking shop, that is the way to do it. His comments are quite irrelevant to the clauses in the Bill. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Order! I uphold the point of order. Honourable senators must speak to details of the Bill. Senator MESSNER —I will obey your ruling, Mr Temporary Chairman. The point about the sales tax amendments before us is that they are part and parcel of a far broader package. Indeed, these Bills raise an extra $110m for the revenue, notwithstanding the fact that they were designed, as we were told by the Treasurer on 19 September, to be a neutral kind of tax, fiddling at the edges, if you like, something to fix up some of the anomalies in the sales tax system. They were not supposed to impose new taxes. But we find now that, like the capital gains tax and like the fringe benefits tax, these matters raise substantial revenue for the Government. In that context we have seen a hasty rush to introduce these measures, only to see the Government being forced to back off from various measures that it had included in its original statement because it has not thought through the possible effects of the intended legislation. The classic example is what is has done to the ice cream industry. It will cost the ice cream industry a large share of the market and have a similar effect on the dairying industry. As a result, that will mean a fall in the number of jobs and opportunities for young people in those areas where dairying is carried on. In particular, I refer to the southern part of South Australia, around Mount Gambier, which is a very great dairying area. It will suffer as a result of the Hawke Government's tax policy. Senator Michael Baume —And the south coast of New South Wales. Senator MESSNER —As Senator Michael Baume points out, it will also affect the south coast of New South Wales. All these areas will be affected directly because of this Government's incompetence and its rush to introduce measures which it has not properly thought through. The fact that the Government has backed off in some areas of sales tax and on some aspects of the capital gains tax-only very minor aspects of the capital gains tax-shows just how ill thought out these Keating proposals really are. In order to make my point, I must say again that the capital gains tax is a classic example. Goodwill is being taxed in this measure. We find that there is to be some minor relief in that respect as a result of yesterday's announcement but obviously the Government-- Senator Button —Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on the same point of order. Sit him down. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Messner, I think you are ranging too wide. You must talk to the specific items in the clauses. Senator MESSNER —I will obey your wishes, of course, Mr Temporary Chairman. The final point I make is that although these anomalies are being addressed in this legislation, the fact that it has been prepared in such a hasty manner means that new anomalies will be created. I fail to see why a government should impose new taxes on white goods at a time when the building industry is headed into a slump, driven that way by the highest real interest rates that this country has seen in the past 50 years. This is a direct policy line of the Hawke Labor Government. The Hawke Labor Government's policy is designed to drive up interest rates and to follow that by imposing higher taxes in respect of building goods and materials, refrigerators, stoves and those things which go into new homes. I find that totally incongruous. It again shows quite clearly that the Keating tax proposals are a total sham and a mess. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.01) —There is nothing much I wish to add to what was said earlier. Senator Jessop made the point on behalf of pharmacists and others who sell cosmetics. It was a little out of context, because the point is that the taxes on those matters are coming down, not going up. If he wants them up again, we will do something about it. Amendments agreed to. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.03) —In relation to the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, I move: (1) Page 5, Clause 19, line 35, before paragraph (a) insert the following paragraphs: `(aa) by inserting in paragraph (f) of the definition of ``aids to manufacture'' in sub-regulation (1) ``a manufacturer of savoury snacks or'' after ``goods for use by'', `(ab) by inserting in that paragraph ``savoury snacks,'' before ``confectionery'','. (2) Page 6, clause 19, line 11, after `goods for use by' insert `a manufacturer of savoury snacks or'. This amendment to clause 19 of the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) has been addressed already. It relates to aids to manufacture with respect to production by retailers of savoury snacks. The argument has been put already and I do not wish to add anything to it. Amendments agreed to. Sales Tax (Nos. 1 to 4) Amendment Bills 1985, Sales Tax (No. 5) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 and Sales Tax (Nos. 6 to 9) Amendment Bills 1985 agreed to without requests. Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1985 and Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 agreed to with amendments. Bills reported without requests, but with amendments; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that it had not made the requested amendments to this Bill. Ordered that the House of Representatives message be considered in the Committee of the Whole forthwith. House of Representatives message: Message No. 244 Mr President, The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled `A Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of pensions and other benefits to, and to provide medical and other treatment for, veterans and certain other persons, and for other purposes', and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has considered the Message of the Senate requesting the House to make certain amendments in such Bill. The House of Representatives has not made the requested amendments. H. A. JENKINS Speaker Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.06) —I move: That the requests be not pressed. We find a conflict of views exists between the Government and the Opposition and between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate has expressed its views and has made considerable amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. It has made requests to the House of Representatives in the belief that the views of the Senate should prevail. However, the House of Representatives, as the legislative arm of the Parliament, has determined, at the behest of the Government, that the requested amendments will not be made. I remind the Senate that it has a heavy obligation to consider the Government's views on this matter. Governments are made in the House of Representatives. The Government has consulted with the veterans community over a considerable period and come to the conclusion that a number of changes should be made, which has culminated in the presentation of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. The Government's legislation, which originated in the House of Representatives, was amended considerably, affecting a whole range of Government policy and Budget considerations. There will be considerable reaction within the veteran community if we do not overcome the impasse that exists between the Government's view and the Opposition's view as expressed in the requests that have been made. Many matters were expressed, both in the second reading speech which was delivered by Mr Holding in the House of Representatives and in my response to the Senate's considerations in the past few days. The Bill represents a considerable number of improvements in the benefits available to different groups of veterans. That is a considered view which was arrived at as a result of considerable negotiations and discussions which finally culminated in the presentation of the Bill after negotiations between me and the Returned Service League, which organised a veterans' summit several months ago with a view to presenting its response to the original Veterans' Entitlements Bill which lay on the table of the House from 30 May this year. The legislation provides for benefits to go to war widows upon remarriage, extends treatment benefits to veterans who receive pensions of 50 per cent or more, and provides for benefits to veterans who hitherto have not been covered by repatriation and who served in various auxiliary capacities in the Vietnam war. The Schedule I presented and which the Senate agreed to incorporate covered some 20 improvements and concessions in respect of a whole range of issues, such as the 40-year rule. Amendments were made to clause 119 to meet the needs of both the veteran community and the Government. The Senate now has opportunity to re-examine the decisions it made yesterday. The Government has reaffirmed its position by rejecting the requests that were made by the Senate. I trust that the Senate will look at these matters in an objective way-I understand that that is the next process that has to be gone through-to overcome the delays, uncertainty and even havoc that will surround the Veterans' Entitlements Bill if the conflict between the views of the Senate and House of Representatives, as expressed in the Government's decision to reject the Senate's requests, is not resolved. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.12) —It is somewhat difficult to respond to what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) said in the other place last night because the House of Representatives Hansard is not yet available. So I can respond only to what I recall having heard Mr Holding say last night on the broadcast. I must say that I totally reject some of the things he said. Mr Holding said that there were a large number, about 35, of requests for amendments made by the Senate, which he said was an enormous imposition by the Senate on the Government's legislation. In fact, the requests fall into just a few categories. Most of the 35 requests involve the House of Representatives agreeing to amendments which implement the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. They are technical, parliamentary amendments. They are not of such a nature that the Government could say they are a terrible imposition. After all, the Government has had a copy of the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee for some considerable time and could have indicated to the Senate how it was proposing to deal with it. That would have dealt with a large number of the 35 requests. One of the other main categories involves what I call the AIDS amendment. The Government has accepted that amendment as being in accordance with what the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is doing, in any event. So that is two categories of requests out of the way. Let us look at the rest of them. There is the simple amendment in regard to the definition of allied veterans which would maintain the existing position and certainly would not cost the Government any funds at all in this Budget. However, if it did, it would be less than half a million dollars and probably less than $100,000. So I cannot see that that measure would be terribly expensive. The next category of requests relates to repatriation cover for new enlistees in the defence forces to ensure that they continue to be covered as they are at present, until such time as the Government gets around to bringing in its military compenstion legislation. Again, I do not know how much that measure would cost, but the difference between what the new enlistees would be entitled to recieve under workers compensation and what they would be entitled to receive under repatriation cover could not be terribly large. I cannot see that measure having a very substantial effect on the Budget. Yet, if my memory serves me correctly, I heard Mr Holding saying that these measures would cost the Government half a billion dollars-hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sheer terror tactics will not achieve anything in this Parliament. The truth of the matter is that the Parliament will find out the actual cost. We will not be misled by nonsense spoken in the other place by which Ministers, and others perhaps, endeavour to frighten the hell out of people as to what the costs or ultimate effect of a measure might be. The rest of the requested amendments are probably relatively insignificant. They are certainly insignificant in regard to cost. The Minister was talking about a dollar a week for some fellow with a decoration. The Government already accepts the retrospectivity provisions, although it wants to handle them departmentally instead of legislatively. So the rest of the requested amendments, as far as I can see, are relatively financially insignificant. For Mr Holding to allege in the other place that these measures will cost the Government half a billion dollars is, frankly, just not true. I do not want to use that other word, which is unparliamentary, but the truth is that what Mr Holding was saying is not true. Hence, the Opposition will press its requests. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.18) —The Government has proposed that the Senate not press its requests. This has happened previously in this chamber. The Government has made a number of proposals in regard to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I must say that its method of negotiation has been rather odd, inasmuch as I have had absolutely no communication whatsoever from the Government with regard to the legislation coming back to the Senate. I discovered, in the normal course of events as Whip, that the legislation was coming back on. There was no communication from the office of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). No discussions at all on this matter were held with me as the Australian Democrat spokesperson in this area. I thought that was rather odd, if the Government had some further information it wished to bring forward with regard to the legislation. I find the argument that the Senate is not entitled to amend legislation one of the oddest I have heard in a long time. The argument was used in the debate yesterday, so I am now getting used to the idea that the Minister is maintaining this line. It so happens that the constitutional structure of Australia is such that a Bill has to pass both Houses of Parliament. I do not think that requirement has changed at least in recent times. I have been relatively busy and have not noticed that to be the case. This chamber has as much right to amend legislation as has the House of Representatives, except for the limitation on our powers with regard to money Bills. This is why a number of these had to be couched in terms of requests and not amendments. I also do not accept the arguments put in the House of Representatives that, if we press these requests, on 5 December it will be almost the end of the Western world as we have come to know it. Because of the effect of the sunset clause which was introduced in the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill in May, on 5 December certain parts of that legislation will fail and we will revert to the situation that existed prior to the introduction of that legislation. Provisions for the structure and operation of the determining authorities are contained in a separate piece of legislation which was passed by this chamber at the end of last year. They will in no way be affected. The veterans' entitlements will merely revert to those that existed prior to the consolidation of the repatriation legislation. No changes will have to take place and not one single veteran will be disadvantaged. Indeed, some veterans will be markedly better off because the old section 47 of the Repatriation Act, even on the Government's reckoning, is a better section for the veterans than clause 119 of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. If this occurs, the only people who will benefit will be the veterans. We have supported all along the consolidation of the repatriation legislation. The first public suggestion for consolidation was made by me at the second annual conference of veterans organisations in Australia, when Senator Messner was Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I suggested that consolidation of repatriation legislation needed to take place. We stand by that; however, we also stand by the amendments and requests that we supported and the amendments and requests we moved that had the support of the Opposition parties. Question resolved in the negative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day No. 4, (Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985). Debate resumed from 28 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.24) —Before the Senate rose last night we were discussing the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill. This Bill proposes increases in the level of charges made on overseas students at our tertiary institutions. As I was rehearsing last night, there are, I believe, a number of problems with the Government's presentation of its argument. I spoke about the benefits which will accrue and which have accrued in the past to Australia from providing education to students from the Oceanic area, and from South East Asia in particular. I refered to the fact that it had been estimated that $135m is spent annually by overseas students while living in Australia. I also raised the question of the effectiveness of the Government's calculations and sought from the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) the basis of its calculations of the cost to the Government of educating individual overseas students. I also raised the problem of the fluctuations in currency exchange rates. The Minister has been relying upon those fluctuations in some of her public statements to suggest that this Bill is an offsetting operation and, hence, since almost all currencies have moved up against the Australian dollar, Australia has become a cheaper place. As I pointed out, for example with regard to the Hong Kong dollar, next year students from Hong Kong will be required to pay 42 per cent more in their home currency unless our dollar goes through the floor. Presumably, the Minister for Education is not saying that the value of the dollar will go down. I am quite sure that she is saying that our dollar will go up, and we certainly all hope it does. If it does go up-- Senator Walters —The Minister is not saying anything. Senator MACKLIN —The Minister is talking to somebody else at the moment. Presumably, the argument that the Minister is using now will be used next year against a rising Australian dollar. Hence, students from overseas countries can expect to pay more in their home currencies than they are at the moment because our dollar will be appreciating against their currencies-at least, that is what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is telling us and I presume that the Minister for Education, who is present in the chamber, is saying the same thing. I do not think that that argument can be used. I also pointed out that the Malaysian students would be paying some 33 per cent more. Our position has been consistent in this debate. We had such debates fairly constantly under the previous Fraser Government and have had them fairly constantly under the Hawke Government. We have had them at least once a year, when we consider the education package. On these occasions we say that providing for overseas students is now recognised as being part of our foreign aid and that the contribution we make is vitally important. In my concluding remarks last night I dealt with the percentage of overseas students that Australia has in the higher education facilities. I compared the situation in two other countries-France and Great Britain-with the situation in Australia. I pointed out that those countries have a far higher percentage than we do of students in their higher education institutions. Even a place like Canada has a 30 per cent higher rate of overseas student enrolment than Australia. I wish to make some concluding points with regard to costs to add to the points I made last night. I certainly would be interested in the Minister's response to our costings on this. From all the material that I have been able to put together it would seem that the average overseas student comes from a family of very modest means. I am not saying that every student comes from such a family, because obviously that is not the case. There are students from extremely wealthy backgrounds who come to Australia and partake of our educational institutions. But by and large the students who come here from overseas are from relatively modest backgrounds. They are looking at paying between $3,500 and $4,300 in round terms, which is a very costly operation. Indeed, very few Australian families would be able to pay that. I suggest to the Minister that very few families from overseas countries would be able to afford that level of commitment. It would seem on the figures that about 60 per cent of private overseas students come from families with an annual income of less than $A15,000. Yet a student enrolling in 1985 in a typical three-year course would be looking at an increase of something like 100 per cent in two years. That is a difficult burden to impose on a family. To families earning less than $A15,000 a year it would be a massive and crippling impost and, I suggest, an impost which would not be able to be sustained. The argument we have put rests on the principle that once a student has been enrolled he or she should be liable to pay no more than the amount paid in the first year. In other words it would be a predictable commitment and the student and the student's family, in making that commitment, would then be able to maintain it. We do not want to lose students in whom we have already invested a considerable amount of money before they have completed their courses and satisfactorily graduated. Under our proposal the Government would still be able to increase the charges to overseas students each year but that increase would apply only to newly-enrolling students. So the charges can be adjusted for inflation, for movements in the exchange rate and for any other reason that the Government deems reasonable and necessary. I know that the proposal we have put forward is not the ideal solution, but in the circumstances I think it is the best possible solution to a difficult problem. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(12.34) —As the Senate is aware, the legislation before it has been amended by the Government to take account of the facts concerning difficulties faced by some existing students in meeting the increases. I would like to say at this stage that I have also taken account of the views put to us by the Opposition and by the Australian Democrats on this matter. What we now have before us is, I think, a very realistic, fair and reasonable arrangement for existing students. Are you right, Don? Senator Chipp —No, I am not right. Senator RYAN —The level that will be charged for new students has been established by the Government. Senator Chipp —If you want co-operation you should not sneak things through as you have just done with this, ahead of the rest. Senator RYAN —Could I have a bit of order please, Mr Deputy President? Senator Chipp —Can't you act honourably? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Chipp! Senator Chipp —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. The red sheet clearly stated that the broadcasting and television legislation was to follow the sales tax legislation. The Liberals were expecting it and we were expecting to debate it. Without any notice, without any courtesy being paid to our party, the Minister got up and moved that the student charge legislation take precedence. That is a pretty sneaky sort of trick. If the Government is going to do that, at least it should pay us the courtesy of telling us that it is going to do it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Chair is not in a position to monitor inter-party courtesies. The document does say that it is issued as a guide to honourable senators and that the business that is listed is subject to change, and it has in fact been changed. Senator RYAN —In summary, the Government is not prepared to accept the further amendments that the Australian Democrats wish to move. To do so would be to impose an unreasonable cost on the Government, which has to balance its desire to assist overseas students to study here with many other responsibilities, including, of course, those towards Australian students. However, the Government is prepared to accept the amendment to be moved on behalf of the Opposition by Senator Peter Baume. In our judgment it clarifies or makes explicit what is implicit in the legislation; namely, that for the years subsequent to 1986 there can be some flexibility in the level of charge for existing students. It may well be that the Government will wish to exercise that flexibility, and so we have no objection to Senator Peter Baume's proposed amendment. On the question of how the Government arrived at the actual charges that are to be made to students, I do not think there is any point in engaging in a lengthy argument with Senator Macklin about this. We have on a number of occasions made available information which was provided to us by the Tertiary Education Commission and the charges, as levelled, will be as they have been explained-35 per cent of the average cost of courses in 1986. It is the intention of the Government to raise that percentage of full cost to 45 per cent in 1987, although that will require further action. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F.Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McIntosh, G. D.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Missen, A. J.Carrick, Sir John Morris, J.Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G.Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reid, M. E.Collard, S. J. Reynolds, M.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M.Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G.Devlin, R. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Sibraa, K. W.Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C.Georges, G. Vanstone, A. E.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K.Haines, J. Siddons, J. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B.Mason, C. V. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.44) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 4, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 6 (2), leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), insert `the relevant maximum amount'. (2) Clause 4, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 6 (3), leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), insert `an amount equal to the amount of the charge imposed in respect of the enrolment of that student in that course for the first year of enrolment'. (3) Clause 4, paragraph (b), leave out proposed new sub-sections 6 (4) and 6 (5). I do not propose to reiterate the arguments that I put in my speech on the second reading. I merely point out that it is fairly obvious that a deal has been done between the Opposition and the Government on this matter and we do not propose to call a division on these amendments since that deal has been done. Amendments negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.45) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 4, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 6 (2), paragraph (a), line 7, after `in relation to', insert `the enrolment of the student in that course for'. (2) Clause 4, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 6 (3), line 11, after `in relation to', insert `the enrolment of a student in that course for'. (3) clause 4, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 6 (3), paragraph (b), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph `(b) in the case of a subsequent year-the amount prescribed for the purpose of this sub-section, being an amount not exceeding the amount calculated by multiplying by 1.15 the amount of the charge imposed by this Act that would have been applicable to that enrolment if that enrolment had been an enrolment in that course for the immediately preceding year.'. I am grateful for the indication from the Government that it will support these amendments. I believe they will confer some benefits upon continuing students. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(12.46) —I wish to have the names of the seven Australian Democrat senators recorded as having voted against the third reading. In order to save the time of the Senate we will not call a division. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2 p.m. Senator WALTERS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer the Minister to the Prime Minister's speech to the Confederation of Australian Industry last night, when he said that the Government could not support industrial action in defiance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission over superannuation. In particular he said: In our view, such action is inconsistent with the spirit of the agreement between the Government and the ACTU. Now that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has decided to defy the Arbitration Commission and the Government on superannuation, what specific practical action can or will the Government take to support the Prime Minister's words? Senator BUTTON —I agree with what the Prime Minister said. I think it is bordering on a great degree of licence to say: `Now that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has decided to defy the Government on these issues, what action will the Government take?'. The Government will certainly have discussions with the ACTU about the matter in dispute. Senator COATES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister seen the reported remarks of the Leader of the National Party and Opposition shadow Minister for Defence, Mr Ian Sinclair, forecasting Antarctica as becoming the focus of international rivalry and saying that Tasmania could become the front line of Australia's defence interests in Antarctica by the twenty-first century? Does the Minister not agree that Antarctica should be a model of successful international co-operation? Would there be any advantage for Australia in undermining the Antarctic Treaty and fostering super-power rivalry in Antarctica by pursuing the policies advocated by the shadow Minister for Defence? Senator WALSH —In response to the last question, I should have thought that it was patently obvious that the answer to that has to be no, there would be no advantage at all to Australia in undermining the Antarctic Treaty and turning Antarctica into an armed iceberg. But I have also noted, with astonishment, that in that speech last week Mr Sinclair identified Antarctica as a major military threat to Australia. We used to have the threat of the downward thrust of China back in the 1960s and 1970s. According to Mr Sinclair, we now have the threat of the penguin invasion. Perhaps we should be grateful that Mr Sinclair is receptive to new ideas, because whereas in the 1960s and 1970s Mr Sinclair and, indeed, the Liberal and Country parties in toto, argued that the downward thrust of China was the great threat to Australia and that communism, like water, ran downhill, and that gravity was on the side of the communists, since then they have turned the globe upside down and the force of gravity now exerts its pressure from south to north instead of from north to south. Equally remarkable was the ignorance which Mr Sinclair displayed in that speech of the very matter which was the subject of his address, and that is that Antarctica enjoys what is regarded as the most effective disarmament regime in the world, in that no country has attempted to install, or to the best of my knowledge, anyway, even seriously discussed the possibility of establishing, military installations there. Under the Antarctic Treaty, the continent has to be totally demilitarised by super-powers as well as other nations, and there is a high level of international co-operation there; indeed, probably the highest level of international co-operation to be found anywhere in the world. Of course, Australia plays a leading role in maintaining that demilitarised regime, because it is fully compatible with our policy of removing super-power tensions from any part of the world where we can. It is a pity that in his enthusiasm to rattle the sabre at penguins, the Opposition defence spokesman should suggest that all that be reversed. I do not think I need say any more, other than that it is about time the Opposition got itself a new defence spokesman as well as a new leader. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It also concerns the remarks of the Prime Minister to the Confederation of Australian Industry last night and his reference to industrial action being inconsistent with the spirit of the prices and incomes accord. Does the Minister concede that if the only restraint on industrial action over superannuation is the nebulous spirit of the accord, unions have almost unlimited licence to hold employers to ransom with little fear of the consequences as far as the Government is concerned? In view of this, will the Government, as a matter of urgency, renegotiate the accord to ensure that any such action is specifically prohibited in the agreement? Senator BUTTON —That is an interesting question because it reminds me of the age of Louis XIV in the implications which underlie it. Senator Chaney —It would be a golden age if we could stop unions striking; you are quite right. Senator BUTTON —It would be a golden age, Senator. We are much closer to a golden age than honourable senators opposite ever were. Senator Chaney —Tell that to the Victorians. Senator BUTTON —I will tell it to the Victorians. I will tell it to anybody. We are much closer to a golden age than honourable senators opposite ever were. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle referred to the constraints which are available to the Government. I suppose she means that the Government might erect an armoury of legislation again, which proved totally useless in the period of government of honourable senators opposite in terms of achieving industrial peace in this community. We are not about that; we have explained that on a number of occasions. There is, of course, one constraint that the Government does have about superannuation, and that is that the Government provides the taxation regime under which superannuation schemes operate. There will be guidelines for the superannuation schemes which will involve the tax treatment of those schemes. I do not think it would be sensible for us to seek to renegotiate the accord, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle puts it, to insert a provision which seeks self-restraint by the unions. That is the only thing that such negotiation could lead to, and I do not believe that there would be very much point in that exercise. Leave it with us for a little while, and see how we go. I think it will be all right. Senator McKIERNAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to criticisms of the level of Commonwealth public sector outlays under the Hawke Government? Do those criticisms have any merit? Is there any linkage between privatisation and the level of public expenditure? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, I do not see that there is any linkage between privatisation and the level of public expenditure, although I notice that some people appear to believe that there is. For example, I have here a copy of a letter from Senator Jessop, addressed `Dear Colleague'. Senator Cook —Table it. Senator WALSH —I do not think I should table it without Senator Jessop's approval, because it is after all his letter, and he is not present. It says: It seems to me that in order to promote `privatisation' we need to recognise that the concept is a relatively minor segment in the overall objective of reducing public expenditure. In South Australia, the promotion of privatisation has been a counterproductive exercise; however, it remains to be seen whether this can be overcome during the few days left before the State election. In order to effect economic recovery in Australia, three matters need to be dealt with in an aggressive but well considered manner: 1. Reduction in public expenditure (of which privatisation-curse the word-happens to be a relatively minor element). And so on, and so on. I find it quite distressing that decadence, disorder and disunity have reached that point in the Liberal Party at which a member of the Liberal Caucus cannot even write a private letter to one of his colleagues without it being leaked on the same day as it is written. That is symptomatic of what has been going on in this divided, squabbling and feuding Liberal Party for at least the last six months. Senator Button —He is one of their best thinkers. Senator WALSH —I agree, Senator Button. He has identified privatisation as being a counterproductive stunt in the context of the South Australian election campaign. People in South Australia, as elsewhere, and particularly country people, do not really want to pay higher telephone charges and electricity and mail charges. People anywhere do not want to have the Commonwealth Bank sold off so that their housing loan interest rates go up, as Mr Howard, among others, has advocated. I find it interesting, however, that in writing this letter Senator Jessop has repudiated not only Mr Olsen but also his own Leader and his own Leader's policies. Perhaps that was his intention. As to the first part of the question relating to criticisms of Commonwealth public sector outlays under this Government, this matter was raised by Senator Chaney on 8 November. I promised that I would calculate for Senator Chaney what outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product would have been had the peak level of unemployment in 1982-83 prevailed throughout the entire 1982-83 financial year. I am able to tell Senator Chaney that had that been the case and there had been a 10.3 per cent level of unemployment throughout 1982-83, outlays on a no-policy-change basis would have been 30.8 per cent of GDP-that is, equal to the highest level of outlays ever recorded-in spite of the fact that most of the electoral bribes which the Fraser-Howard coalition offered in the 1982 Budget were election bribes in the form of tax expenditures rather than outlays. The economic impact of the two, of course, is ultimately the same, except that tax expenditures when first introduced have a deferred cost in the following financial year. The reason why outlays would have been as high as 30.8 per cent had unemployment throughout 1982-83 been at its peak level of 10.3 per cent is that unemployment benefits, because of the higher number of unemployed, would have increased automatically, by something like $400m and GDP, because of that much higher level of unemployment, would have been about 3.6 per cent lower. This is just another example of the importance of the very substantial influence that the prevailing level of unemployment has on the percentage of outlays as a proportion of GDP in a no-policy-change situation. Senator Cook —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. Can the Minister table the document from which he was quoting? Senator WALSH —I will quite happily table the letter. I would like to have got Senator Jessop's permission. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Minister is entitled to table the letter. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether the Government agrees that it would be improper for a person believing in the guilt of Mr Justice Murphy to proclaim publicly that belief at a time when a fresh trial has been ordered. Does the Government further agree that proclamations of innocence from public figures, such as Mr Wran yesterday and Mr Hayden some months ago, are also improper? If the Minister does agree, what action will the Government take to prevent such statements, which appear calculated to interfere with the prospect of a fair trial in this case? Senator BUTTON —If I might offer a personal view to those mentioned by Senator Chaney, I would counsel the wisdom of silence and the fairness of silence. I was asked whether I can, at this stage, express a view about what action the Government might take. I think the answer is probably no, other than to offer that counsel collectively. I will inquire further about that, and advise Senator Chaney in due course. Senator DEVLIN —Is the Minister for Education aware of the article in the Courier-Mail of 28 November 1985 which refers to the target set by the Government for 1,000 Aboriginal teachers by 1990? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the progress in meeting this target? Senator RYAN —I am aware that the Blanchard Committee-the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aboriginal Education-which has just reported, has endorsed the already established strategy of the Government of aiming to have 1,000 trained Aboriginal teachers in the schools by 1990. That was a policy to which we were committed before we came into office. Every year since we have been in government, we have made available 100 special fellowships for mature age Aboriginal people to undertake teacher training. That means that under that program alone there would be about 300 trainees in the system. As well, I think from memory there are about 800 higher education Aboriginal students this year, many of whom are undertaking courses which would prepare them for teaching. Senator Devlin has raised a very important policy issue. I know there are honourable senators from both sides of the Senate who are concerned to see that the dreadful disadvantages suffered by Aboriginal students in education are overcome. They recognise that a very important element in improving outcomes for Aboriginal children is to have Aboriginal teachers in the classroom. The role modelling effect on young Aboriginal students of Aboriginal teachers in the classroom is very important and very inspirational. It is also a fact that the cultural sympathy that Aboriginal teachers are able to have with their Aboriginal students is very much stronger and more natural than efforts non-Aboriginal teachers make, although I am aware that many of them are very committed. So it is a very important program. I must say that I am very pleased to see that the Blanchard Committee has endorsed the strategy we have been pursuing. Whether we will achieve the target of 1,000 teachers by 1990 cannot be guaranteed at this stage, although we are on target with the 300 trainees who have come in under the special fellowships and the other students. One of the features of the development of Aboriginal people in Australia is that many Aboriginals who have been trained to teach have very quickly found themselves poached, one might say, to senior administrative or policy positions within Commonwealth and State bureaucracies. Many of my Aboriginal advisers are people who started off as classroom teachers but were very quickly taken into other areas. I know that that is also true of Aboriginal officers in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. So there is a very high demand for Aboriginal trained teachers not only in the classroom but also in a whole range of policy areas designed for the advancement of Aboriginal people. I certainly hope that we will be on target with our 1,000 trained Aboriginal teachers. Even more than that, I hope that by 1990, because we are able to achieve this, and by using other measures, we will have achieved greatly improved outcomes in education for Aboriginal students. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. If, as the Prime Minister claims, the Government is opposed to industrial action in support of superannuation claims, why did it sanction the agreement with the paint manufacturers which rewarded the storemen and packers for their industrial blackmail? Senator BUTTON —First of all, the Government did not sanction any agreement between the paint manufacturers and the storemen and packers. The Government tried to seek an agreement, which was obtained. The first plank of that agreement, if you like, was that industrial action should be withdrawn. We did not at any stage approve of that industrial action in respect of the paint industry and we still do not. However, the reality of the situation is that the most desirable thing that could have happened in that dispute was to get it ended, and that is what the Government took steps to do. Subsequently, there was an agreement about the future course of the development of the superannuation discussions in that industry. We welcome that agreement as being part of a process of settling the industrial dispute, which in our view was totally unnecessary. That happened. Senator McINTOSH —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Special Minister of State been drawn to comments made by the industrial officer of the Australian Federal Police Association, Mr Col Dorber, asserting that Perth Airport is wide open to a terrorist attack? Is it true, as Mr Dorber says, that the airport has been classified as grossly understaffed by the Australian Federal Police, with a severe lack of counter-terrorist equipment and nobody trained to deal with an attack? Senator WALSH —Senator Gietzelt may have something to add to what I say on this because it is an aviation question as well as a question for the Special Minister of State. As far as SMOS is concerned, yes, I have seen the report. I noticed that it comes from the industrial officer of the Federal Police Association. I think that is probably a significant fact in that he says that there is a need for a vast increase in the number of Commonwealth police at airports. It is not unusual for union officials to say that there should be vast increases in the numbers of their members all over the place. On the substance of the matter, the national anti-terrorist plan caters for the entire spectrum of foreseeable terrorist activities, including aircraft hijacks. The anti-hijack plan produced by the Department of Aviation deals with aircraft in airports. Senator Gietzelt may like to say something about that later. But the major responsibility for reacting to terrorist incidents at airports, should one arise, rests with the State police. The Federal police provide the coverage deemed necessary to fulfil a holding role until the State police arrive. The question of airport staffing by the Federal police will be taken into account by the review of AFP resources which is either about to be finalised or has been finalised. It may be decided in the final analysis that this is a function which could be performed by another body. But the more specific question of airport security is, as I said, the responsibility of the Department of Aviation. Senator Gietzelt may have something to add, if that is in order, Mr Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Giet- zelt, do you wish to add to the answer? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, Mr Deputy President. It was suggested that as this matter also came within the province of the Department of Aviation I might add some comments. My advice is that as a result of the recent incident to which Senator McIntosh referred, Australia's aviation security procedures have been re-examined and also tightened up. I inform Senator McIntosh that the Department of Aviation is responsible for the security standards and, to that extent, it liaises with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, as well as with the Australian Federal Police. I think it goes without saying that the Australian Government deplores acts of terrorism in all its manifestations. Whilst it is true that we have not had any hijackings of any major international significance as spectacular as those we have seen in recent times, nevertheless the Department of Aviation has kept this matter constantly under review. That has applied particularly since 1960, when strong domestic law was passed by the Parliament relating to an unlawful interference with aircraft. As a result of the Trans-World Airlines Pty Ltd incident, Australia's aviation security has been re-examined in respect of Athens Airport, where it appears that the terrorists' weapons were taken on board the Egypt Airlines flight. Qantas Airways Ltd, as a major user of Athens Airport, is having that matter very carefully re-examined to make sure that our security procedures will prevent any similar occurrence when Australia's major airlines use Athens Airport. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Yesterday all senators and members received a copy of the Australian Film Commission's annual report. Is the Minister able to advise the Senate what is the distribution of the Australian Film Commission's annual report? How many of the 108-page reports, which included full colour photographs and seven colour graphics were printed and at what cost? How many 14-minute rather lavish and well-produced videos were made and at what cost, including the cost of the tapes? Does the Minister consider that such extravagance in the current economic climate is appropriate? Senator RYAN —I do not have that information with me. I suggest that the honourable senator put the question on notice. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In view of the deteriorating situation under the Marcos regime in the Philippines, has there been an increase in the level of interest in emigration to Australia from the Philippines? Have there been any delays in processing applications? Can the Minister indicate the increase in the number of people granted visas under each migration category now being used by his Department? Senator GRIMES —I have information from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on this matter. There has been a significant increase in interest in migration and visitor entry in the Philippines since July 1985. In August alone 56,000 people sought to make application at our mission in Manila. This increased interest could be attributable in part to some minor policy and procedural changes which were contained in the announcement in the 1985-86 migration program. As Senator Childs suggests, the current situation in the Philippines may obviously also be a contributing factor. Experience suggests that the above changes caused many people to assume that our policy had been relaxed. Since October the Embassy has been receiving between 30 and 40 migration applications each day. Priority is given to processing family migration cases, including fiances but, as Senator Childs would know, we are in a time of strict resources restraint and recent work load increases have resulted in processing delays for certain cases increasing by up to five months. Interviews are currently being scheduled for March and April 1986. The Department has already allocated a small increase in staffing resources to the Manila operation, but this of course is at the expense of other migration posts whose resources are stretched to the limit. Our Embassy in Manila expects to visa some 4,000 migrants and more than 10,000 visitors during 1985-86. This compares with fewer than 3,000 migrants and just over 7,000 visitors during 1984-85. A comparison of figures of persons visaed in the September quarters for 1984 and 1985 reflect the overall increase. Family migration increased from 694 in 1984 to 985 in 1985; there was a decrease in skilled labour from 30 in 1984 to 10 in 1985; there was an increase in employer nominees from four in 1984 to 10 in 1985; in both 1984 and 1985 there were no business migration visas or independent migration visas; there were no special eligibility visas in 1984 and there was one in 1985; and the refugee special humanitarian program showed there were 89 in 1984 and 65 in 1985. In total there was an increase from 817 in 1984 to 1,071 in 1985. Every effort is made within available staff resources to process migration applications as quickly as possible, particularly where family reunion is involved. It goes without saying that speedy processing should not be done at the expense of Australia's high standard of entry requirements. Senator MASON —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware that for most of this year I have had questions on notice about Government attitudes towards the return of Robert Trimbole to Australia to face charges against him? Does the Minister agree that answers given by the Government have been evasive or, in the case of the latest question on notice, non-existent? Will he now give some clear and definite information on the following points: Does the Government know where Robert Trimbole is? If not, why has an insufficient effort been made to locate him? What is the Government doing now to locate Trimbole and return him to Australia? Senator WALSH —I do not think I could agree that answers given by this Government are either evasive or non-existent. I do not think it is at all reasonable to expect me to agree with that. On the substance of the question, I am advised that the Australian Federal Police have continued to search for Mr Trimbole since he was released from custody in Ireland in February of this year. The Federal Police have been working in conjunction with police forces in other countries in relation to those investigations. Any further disclosure of the Government's knowledge of Mr Trimbole's whereabouts would, in the Attorney-General's opinion, be likely to prejudice those investigations. I add as a postscript to that that if Mr Trimbole is caught again one would hope that we would be more successful that we were last time. One would also hope that some odium might attach to those in the legal profession who stood up in court for two weeks and said `You cannot extradite this bloke because he is not Trimbole' and then came back the following Monday morning and said: `Well, okay, that was a fib, it is Trimbole, but you still can't extradite him'. Senator TATE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of the commitment by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to provide sufficient funds to State governments for up to 65 per cent of teaching hours in adult migrant education to be made permanent work? Can he inform the Senate whether this offer of providing full time work has been taken up by the Tasmanian Government? Can the Minister indicate whether other State governments have welcomed this undertaking for permanent job creation in the important area of migrant education? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware, as is Senate Tate, of the commitment of the Government and the Prime Minister to provide sufficient funds so that State governments can be assisted for up to 65 per cent of the teaching hours spent in adult migrant programs. The Tasmanian Government, as Senator Tate probably well knows, has not taken up this offer. I have no idea why the Tasmanian Government has not taken up this offer for funds for permanency because it has frequently claimed to be interested in the education of all. Honourable senators should note that the same conditions apply in the other States, all of which, including Queensland and the Northern Territory, have taken up the offer of funds and have created substantial numbers of teaching positions. One can only assume that the Tasmanian Government is not interested in adult migrant education as are all the other governments of Australia, including those of the most conservative State and the most conservative Territory. I can only leave it to the Tasmanian Government to explain to the people of Tasmania, particularly the migrant community in Tasmania, why it takes this attitude. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to remarks made by Professor David Penington that the cost of Australia's Medicare system is out of control and that Australia can have either the current system, but with tight government surveillance of medical practice, or a market system where members of the public have to pay fees so that they question whether they really need the extra medical services. Does the Minister agree that the system of surveillance is adequate? Specifically, what measures will the Minister take to prevent, for example, unscrupulous medical practices by abuse of the recently developed lithotripter machine through overservicing? This machine has the capacity to provide huge profits from its use. Senator GRIMES —I heard Professor Penington on the AM program this morning in which he made remarks about the existing Medicare system-the universal health insurance system-and also about the delivery of health insurance generally. I have not seen reports of his remarks in the written Press, nor have I yet read a transcript of what he apparently said at a meeting last night. Professor Penington has, in the past, expressed concern at the way in which, under the existing health insurance system, some unscrupulous medical practitioners-particularly those in entrepreneurial practice, but also those who have the capacity to purchase new highly capitalised forms of practice, particularly the new diagnostic machines-have been able to manipulate the existing system, as they have been doing for many years, largely because the charges available to them through the use of modern automated machines have not been adjusted in the past to recognise the fact that the turnover and productivity of these machines is so much greater. I think Professor Penington is right when he says that in a system of universal health insurance, as in all national health systems throughout the world, the public and governments will require controls over the practice of medical practitioners in order to ensure that they do not abuse the system. Nowhere is this more necessary than in a system like ours which involves fee-for-service and where medical practitioners can generate their own incomes considerably. Where Professor Penington was wrong, I believe, was in his statement that a reasonable alternative to such a system is a system in which the market operates. The market operates effectively only when both sides of the market-place-the buyer and the seller-have adequate knowledge and when the buyer and the seller have sufficient choice as to whether the purchase is made. That just does not apply in either case in the medical field. The buyer, or the patient, very rarely has the knowledge to make a careful choice and in most cases the buyer if he has an illness certainly has no choice as to whether he purchases or not. Therefore, if Professor Penington said that a free market system of medical care was an alternative, I do not believe he is right; that is not adequate. In countries where such a system exists there is a great gap between what the wealthy can afford and what the poor cannot afford. Therefore, I accept Professor Penington's view that we need controls; but I do not accept his apparent view this morning that a free market system is accessible. As to the details of what the Government and the Department of Health are doing to monitor the use of the new diagnostic and therapeutic technological changes, I will obtain details of that from my colleague the Minister for Health and let Senator Watson and other honourable senators know as soon as possible. Senator ROBERTSON —Can the Minister for Community Services inform the Senate about the situation in Darwin where some child care centres have announced that they will refuse to open today? Senator GRIMES —I have been informed that after an appeal from some centre employees in Darwin, three child care centres were given the endorsement of the association up there to close their centres today so that they could strike against the Child Care Amendment Act which passed through this Parliament today. The participants in this strike apparently were to have a meeting at 11 o'clock this morning and they gave some indication to me and my office yesterday that they intended to close for one day a week and that they aimed to involve other centres in Darwin and Alice Springs in this particular protest. I am very much in favour of people having the right to withdraw their labour and strike, but this seems to me to be a particularly useless and disruptive form of protest. Certainly it does not affect me or my Department unless, of course, the employees of those centres intend to continue paying themselves while they are on strike. We will check up on that. What the action is doing is disrupting children's routines and in many cases it will disrupt parents' work patterns and their capacity to work, to no purpose whatsoever. I would have thought that these people, who claim that their main argument with the Government at the moment is about the quality of care, could think of a better way of registering their protest, even if they want to march around with signs saying `Grimes is grim', which is the sort of thing they have been doing in some places. I think that they should find a better form of protest than this. The new Child Care Amendment Act has been passed and is in operation. Those centres, which between them have received hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' funds in the past and will continue to do so in the future, have some responsibility to deliver the services for which they have had money paid over and for which the people who work in those centres receive a good income from the public purse. Neither the Australian Early Childhood Association nor, surprisingly, the National Association of Community-based Child Care is supporting the strike. I trust that it will soon dawn on those who are making this protest that they can better contribute to the quality of child care in the Northern Territory by working co-operatively with the Territory Government, the Federal Government and local governments in the area to realise the standards of staffing and the quality of service that are necessary to provide child care at those standards which are expected under Commonwealth funded services. I accept that people have a right to withdraw their labour, but I believe that in this case the withdrawal of labour is a particularly useless form of protest. I hope that those people are also withdrawing their incomes for the days they take off. Senator ROBERTSON —I have a supplementary question. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. I believe that the length of answers given by Senator Grimes during this Question Time has been quite extraordinary. I ask you, Mr Deputy President, to ask him to be a little more to the point and to give a chance for some questions to be asked. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I repeat the exhortation given many times by the President: Ministers are asked to keep their answers to questions relevant and brief. Senator ROBERTSON —I ask the Minister whether he has any evidence to show whether the protest was engineered by those who own the child care centres or those who work in them. Senator GRIMES —I understand that the centres are community funded, so they are not owned by anyone in particular. Therefore, it seems likely to me that the protest was engineered by the directors or the people who are employed in those centres. I think that is unfortunate but, as I said-I do not want to keep Senator Chaney waiting too long to ask his next question-I will find out the details of how the dispute started, what happened at the meeting and what is likely to happen in the future. We will ensure as much as possible that the people who expect us to provide funds for those people to supply the services will get the services that they need and deserve. Senator SHORT —My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Minister noted reports in today's Press of mounting evidence of Libyan Government involvement in the Malta hijack, in which 59 people died, including an Australian? Is he aware also of recent Press reports from New Caledonia that Libya's Colonel Gaddafi is arranging for 20 residents of New Caledonia to visit Tripoli as guests of the Libyan Government? Is he aware also that Colonel Gaddafi has threatened to provoke unrest in France's overseas territories, including New Caledonia, if France obstructs his policies? Is the Australian Government concerned about the activities of the Libyan Government in the Pacific region? What steps is the Government taking to monitor the situation and to ensure that the Libyan Government's influence is lessened in the region, including within the administrative area of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the allegations of Libyan influence in the hijacking incident in Valetta, Malta. As I recall, the allegations were made by the Egyptians. I am not aware that the Libyan Government has invited 20 guests from New Caledonia to take part in an official visit to Libya, but it does not surprise me at all. The Libyan Government has been doing that sort of thing for a number of years in a number of countries. I am not aware of any specific threats offered by Colonel Gaddafi to the Government of France in respect of its policies, but I would not be at all surprised if he has done that because he has done that to many other countries from time to time. I was asked if I am concerned about all these things. The answer is yes. I was asked what steps the Government is taking to monitor the situation in the Pacific region and to counter the influence of Libyan propaganda in the region. If I knew the answer to those questions-which I do not-I do not think it would be appropriate for me or any Government Minister to tell Senator Short because I think any monitoring, surveillance or counter measures of the kind Senator Short suggests would not be appropriate matters for public discussion. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister for Finance: Is it a fact that Queensland had the highest proportion of business bankruptcies in the financial year ended June 1985? Could the Minister give details of what industries have been affected by this increase in bankruptcies? How does this proportion of business bankruptcies compare with other States? Has the trend continued or has the decline been halted? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to the extraordinarily high level of business bankruptcies in Queensland. I have here some figures for the year ended June 1984, which show that there were some 577 bankruptcies in Queensland, which is the highest number of any State in absolute terms. In relative terms it is about two and a half times the rate in New South Wales, about double the rate in Victoria, and so on. Indeed, Queensland contributed well over 20 per cent of the total number of business bankruptcies in Australia. The building and construction industry in Queensland had some 143 bankruptcies, compared with 68 in New South Wales and 85 in Victoria, in spite of the very much larger populations in those States. The most recently available figures are those for 1984, but I am informally advised that the situation has not changed. Indeed, one would not expect it to change because the Queensland economy has been in a very sad and sorry condition for a number of years. There was a temporary period during the late 1970s and early 1980s when, because of the fortuitous or extraneous effect of the so-called resources boom and heavy investment in mining in Queensland-which is a function of the natural resource endowment of the State, rather than its political regime-the Queensland economy was relatively healthy compared with the rest of Australia, although wage levels tended to be somewhat lower in Queensland over the long term. Since that extraneous or fortuitous influence has passed by and the health of the Queensland economy is more closely related to the political regime of the State, it has become perfectly clear that Queensland has by far the most dismal economic performance of any State and it is dragging down the national average of the rest of Australia. That is shown up very clearly in the bankruptcy figures, as it is in so many other areas. Senator CHANEY —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce will be aware that a detailed survey has been commissioned by the Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries to determine the effects of the proposed fringe benefits tax on the motor vehicle industry. Is the Minister concerned about the impact of the new tax measures on the industry and will the Government reconsider its tax proposals if the survey reinforces earlier forecasts of a significant reduction in car sales? Senator BUTTON —The Government does not have a mindless, locked-in view on everything. Let me say that after a considerable degree of discussion about the proposed fringe benefits regime as it affects the motor vehicle industry, the Government reached the conclusions which it did. Those conclusions were based on sets of quite conflicting information. Any conclusion at that time in terms of the effects of the package had to be to some degree speculative. Anybody who thinks about it will recognise that that is so. The consequences of the tax package lead to a whole range of decision-making in various areas which may be affected in different ways. I am aware that the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries is conducting a survey; I welcome it. I think it is an appropriate thing for it to do. When the survey is published I will be discussing the results with it, and if any appropriate steps seem to be necessary as a result of that discussion I will take those steps in the context of the Government's deliberations. Senator GILES —I refer the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women to the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday concerning the National Agenda for Women. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the process to be followed in the implementation of this agenda? Senator RYAN —Like Senator Giles, and I believe many honourable senators in this place, I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister yesterday make a major statement on the National Agenda for Women. Those Australian women who are interested in the End of the Decade Conference in Nairobi and the follow up commitments that were made by delegations to that conference will also be delighted to know that our Government is the first, as far as we know, to have responded to the commitment to develop a national agenda for women. The process for the development of the agenda and its implementation will be based very much on consultation with women throughout Australia. The Prime Minister laid down yesterday an outline of the agenda and nominated the areas such as education, families, health, special interest groups and so forth as areas which will be developed for governments to make commitments to from now until the end of the century. Although our Government is confident that we have nominated areas of great importance to women, and we are in close contact with women throughout Australia to seek their views and get their advice on a wide range of things, we believe that the best way to develop the agenda will be through a process of consultation. I will consult women's organisations throughout Australia, and I hope I will be joined in this very important task by my women colleagues in the Federal Government. We will also be involving the National Women's Consultative Council under the convenorship of Edith Hall in this exercise. I was also pleased to note that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in responding to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday expressed substantial agreement with it. It may well be, as I am sure we would all like it to be, a bipartisan exercise in which we are engaged. I think it is very important that we achieve bipartisanship in pursuing policy objectives that will continue this Government's outstanding record of raising the status of women from now until the end of the century. Senator LEWIS —I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. I ask: Is it a fact that last night two prominent Adelaide businessmen were arrested in the Australian Capital Territory and now have been charged with attempting to bribe a Federal officer in relation to the sale of the Belconnen Mall? Is this part of the evaluation process being conducted according to the Minister's statement yesterday and the real reason why the names of tenderers for the Belconnen Mall have not yet been disclosed? Are Federal police investigating other allegations or persons in connection with tenders for the Belconnen Mall? Senator GIETZELT —It is a fact that two men were arrested in the Australian Capital Territory and have been charged with giving a Commonwealth officer $10,000 to influence or affect his duty as a Commonwealth officer. That is the only information I have in respect of the matter. There was no information at all about where they had come from or who they are except that two such persons had been arrested. In respect of the other two matters Senator Lewis raised, the answer in both cases is no. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen a report on the front page of today's Australian Financial Review on the upgrading of Australia's international risk rating by a New York risk analysis firm? Can the Minister inform the Senate as to what this indicates about the Hawke Government's economic policies? Senator WALSH —I certainly did see the report on the front page of the Australian Financial Review, which was headed `Fillip for Hawke as United States risk analyst upgrades Australia'. The report said: After a sharp decline in international sentiment about Australia in 1985, New York risk analysis firm of Frost and Sullivan yesterday upgraded its investment rating of Australia. In its 18-month political risk report, released yesterday, the firm gives Australia higher ratings for foreign investment than it did in its last survey a year ago. It argues that the risks for foreigners in both selling goods and transferring money into Australia have also fallen. Australia's political risk rating has been upgraded from B to A minus over the years, putting it alongside the United States, Hong Kong and Holland in the 85 countries surveyed. The report also notes that the Opposition lacks strong leadership. I am sure that that will not be disputed. It is not apparent from the report whether the firm of Frost and Sullivan knows who the Liberal Party Leader is. However, I notice that today the Canberra Times referred to the Liberal Party Leader as Mr Peacock. I do not know whether that means that the Canberra Times is behind the times or whether it is prophetic. Senator Chaney —Pathetic? Senator WALSH —I said prophetic, not pathetic. It is either obsolete or prophetic. It is not surprising that the firm of Frost and Sullivan came to those conclusions and upgraded its assessment of Australia as a place in which to invest because of the fine track record of this Government in its management of the economy. For example, we enter the third successive year of government with economic growth approaching 5 per cent, with nearly half a million new jobs having been created in the last two and a half years, a very substantial drop in the inflation rate, real unit labour costs the lowest they have been in one and a half decades, the level of industrial disputation the lowest it has been in 16 years, and profit as a share of gross domestic product having returned to the levels of the late 1960s. Senator Messner —And the highest real interest rates in 50 years. Senator WALSH —Senator Messner said something about high real interest rates. We know that the discredited former Treasurer had a failsafe formula for lowering real interest rates. He pushed up the inflation rate to 11 1/2 per cent. If one pushes up the inflation rate high enough, one is bound to get real interest rates down. Senator MISSEN —The Minister representing the Attorney-General is aware, no doubt, that yesterday the Attorney-General tabled in the other House the annual report on freedom of information. It was not tabled here today because no papers were presented. The report is five months overdue. Three weeks ago Mr Bowen explained to me that he did not know why the report had not been tabled. Is the Minister aware that there is one roneoed copy of the report in the Senate Records Office which honourable senators can look at but cannot take away and that, despite the fact that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs now has a reference to deal with this matter, neither members of that Committee nor the public can obtain copies of the report apparently until after Christmas? Is this a deliberate insult to the Parliament? Senator WALSH —I want to separate the question of an insult to the Parliament from the question of an insult to the Senate. As it so happens it is an insult to neither, but one would certainly be entitled to insult the Senate on this question since it decided that it would take control of outlays out of the hands of the Government by disallowing a regulation on freedom of information. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. The Minister in his answer so far has reflected on a vote of the Senate. It is clearly out of order and should be withdrawn. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Minister is reflecting on a vote of the Senate. I ask him to cease that line of reply and to answer the question in another way. Senator WALSH —Mr Deputy President, if you say that I am reflecting on a vote of the Senate, I accept your admonition and I withdraw. However, the fact does remain that it ought to be a matter of very serious political concern in Australia that a group which is not responsible in a fiscal sense has control over fiscal policy and expenditure. That ought to be a very serious item, high on the political agenda. As for the other part of the honourable senator's question, I do not know whether there is only one copy in the Senate Records and Table Office. Senator Teague —What is the Parliament for? Senator Tate —What is the Government for? Senator WALSH —I distinguish between the Parliament and the Senate, because the House of Representatives is quite different from the Senate, and just as well too. If the same level of irresponsibility that normally prevails here prevailed in the House of Representatives, the country would be in an even bigger mess than it was when Mr Howard was the Treasurer. As for the question about how many copies there are, I will refer that to the Attorney-General and obtain an answer. Assent to the following Bills reported: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1985 Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1985 Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill 1985 Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the 240th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts-report of the Auditor-General March 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY —by leave-Report No. 240 examines the report of the Auditor-General-March 1984. Honourable senators will be aware that each year the Committee examines recently published reports of the Auditor-General. Following the tabling of the report of the Auditor-General for March 1984, the Committee sought written submissions from 16 departments in respect of 19 items. The Committee took public evidence on two items relating to the National Biological Standards Laboratory-NBSL-and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The National Biological Standards Laboratory has the responsibility, together with the Therapeutic Division of the Department of Health, for ensuring that safe and effective therapeutic goods for both human and veterinary use are available in Australia. The provision of standards for goods and the testing for their compliance with those specifications has traditionally been the method used to regulate their quality. However, there are a number of practical drawbacks in relying entirely on the standards mechanism. The preparation of standards has been a slow process. The Department of Health stated that so far 11 standards had statutory status and another seven were ready for ministerial approval. The Department elaborated on other mechanisms to supplement the inadequacies of the standards mechanism and these are outlined in the report. The Committee was concerned at the progress in implementing the National Register of Therapeutic Goods since the legislation had been amended in 1981 to make the supply of the information by companies obligatory. On testing of therapeutic goods, the Department stated that, in general, products listed as pharmaceutical benefits are accorded a high priority for testing. For example, antibiotic products are tested at least once a year and other benefit items from yearly to every four years. This is not the case with veterinary antibiotic products where there is no effective regulatory action available to the Commonwealth under the present Act, as in the case of pharmaceutical products. Proposals have been made to the States to establish a national system for the regulation of the quality of therapeutic goods for veterinary use. The Department advised the Committee that inspection at manufacture of pharmaceutical goods is probably the most cost effective of the mechanisms for the regulation of quality and Australia has suffered because there were not enough inspectors. Additionally, the Department has amalgamated the Therapeutics Division of the Department of Health with the National Biological Standards Laboratory to form a unitary structure organisation. This now parallels agencies in other countries, such as the Food and Drug Administration in the United States of America and the Food and Drug Directorate in Canada. The Committee was advised that NBSL's major problem is inadequate physical resources. As there is no central laboratory, facilities are in buildings scattered in different suburbs of Canberra and Melbourne. The bacteriology laboratory and the animal house facilities are totally inadequate, and the sterility testing is performed in what used to be the kitchen of a restaurant. The Committee is aware that the November 1983 report of the inquiry into Commonwealth laboratories noted that the NBSL was working in accommodation which was quite inadequate. The report's recommendations were made on the understanding that the project for a new building to accommodate all laboratory sections, which was given approval in the 1983-84 Budget, would proceed-approval which was subsequently revoked. The Committee is very concerned that NBSL's facilities are so inadequate, below standard and scattered that it cannot effectively perform its functions. The Committee concluded that the appropriate legislative or policy changes needed to be implemented and, at the same time, the lack of resources needed to be addressed urgently. The Committee will be monitoring this situation closely. An audit was conducted in Queensland on the hiring of aircraft within the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Certain aspects concerning the piloting of hired aircraft by a staff member were pursued with the ABC. The Committee was particularly concerned about this item due to the death of an ABC regional program manager and his three passengers in an aircraft crash in Queensland on 24 October 1983. It would appear to the Committee that the administrative procedures of the ABC for chartering aircraft, except in the situation where a member of the Corporation's staff piloted the aircraft, were appropriate. The Committee notes that in the case of chartering and using their own staff as pilots, the ABC has refined its procedures and laid down minimum standards. The Committee, in its examination of the Department of Social Security unemployment benefit administration was very concerned with weaknesses in the administrative arrangements between the DSS and the Commonwealth Employment Service, and in the associated procedures and controls in operation at the CES. The Committee notes that revised arrangements for the review of unemployment benefit recipients have been on trial and DSS is currently assessing the results of those trials. The introduction of new proof of indentity guidelines by the DSS was noted in the Committee's 232nd and 233rd reports tabled in May 1985. As the Committee stated then, it is most concerned that beneficiaries are properly identified prior to becoming entitled to, or receiving, benefits. The Committee is pleased to note that early indications are that the system is efficient and effective in meeting its objectives of deterring fraud while improving the service provided to genuine needy clients and that it is reducing client-staff tension during the POI procedure. The Auditor-General, in his examination of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations noted evidence that deficiencies existed in the controls over the charging of trainee salary payments to appropriations of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The Department of Finance carried out a national survey of salaries charged to the appropriations of DEIR manpower training programs in late 1982. The survey disclosed that salaries being paid to a significant number of persons were being charged incorrectly to DEIR appropriations although they were no longer in a training program or had been appointed to a permanent Public Service position. The survey indicated a lack of oversight by DEIR of the charging of salary payments to appropriations under its control. The Committee does not accept that any overpayment of Commonwealth funds is merely a matter of miscoding. All cases detected must be investigated and recovery action instituted. The Committee examined an Australian Development Assistance Bureau project-the desiccated coconut factory in Tonga. The Committee concluded that some responsibility for the failure of the factory must be borne by the consultants whom ADAB engaged to design a factory that would achieve the desired level of output, and to supervise its construction. The consultants did not adhere to the original specifications and some of the modifications implemented only exacerbated problem areas. The Committee, in its examination of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, was concerned that the formal agreements on the adult migrant education program with all States and the Northern Territory had not been concluded more than two years after the Minister sought formal agreement. One State still has to accept the agreement. The Committee sees the finalisation of regulations for the payment of allowances as being necessary and urgent. Many reports of the Auditor-General-the latest being the April 1985 report-have referred to the potential for overpayments and administrative difficulties and the need for review of the continuing eligibility of pensioners in receipt of telephone rental concessions. The telephone rental concession was introduced on 1 October 1964. The Department of Communications is now co-ordinating the discussions regarding the administration of the telephone rental concessions. The Committee is concerned that this matter continues to be unresolved. In its examination of the Commonwealth Department of Transport, the Committee is concerned at the serious deficiencies in the Australian National Railways Commission's acquisition and development of computer-based systems. The Committee will continue to monitor this item in subsequent Auditor-General's reports and in the response to this report. I commend this report to honourable senators. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —In accordance with the provisions of the National Crime Authority Act, I present the first report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report. Leave granted. Senator MISSEN —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard and to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- This report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority is the Committee's first since it began effective operations in March this year. Regrettably, the Committee must report to the Parliament that it is unable to fulfil its statutory duty because it does not have-and has been unable to obtain from the National Crime Authority-sufficient information of substance to serve as a basis for the monitoring and review role vested in it by this Parliament. This situation has arisen because of a fundamental difference of view between the Authority and the Committee as to the Authority's obligation to provide information which the Committee believes necessary to carry out its statutory duty. I should emphasise that, while the Committee has been active in a number of areas falling within its charter, the subject matter of this first report raises a threshold problem which is of such fundamental significance that it requires immediate attention. The Committee intends to report on its other activities in due course. However, it is unable to discharge its statutory duty effectively until this threshold problem has been resolved. The Committee was established under the National Crime Authority Act 1984 as a result of an amendment inserted in the Act during the committee stage of the debate in the Senate. The original proposal for such a parliamentary committee was put by Mr Frank Costigan, QC during evidence he gave before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs inquiring into the National Crime Authority Bill. I would like, at this point, to pay tribute to my fellow-Committee members for the totally bi-partisan way in which they have performed their duties. Given the politically sensitive nature of the Committee's responsibilities and the peculiar difficulties which the Committee has faced in its first year of operation, the spirit of co-operation and goodwill which has prevailed is particularly noteworthy. At the first meeting the Committee had with the Authority the Chairman, Mr Alan Griffiths, MP, suggested that the relationship between the two bodies was likely to be characterised by an element of `creative tension'. In using this term he was conscious of the potential difficulties inherent in the legislation and indeed in the very nature of the task assigned to this Committee. As with some other legislation, the section of this Act which sets out the duties of the Committee is open to different interpretations. As events quickly proved, he was not wrong about the likelihood of an element of tension between the Committee and the Authority. It has arisen precisely because the Authority and the Committee, as he predicted, have taken different views as to the nature of the Committee's duties under the Act. It remains to be seen whether the role of creativity will be such as to resolve our problems. The Committee's role is unique, as it is the only instance of a parliamentary committee specifically established to act as a watchdog over one statutory authority. This is perhaps a recognition of the seriousness of the issues raised by the need to combat organised crime in this country. These issues require a balancing of the community interest in reducing the grave social and economic effects resulting from organised crime with all the resources it can muster and of the protection of individual civil liberties. The unique nature of the Committee's role-and the consequent lack of precedent-has made the Committee's task more than usually difficult. However, throughout what has been a difficult period of operations, the Committee has been fully conscious that it possesses the full range of powers available to a parliamentary committee. The most important of these-the power to send for persons, papers and records-is encompassed within the identical resolutions passed by both Houses at the time of the Committee's establishment. The Committee's role is consistent with the long-established tradition in our parliamentary system of requiring executive and bureaucratic accountability to the Parliament. Parliament has made a judgment that a joint parliamentary committee is the appropriate body, presumably with the necessary time and resources, to provide detailed oversight of the National Crime Authority. It can only be presumed that the traditional avenue of ministerial accountability was not, by itself, considered adequate to provide detailed supervision of the Authority's operations, having regard to the complex and sensitive issues involved in those operations and the need to ensure that they are properly dealt with. As the Committee's report relates, evidence of a divergence of view between the Committee and the Authority as to the nature of our relationship and as to the extent of the Committee's powers to seek information was apparent from our first meeting, when the Authority resisted attempts by the Committee to obtain detailed information about the transition from the Costigan Royal Commission to the Authority. This resistance foreshadowed a general reluctance on the part of the Authority, based upon its interpretation of s 55 and upon its view of its obligations under s 51 (the secrecy provision) of the Act, to provide the sort of detailed information about its operations which the Committee regards as necessary if it is to monitor the Authority's operations effectively. When this clear difference of view emerged it was agreed that the Committee should prepare guidelines for the future conduct of proceedings between the Authority and the Committee. At about this time the Committee had concluded that, in the light of the disagreement about the Committee's right to seek detailed information on the transition from the Costigan Royal Commission, it should seek counsel's opinion on that issue and upon the broader question of the Committee's powers. This opinion, provided by Mr C. M. Maxwell and summarised in the Committee's report, served as the basis of the Committee's proposed guidelines. In summary form, counsel's view is that there is to be implied from the Act a duty or power to inquire vested in the Committee. This implication is reinforced by a study of the resolutions passed by both Houses relating to the powers and proceedings of the Committee. Among other things, these resolutions specifically empower the Committee to send for persons, papers and records, which is the traditional power of the parliament to coerce the giving of information as part of its investigative functions. This interpretation is supplemented by paragraph (q) of the resolution which directs the Committee in carrying out its duties to `ensure that the operational methods and results of investigation of law enforcement agencies as far as possible be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest'. This carries a clear implication that the Parliament contemplated that the Committee would be seeking and obtaining from the Authority information relating in some detail to the performance of its functions including any particular decisions made by the Authority in relation to investigation of particular matters. Dealing with sub-section 55 (2) of the Act, which seeks to prohibit the Committee from investigating a matter relating to relevant criminal activity or reconsidering the findings of the Authority in relation to a particular investigation, counsel suggests that its purpose was to ensure that the Committee did not usurp or duplicate the Authority's functions. The Authority's role is to investigate; the Committee's is to monitor and review the way in which the Authority discharges the function of investigation. The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent the Committee making its own judgments as to what the findings in relation to a particular investigation should be. However, this does not mean that the Committee cannot inquire of the Authority what its findings were in relation to a particular investigation and seek to discover the process whereby those findings were reached. Counsel suggests the Committee would step beyond its legitimate role if it called for the detailed evidence which served as the basis of the Authority's findings or if it considered what findings it would have reached. Another point of difference which arose at the outset and which, I suggest, epitomises the Authority's view of the relationship between it and the Committee is the question of whether there should be a Hansard record of proceedings between the Authority and the Committee. At first, the Committee acquiesced in the Authority's resistance to the presence of Hansard on grounds of security. However, it soon became apparent to the Committee that a verbatim record was essential and, moreover, the Committee is firmly of the view that a Hansard record is a fundamental element of any parliamentary proceeding. I should point out, at this stage, that the Authority has subsequently agreed, albeit reluctantly, to the presence of Hansard during Committee proceedings. However, on the fundamental issue of interpretation of the Committee's right to seek additional information to fulfil its statutory duties there has been no meeting of minds. At a meeting on 15 August where discussion of the issue came to a head, it became apparent that there is a clear delineation of view between the Committee and the Authority on two separate-although interconnected-issues. One is the legal question of the extent to which, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Authority can be required to provide information to enable the Committee to carry out its statutory duty to monitor and review the Authority's performance. The second is the perception of the nature of the relationship between a parliamentary committee, vested with all the traditional powers attaching to such committees and a creature of the Parliament made subject by statute to the scrutiny of that Committee. At those discussions Mr Justice Stewart, armed with an opinion from the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department in support of the Authority's view, informed the Committee that the Authority believed that it could not properly reveal information to the Committee relating to any relevant criminal activity; that is, any information about any of its investigations. The secrecy provision in s 51 of the Act, which prevents members of the Authority from divulging information, except for the purposes of the Act, is seen by Mr Justice Stewart as conflicting with the right of the Committee to obtain information. Because of the Authority's view of the limits placed on the amount of information it may divulge to the Committee, it has formed the view that to go beyond those limits would place it in breach of s 51. The Committee does not doubt the genuine nature of the Authority's perception that to divulge information beyond the limits established by its interpretation of sub-section 55 (2) would put it in breach of the Act's secrecy provision. The Committee is also fully aware of the security implications which may arise from dessemination of information held by the Authority. Nevertheless it is apparent that this Committee cannot fulfil the duty which the Parliament intended without considerably more information than has been formally provided to date. The interpretation of the Committee's powers to which the Authority is committed effectively means that the Committee cannot discharge the duties vested in it by the Parliament. The Committee accordingly decided that it must report this impasse to the Parliament in order to seek an amendment to the legislation that will ensure that the Committee is properly equipped to undertake the task intended by Parliament. In the Committee's view-and the report contains a recommendation to this effect-the National Crime Authority Act should be amended to make it clear that the Committee has a right of access to the full range of information held by the Authority so as to enable the Committee to monitor and review the Authority's operations effectively. The purpose of the Committee's recommendation is to seek from the Parliament explicit statutory recognition of, or the removal of any impediment to, the exercise of the full powers of inquiry vested in a parliamentary committee. The Committee is fully aware of the delicate nature of the issues involved and of the consequent need to ensure that the concerns of the Authority regarding security, personal reputations and safety are respected. However, I wish to stress the Committee's view that it must be the final arbiter of the extent to which information permissible within the terms of an amendment to the legislation along the lines proposed in the Committee's recommendation ought properly be provided. In this context the Committee sees as its own responsibility the adoption of procedures consistent with this objective. Moreover, the Committee wishes to emphasise that powers granted under an amendment of the type proposed would be seen by the Committee as reserve powers and would be used judiciously. The Committee's recommendation seeks an amendment to the Act to specifically provide that the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority should have the power to do such things and make such inquiries as it thinks necessary for the proper performance of its duties. The amendment would further provide that where information sought by the Committee is of such a nature that its disclosure to members of the public could prejudice the safety or reputation of persons or the operation of law enforcement agencies it should be made the subject of a separate report to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Committee. This latter proposal is modelled on the arrangements in sub-section 59 (3) of the Act dealing with the provision of information by the Authority to the Inter-Governmental Committee. The Committee does not make this recommendation lightly. It has given the issues discussed in the report long and serious consideration and has concluded that, unless a recommendation of the sort proposed is forthcoming, there is no point in retaining a parliamentary committee to act as a watchdog over the National Crime Authority. The issue at stake in this report is whether the Parliament is going to assert its right to monitor and review one of its creatures-that is, the National Crime Authority-or whether, for a range of reasons, including a degree of bureaucratic resistance, it will relinquish that role in favour of the traditional model of ministerial accountability alone. Indeed, as the report states, in the absence of the necessary amendment the retention of the Committee would be a charade as it provides the appearance but not the substance of the Authority's accountability to Parliament. It is interesting, in the context of the Committee's difficulties to reflect upon the fact that the Parliament, through the National Crime Authority legislation, has seen fit to vest in State Ministers the power to demand specific information about the Authority's operations. Somewhat incongruously, however, as a result of the Authority's interpretation, the same information is not available to the Committee appointed by the Parliament specifically to oversee the Authority's operations. It will come as no surprise to honourable members that the Chairman has, through a range of informal sources been apprised in some detail of information which the National Crime Authority would regard as highly confidential. As Parliament would expect, consistent with his responsibilities as Chairman of a parliamentary committee, he has not made any of this information public. I wish to conclude by bringing one final matter to the attention of Parliament. As part of its statutory duty to keep itself abreast of changing trends in organised crime, the Committee has commenced a series of briefings by state and federal law enforcement officers. As part of this process the Committee has been gratified by the ready co-operation which it has received from all states and the Northern Territory-with one exception. That exception-and this will come as no surprise to most members-is the Premier of Queensland who, for whatever obscure reason, has refused to make thQueesland police commissioner available to discuss with the Committee the question of organised crime in his state and the broader issue of co-operation between the state and the National Crime Authority. Having regard to the serious level of organised crime in this country, and especially to the threat posed to young people by trafficking in narcotics, the Committee finds it inexplicable that any person in high office would refuse to co-operate in the fight against organised crime. Senator MISSEN —I move: That the resumption of the debate be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. I do so on the strictest assurance by the Government that there will be time made available to debate this report on Monday or Tuesday. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MISSEN —I also seek leave to make a brief statement relating to the premature disclosure of the report. Leave granted. Senator MISSEN —This morning in several of the Australian newspapers there appeared references to this report which show a clear understanding and knowledge of a number of the recommendations of the report, and there was a claim on the part of some of the newspapers that this came from a member of the Committee. I want to say that this came as a great surprise to the Chairman, Mr Alan Griffiths, and myself. He made a statement last night. Of course, he was unwilling to discuss the report until it had been disclosed. I told the Press exactly the same thing. I am assured by all members of the Senate on the Committee and the Senate shadow Ministers who have had a copy of the report that neither they nor their staff disclosed in any way the information that appeared in the newspapers. I deplore what has happened. It does not relate to matters relating to any disclosure from the National Crime Authority. It relates to the disclosure of what was in the report, and I think it is deplorable that this has happened. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(3.13) —I present the report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare relating to dolphins and whales in captivity. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Because of the strictures of time, I seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The report entitled `Dolphins and Whales in Captivity' is the second of a series of particular aspects of the Committee's inquiry into the question of animal welfare in Australia. The first report of the Committee on `Export of Live Sheep in Australia' was presented on 13 August this year. All the public evidence for this report was taken by former members, Senators Jack Evans, Jean Hearn and Doug Scott before their retirement from the Senate on 30 June 1985. These former members assisted the present Committee in the preparation of this report. I wish to pay tribute to these three senators for their dedication and spirit of co-operation in this and other areas of investigation by the Committee and for their assistance to the new Committee in finalising this report. Throughout the report, the Committee has used the words `cetacean' in the singular and `cetacea' in the plural to refer to dolphins and whales. The Committee has used the term `oceanaria' in the report to describe establishments where cetacea and other marine animals are kept. Where the Committee wanted to refer specifically to an establishment or part of an establishment where only cetacea are kept, it has used the term `dolphinarium' or `captive cetacean facility' to avoid any ambiguity. After preliminary hearings in mid 1984, the Committee decided to concentrate initially on two areas of animal welfare-the export of live sheep from Australia and kangaroo welfare and management. Following representations made to the Committee by animal welfare organisations about the welfare of dolphins and whales in capitivity and the proposed establishment of an oceanarium at Keysborough, Victoria, the Committee held a hearing on cetacea in captivity in July 1984. In October 1984, the Minister for Home Affairs and the environment refused the application for a permit to capture cetacea in Commonwealth waters for the proposed oceanarium in Victoria, but added that he might reconsider the matter in the light of any recommendations on captive cetacea from this Committee. The Victorian Government also decided to defer its decision on the proposed oceanarium until the Committee had reported its findings. The Committee decided, in the circumstances, to give priority to the examination of cetacea in capitivity. Representatives from government departments, marine mammal specialists and scientists gave evidence and made submissions together with other interested individuals and concerned groups both for and against keeping cetacea in captivity. This issue was marked by a heated and often acrimonious international debate over the findings of research on captive cetacea. This made the Committee's task more difficult. Although the examination of this issue was given priority because of proposal to establish a dolphinarium in Victoria, the Committee has concentrated on the general issues and principles of cetacea in captivity. The recommendations are general and not specific to the Victorian proposal. I shall now comment briefly on the main conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. The Committee concludes that while oceanaria had made a contribution to raising awareness and advancing knowledge about cetacea and had performed a role in conservation and preservation of the species, some evidence indicated that cetecea in captivity suffered stress, behavioural abnormalities, high mortalities, decreased longevity and breeding problems. It acknowledged that in Australia the record for cetacean mortalities was better than for overseas but concluded nevertheless `that cetacea generally have paid a high price for the dubious advantages of captivity'. The Committee found that, with one exception, Australian oceanaria had not made a substantial contribution to cetacean conservation and preservation and that four oceanaria made little or no active contribution to education or research about cetacea. The Committee examined evidence relating to the probable high intelligence and complex social behaviour of cetacea and concludes that while the scientific community has not yet reached a full understanding of the nature of the animal, in view of the possibility that cetacea have a high level of intelligence, they should be given the benefit in decisions on their captivity. The Committee concludes that in Australia the benefits of oceanaria for humans and cetacea were no longer sufficient to justify the adverse effects of captivity and recommends that no further facilities for keeping captive cetacea be permitted to be established in Australia and that no further permits be issued for the capture of cetacea in Commonwealth or State waters. It also recommends that the importation of cetacea from overseas be banned. The Committee recommends that existing oceanaria be allowed to continue keeping cetacea for the time being but that keeping of cetacea should ultimately be phased out unless further research justified their existence. The Committee found that there were a number of problems inherent in the present system for licensing and regulating oceanaria in Australia with significant differences in each State's provision for cetacean protection. It recommends that national standards for the maintenance and care of captive cetacea, for use by authorities responsible for captive cetacea in each State, be drawn up by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in consultation with State Government authorities, members of the captive cetacean industry and other people with knowledge of cetacean welfare. These should include standards for assessments of financial viability, natural display and educational and research components of captive cetacean display as well as covering all aspects of maintenance, handling and care of captive cetacea. The Committee recognises that some existing oceanaria would not conform to the recommended standards for keeping cetacea. It holds the view that, in the interests of cetacean welfare, existing facilities should conform to more stringent standards. It recommends that all facilities holding cetacea in Australia be assessed by the appropriate state authority and `where it is found that the captive cetacean facility is unable to comply with these standards, a specified time be allocated for improvements and if, after this period, the facility is still unable to comply it should be closed down'. Other recommendations deal with the setting up of a national advisory body on matters relating to cetacea and with the rehabilitation of stranded cetacea by oceanaria. In the first half of next year the Committee will present to the senate a report on kangaroo welfare and management. The Committee has also begun examining animal husbandry, both intensive and extensive, and animal experimentation. Finally, I thank all the people who contributed to this inquiry. In particular, I thank the staff of the Committee: Paul Barsdell, the Committee Secretary; Glenys Roper, the Research Officer involved in this area of the inquiry; and Louise Hildyard and Leonie Peake and other support staff. Senator GEORGES —I merely wish to refer to two sections of that incorporated speech in recognition of the work done by previous members of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare and the staff. All the public evidence for this report was taken by former members-Senators Jack Evans, Jean Hearn and Doug Scott-before their retirement from the Senate on 30 June 1985. These former members assisted the present Committee in the preparation of this report. I wish to pay tribute to these three former senators for their dedication and spirit of co-operation in this area and other areas of investigation by the Committee and for their assistance to the new Committee in finalising this report. I also thank all the people who contributed to this inquiry. In particular, I thank the staff of the Committee-Paul Barsdell, the Committee Secretary; Glenys Roper, the Research Officer involved in this area of the inquiry; and Louise Hildyard and Leonie Peake-and other members of the support staff. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(3.17) —I wish to make a statement relating to my dissenting report concerning the report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare relating to dolphins and whales in captivity, and to seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- In relation to this Senate Select Committee's report, I regret that I am unable to agree with all the recommendations made. This is not an action that I have determined lightly. While I came onto this Committee at a very late stage in this enquiry-with all the public hearings and committee visits already completed, I have nevertheless attempted to familiarise myself with all the evidence available to the committee, both in submissions sent in and evidence taken at public hearings. On a general note, I consider that much of the report is overly emotive. I say that in the realisation that the subject is one that generates a great deal of emotion in the community. However, I cannot accept, as a true reflection of the readings and evidence, the report as presented today by the Chairman. Much of the report I am in agreement with. My objections lie with clauses [8.8]; [8.9] and [8.10]. Clause [8.8], I believe should be deleted. My reasons are stated in the report. In my opinion, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion reached in that clause. Clause [8.9] ought to be altered as I have outlined. My reasons for that conclusion are that I consider it would be folly for the committee to make recommendations that prevent oceanaria being established that would be, in all probability, given the stricter guidelines proposed, better than the majority of those currently in existence. The report indicates, and the evidence certainly supports the contention that little is known about cetacea. Given that, to remove all oceanaria would reduce opportunities for scientific study and observation. I consider clause [8.10] to be poorly worded. I do not believe the wording . . . `for the time being' responsible. I do not consider such wording to be fair to those operators currently involved in oceanaria. Implicit in the recommendation is a threat that they could be closed down at any time. I believe that if the guidelines recommended in the report are adopted, then conditions for keeping cetacea in captivity would at least equal the world's best, and very likely better any standards that currently apply in Australia or elsewhere. Inherent in my recommendation is the need for operators of current oceanaria to upgrade their operations to a situation where they are able to breed their own replacement cetacea. I consider my recommendations take into account the welfare of cetacea in captivity, while recognising the economic aspects of captive cetacea operations. Captive cetacea, rightly or wrongly, involve large amounts of invested capital, and while I have endeavoured at all times to recognise the welfare of the animals as paramount to the enquiry, I do not believe the economic aspects of the situation can be ignored. Senator BROWNHILL —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.19) —The legislation before the Senate, the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, has been in the Senate since, I think, the end of the autumn session and we have been waiting for this debate for some six months. The legislation makes five changes to the operation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It may be an unfashionable view to put, but I would like to place on record my belief that the ABC, as a broadcaster, is a great national institution. As I look back over my own radio listening lifetime it seems that I owe an awful lot to the ABC for its contribution over a number of years. I think about its coverage of sport, which is unequalled by any other body; its dedication over the years to giving people an opportunity to hear classicial music of good quality; the fact that there is good drama available through the ABC; the fact that it has had an outstanding news service over the years; the fact that it ran and sponsored the youth concerts which were so important to many of us; the fact that it has had an interest in orchestras throughout Australia; and, not least, the fact that it has some specialist programs which are held in the highest repute, and I think, for example, of Robin Williams's Science Show as the kind of outstanding program one finds in this country only on the ABC. Any chance to discuss this great body with its history has to be taken against the background that one is examining a body with a record of achievement and contribution to this nation-to its daily life, to its intellectual life, to its cultural life and to its sporting life. The five changes which are to be made by this legislation to the operation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation include four changes which widen the operational capabilities of the ABC. Firstly, these will enable the ABC to establish subsidiary companies and joint ventures to undertake authorised business activities. Secondly, they will enable the staff-elected director on the board of the Corporation to have this or her position formalised within the statute. Thirdly, they will allow the ABC to appoint officers as unattached officers in line with the provisions of the Public Service Act. Fourthly, they will cause ABC staff to forfeit their offices in the same circumstances as are provided for under the Public Service Act. One thinks of the circumstances of people seeking election to public office and such matters. Fifthly, the Bill will repeal the power of the Minister for Communications to prohibit the broadcasting or televising of any matter. We are told that this will not prevent the operation of section 118 of the principal Act which will continue to make it an offence to broadcast or to render for broadcasting matters which are blasphemous, indecent or obscene. The Opposition does not oppose the removal of that censorship which probably posed an unnecessary threat to the independence of the ABC. It is claimed that the operational changes will equip the ABC better to establish and effect a profitable operation within the limits of the definition of authorised business which is confined to the current range of the Corporation's permitted activities. So the Opposition does not oppose this legislation. We see it for what it is-an attempt to assist the ABC in the functions it undertakes, to allow it to carry out these functions more effectively and in a more contemporary fashion. But it is impossible to consider any legislation which relates to the ABC without pausing, at least for a moment, to observe some of the current difficulties which the ABC faces and which it has faced. The changes in this Bill must be assessed against the background of the ABC's current operation, management and performance. We must look closely at both its management and performance to ask ourselves how effective the ABC is today in carrying out the functions which it has carried out historically and how good is its record of performance over the last couple of years. It is possible that 1985 may prove to have been a watershed year for public broadcasting in Australia. Whether it is justified or not, the ABC has been under sustained attack for most of 1985. Interestingly, it has been under attack from groups on the left of politics and groups on the right of politics. Senator Georges —Not from me. Senator PETER BAUME —I am really grateful to hear that Senator Georges is not attacking the ABC this year or any other year. It has been under sustained attack not only from the left and right of politics but also from the Government. It has been under attack from the Opposition and from the general public. Whether or not these attacks are justified, we have to examine some of the difficulties which face the ABC to ask ourselves what is the strength of some of the expressions of concern and what, if anything, needs to be done to allay those concerns. There has been a real cut of 3 per cent in the ABC's budget for this financial year. This is the accumulation of a funding run-down experienced over the last 10 years under governments, I hasten to acknowledge, of both persuasions. It is a fact that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other Ministers who control the economic policies of the Government have demonstrated contempt for the Corporation. This was climaxed when the Treasurer made a recent statement that the ABC `would not get another zack out of the Government'. For the benefit of those modern honourable senators, I must tell them that the word `zack' is an archaic term referring to currency which was in operation during my younger days. He went on to say that the Corporation `only seemed capable of whingeing about its own causes'. That was a public outburst by the Treasurer of the nation about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I would have thought that the Government would have plenty of avenues within government through which such views could have been conveyed. That a Treasurer would make such a stinging attack upon the ABC is unusual. We have to ask: Why have so many attacks been mounted upon the ABC? We have had the unedifying experience this year of one director in the Corporation taking the chief executive and the rest of the Corporation to court to establish whether it is operating properly at board level. Is public broadcasting in Australia destined to wander down the same path that has made it virtually irrelevant in the United States and Canada? That would be a tragedy. I started off by emphasising the important unique central role which the ABC has exercised in this country to remind honourable senators that for many Australians it is the only medium available to them. They depend upon it. We cannot imagine welcoming a situation in which public broadcasting could continue under attack from within the Government and become in any way irrelevant. Will it be forced to accept commercial sponsorship? Will it be forced to accept advertising? Will it fade into the background or has the Government plans to make sure that the operation of the board, the officers and the ABC itself, will be able to restore public confidence and put an end to many of the attacks which have been taking place? I want to see an ABC which offers programs of the quality to which I was accustomed. In our household we chose the ABC television news at night. We no longer do so. I would like to be able to do so again. Why is it that what was the best quality, the preferred medium, is no longer the best and preferred medium? Is it just that the commercial channels have found some secret, or has the ABC, perhaps courageously, embarked upon an experiment which has alienated part of its traditional audience? For example, I would like to know that I can continue to find high quality music if that is what I want to hear. I am prepared to use FM but I want to be able to get that from the ABC. I cannot try to suggest to the experts in the Corporation exactly what they should do with its programming but I believe that it needs to remember the goal of comprehensiveness, excellence-I particularly stress excellence because many people worry that its excellence has suffered in the last year-innovation and some experimentation in the operations of the Corporation. Its programs still need to extend our range of ideas and experience. We still need from the Corporation programs with a significant intellectual thrust. It is not good enough for the Corporation to want to follow the anti-intellectual bias that is evident in so many of the commercial programs. I want the ABC to continue to give an intellectual lead which will help to influence opinion makers throughout the country. Of course, we can always argue then about the quality or the balance in such programs but I want the programs to be there. I do not care whether it is sport, news, current affairs, drama, children's programs or even gardening news, the ABC's programs must still project a special quality. They must be free of bias and free of the constraints of sectional interests but they must be high quality, above all. They must be seen by the public as valuable. There is no doubt that in the last year hordes of traditional ABC viewers have abandoned the Corporation and no longer look to it as their first choice for their viewing or listening. A former senator in this place, and now retired judge, the Hon. James McClelland, said of the ABC that `it should attract most Australians at some time, not some mythical mass audience'. I endorse the words of James McClelland. I want to see the ABC continue to attract most Australians at some time and to forget the job which it cannot do, that is, the pursuit of a mythical mass audience. If it does that, it will lose its soul. Past surveys show that in previous years the ABC has been able to attract a mixed audience reflecting all sections of society. I could develop further this whole theme about the operations of the Corporation and of its broadcasting and televising in the past year, but many of the travails are only too well known and I am looking to them to be overcome. If a battle develops as to who is to run the ABC, whether it is the Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer or whether it is the staff of the ABC, there is no doubt where I stand. The Board of the Corporation, appointed by the Government, should run the Corporation and should be answerable for what it does. If its members need to know whether they will get support if they take certain actions, let me say that they will get support, certainly from some of us, if they go out and do their job, even if it brings them into conflict with some of the more militant members of the staff. It is necessary in the Committee stage of this legislation for certain amendments to be moved. My colleague Senator Puplick will be offering to the Senate an amendment on a very significant matter, which is to omit sub-section (2) of section 116. I shall leave it to my colleague to argue this later, but it is entirely consistent with the unanimous recommendations of a joint select committee of this Parliament. I hope that, when my colleague Senator Puplick argues this, he will attract support from the Parliament. In Committee I shall be moving one other amendment on behalf of the Opposition. It relates to the time within which officers in the Department of Health may delay the approval or non-approval of certain advertisements which have to be submitted before they can be televised. At present there is no time limit. We have had representations from industry about delays that have occurred. We are not objecting to the fact that the approval should be obtained from the Department of Health. We are simply saying what is a reasonable maximum time for the Department of Health to have to approve such advertisements, and our amendment will suggest what that appropriate time should be. We welcome the fact that this legislation has now come before the Senate for its approval and for determination. It has waited far too long. There is no real reason why we could not have done it in the first day or so of the Budget session, when we sat around for some time doing very little. If this legislation offers new strength, new options and new support for the ABC and its operations, it will have the Opposition's support. But within the constraints which I have laid down and the caveats which I have laid down about the necessity for the ABC to perform with efficiency and effectiveness, and for the ABC to continue to inspire Australians as it has over the years as a first-rate broadcasting and television service, which is not trying to be a populist commercial channel-let us leave that to the commercials-let us keep the ABC for what it is: A great national treasure. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.34) —The Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill is the first of two pieces of legislation which the Government is bringing forward to make certain changes in the whole broadcasting regime in Australia. The other piece of legislation-the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2)-was introduced into the Senate this morning and undoubtedly we will have an opportunity next week to discuss its provisions. However, it arises mainly with reference to problems which have been found with the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal arising from the Herald and Weekly Times case and from the so-called Saatchi case. The Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill, however, relates primarily to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and to broadcasting in the public domain. There are two parts to this legislation, one dealing with the ABC and the other dealing with certain ministerial powers touching on the power of the Minister to give directions to broadcasters. My colleague Senator Peter Baume has covered all of the matters dealing with the ABC and, given the strictures of time, I do not intend to repeat any of his comments, but will simply endorse what he said about the ABC and say that the Opposition supports the proposals in the legislation which touch upon the establishment of subsidiary companies and joint ventures for the marketing of ABC products, for the appointment of unattached officers under the Public Service Act 1922 and for the forfeiture of office for ABC staff in certain circumstances. There is only one part of the legislation dealing with the ABC to which I make very brief reference. That is, that the legislation provides for a formalisation of the position of staff elected director. The first staff elected director's position on the Board of the Corporation was established by the Whitlam Government in 1975 and Mr Marius Webb served in that position. The incoming Fraser Government decided that it did not support the continuation of the position of a staff elected director and the position lapsed. Indeed, the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission did not support but actually opposed the creation of a staff elected directorship. However, in 1983 the Hawke Government re-established the position and Mr Molomby was elected to the position and, in the course of last week, he was re-elected for a full term. Because of the hour, I do not think it appropriate to go into the difficulties which have been faced in terms of Mr Molomby's action against the Board or his relationship with Mr Whitehead. I simply say that is a matter that could well have been handled better by both sides. A little more discussion at Board level and a little more sensitivity between Mr Molomby and Mr Whitehead would have spared the ABC a good many problems and a great deal of difficulty. The second part of the legislation relates to the power of the Minister essentially to issue prohibitions against the broadcasting of certin material. Section 77 of the principal Act provides: Subject to this Act, the Minister may, from time to time, by telegram or in writing, prohibit the Commission from broadcasting or televising any matter, or matter of any class or character, specified in the notice, or may require the Commission to refrain from broadcasting or televising any such matter. Progressively, we have been going through this Act removing prohibitions on broadcasters. In 1983 we passed the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Act which did away with the blackout on the reporting of material germane to an election. We are now dealing with section 77, which has been used on only a few occasions. In 1943 the ABC was prohibited from broadcasting barrier positions in horse races. In 1946 it was prohibited from broadcasting radio talks relating to venereal disease. That is actually an instruction which is still in force. It has never been repealed, but certainly it has also never prohibited the ABC from discharging its proper responsibility in that regard. In 1963 the Menzies Government engaged in an act of overt political censorship when it prohibited the ABC from broadcasting an interview with Monsieur Bidault, a former French Premier who was then an opponent of President de Gaulle. That caused some degree of controversy. Again, in 1980, the Fraser Government failed to obtain an injunction to restrain publication of the substance of information about American military involvement in Australia, relations with Indonesia and other foreign affairs matters, but did later obtain an injunction to prevent breach of copyright in certain official documents. I think it is a good thing that the Government is now getting around to removing the power of Ministers to censor the broadcasts of the ABC. That is something which is supported by the Opposition. It is, however, a pity that the other side of that, section 64, has not been addressed. Section 64 of the principal Act provides: Subject to this Act, the Commission shall broadcast or televise free of charge from all the national broadcasting stations or national television stations, or from such of them as the Minister specifies, any matter the broadcasting or televising of which is directed by the Minister in writing as being in the national interest. We have removed the power of the Minister to prohibit the ABC from broadcasting certain matters. We have not removed the power of the Minister to direct the ABC to broadcast certain matters. I think in some ways it is a pity because if we trust the judgment of the Board sufficiently to remove the prohibition, to remove the censorship provisions, we should trust the Board sufficiently to allow a determination of what is in the national interest and what is not in the national interest in terms of matters which it is required to broadcast. Nevertheless, that is not addressed in the Bill we now have before us. As my colleague Senator Peter Baume said, in the Committee stage I will be drawing attention to the need the Opposition sees to amend sub-section (2) of section 116. I will deal with this in Committee. Section 116 goes to the prohibition on this occasion of the dramatisation of political events occurring in Australia within five years of their having occurred, the classic case being the television program The Dismissal, which could not be broadcast until five years had elapsed after the events of November 1975. But there are other examples. This has become entirely clouded and muddied by the presence of great satirists. How one can say, for instance, that Mike Carlton's puppets or Max Gillies's show does not constitute a satirisation of current political events is hard to understand. They certainly constitute a satirisation. The law is stupid to provide that an event may be satirised the day after it occurs but that it may not be dramatised until five years after it has occurred. We will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage to delete section 116, sub-section (2) so that that prohibition is removed altogether. I might say that that is in accordance with the recommendation made by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Indeed, it will be interesting to test the Government's bona fides in this matter because the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, put out a Press release on 24 July 1985 in which he said: A ban on radio and television stations dramatising political events occurring during the immediate preceding period of five years is to be lifted by the Federal Government. That Press release was put out in July. The Government had not yet done it. We are now introducing legislation in order to assist Mr Duffy to give effect to the statement he made and we expect the Government to assist us in this regard. In the interests of time, I think, I should conclude my remarks at this stage. I wish to indicate that, upon the passage of the second reading of this Bill, we will formally move, under Standing Order 196A, for the reference of this Bill to a committee. I have no doubt that if the Australian Democrats indicate that they are not in support of that move the matter could easily be resolved, and it would not necessarily be something we would want to press to a division. However, it is the sort of Bill which in the normal course of events, if the Parliament were not being rushed into producing this legislation in order to fit in with the legislative timetable, would be fit and proper for a Senate standing committee to investigate. The Opposition supports those sections of the legislation to which I have referred. We will move our amendments in the Committee stage and we look forward to receiving the support of the Senate for those amendments. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.44) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. I support all the remarks that were made by Senator Peter Baume earlier in the debate about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Indeed, we will be supporting him totally in trying to get this Bill through as fast as possible. I am very surprised at Senator Puplick's statement that he wishes to refer this Bill to a committee, which would delay it even further. In fact, we have had this Bill on the Notice Paper now since May and there has been plenty of time to refer it to a committee. Senator Puplick —Had it come up for debate. Senator VIGOR —I believe that anybody could have sought leave to have the Bill referred to a committee. I believe that this is yet another instance, similar to the one in the transport legislation, where the Opposition at the last minute is using delaying actions, although this does not seem to square with a number of its other actions. The Bill is very important because the ABC needs it. The ABC needs to be put on a better footing to pursue its associated business ventures, such as the ABC shops, and its production ventures. The Bill also removes the possibility of the Minister having censorship powers, as has been stated by Senator Puplick. It formalises the position of the staff-elected member of the ABC Board, which I think is admirable, and it puts this into legislation. It brings certain ABC staff provisions into line with Public Service practice, which again I think is very important for the ABC. For this reason we hope the Bill will be passed during the current session and will not have to wait for another three months. Two of the measures contained in the legislation are very significant to us because my colleague Senator Chipp, during the debate on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill in 1983, called for their implementation, particularly those measures removing ministerial censorship and the formalisation of the position of the staff-elected member of the ABC Board. Had time pressure not been on us at this stage of the debate, we intended to move an amendment to clause 5. Clause 5 does not state how a casual vacancy for the staff-elected director or deputy staff-elected director can be filled. However, we have received an assurance from the Minister's office that this matter will be covered by the regulations under this Act. I point out that it is much more usual for provisions such as this to be in legislation but, because of the time constraints, we will not be proceeding with our amendment. Both this Bill and the amendment that Senator Puplick is to move raise important matters. In a dictatorship the flow of information is restricted to ensure that only one viewpoint-that of the ruling regime-is heard. In a democracy the Government must ensure that information is freely available and that a diversity of views are heard, including opinions critical of the government of the day. I refer to provisions such as those in section 78 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act and section 77 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, which give the Minister power to censor the broadcast of material which he or she does not consider to be in the national interest. I would not expect to see these provisions in a free country. They are an invitation to blatant political censorship and their repeal by clauses 13 and 16 of this Bill is very much overdue. Section 116 (2) of the Broadcasting and Television Act provides: The Commission or a licensee shall not broadcast or televise a dramatization of any political matter which is then current or was current at any time during the last five preceding years. We believe that that is also an unreasonable restriction. However, during the Committee stage I will explain the history of this matter and I hope to move an amendment to make that one year instead of five years rather than completely getting rid of it. My reasons for this will be explained at that stage. Honourable senators will probably have different views as to whether there should be any restriction at all, and we will have to come to that at the Committee stage. I would like to look at the concentration of ownership in the Australian media. The proposed changes will not give Australia the media a free society should have. Australian television is dominated by overseas programs and by five networks, three of them controlled by Murdoch, Packer and the Fairfax Herald and Weekly Times media conglomerates. The others, of course, are two national networks. We need to examine the potential of public radio and public television networks to give us some aspect of localism and some aspect of the community talking to itself through television and radio. We already have a strong public broadcasting sector. I will pick up Senator Peter Baume on his statement that the ABC was public broadcasting. I believe there is a recognised public broadcasting sector which is separate from the national broadcasting sector. I wish to point out that that sector is alive and well. In 1954 the Royal Commission on Television reported that some limitations on the concentration of control of television is necessary in the public interest. Every government since 1954 has agreed with that statement, yet control of commercial television today is as concentrated as it has ever been. One means available to a government to increase the range of information and views available is support for the ABC and Special Broadcasting Service. I recommend this popular course of action. The measure in this Bill to give the ABC greater independence in its commercial dealings should strengthen the ABC by providing it with another, admittedly small, source of income and should fit in adequately with the Opposition's policy of privatisation to a certain measure. The 1985-86 Budget forced the ABC to consider cutting its Australian productions by 140 hours. This is a tragedy in a country dominated by American and British programs. The latest figures in the 1984-85 annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal shows that Australian drama comprises only 2.8 per cent of all programs shown on ABC television. In fact, only 4 per cent of all programs shown on television, including ABC, SBS and all commercial stations, are Australian-produced dramas. We have a strong industry which needs to be supported. I believe the Government is not doing enough and the ABC is not doing enough to support local Australian industry. What does this do to our view of the world? At least with the ABC, 27 per cent of prime time viewing is taken up with current affairs and information programs. However, the figure for the commercial networks is dismally low at 9 per cent. Some concern has been expressed to me that, by allowing the ABC to run its own commercial operation, the ground is being prepared for the further cut backs in government funding. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. I would appreciate an assurance from the Government during this debate that this is not the Government's intention. Senator Walsh —What is that? Senator VIGOR —That the Government has no intention at this stage of cutting back the ABC on its funds, or of merging the ABC with the SBS. A free media cannot be bought on the cheap. If the Government is not willing to pay the price of a strong, independent ABC and SBS, the community eventually will bear the cost. Finally, I wish to put on the record some concerns expressed to me about the ABC and Aussat. I have found the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) very accepting and very helpful on any type of constructive suggestions. He treats with concern any administrative problems that are brought to his notice. In this case I hope for a response in due course to the following questions: Firstly, will Aussat's third party carriage regulations limit the opportunities for the ABC's subsidiaries and joint venturers to make use of the leased transponder capacity? I think it is extremely important that we know how these commercial subsidiary organisations will be able to make use of the facilities which the ABC has been forced by government policy to lease from Aussat. Secondly, do the contractual arrangements between the ABC and Aussat allow the ABC total jurisdiction over the nature and form of all services transmitted? Senator Peter Baume —How many questions are there, Senator? Senator VIGOR —There are three. Thirdly, are any radio transmitters being installed with the 61 earth stations to carry ABC radio via Aussat in areas where the remote area television service is being discontinued? Intelsat carried only television. On 18 December that will be discontinued and people will not be much better off with Aussat unless radio transmitters are associated with the receiving stations. People in those communities in the outback who need this service will generally not have individual homestead and community broadcasting satellite system receivers and, hence, they will be dependent upon the provision of these radio transmitters. This is an extremely important problem for communication in Australia's outlook. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.56) —The Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 will enable the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to become a more competitive, efficient and profitable organisation and, therefore, this Bill will receive general support. It enables the ABC to establish subsidiary commercial companies, partnerships and other ventures jointly with the private sector to undertake authorised business activities. By doing so, it will be able to utilise its resources and expertise more effectively and efficiently. To be successful, it must be able to compete in an extremely competitive environment. The public purse supports the ABC with an amount in excess of $400m a year and so the profitability and accountability of the Corporation is of vital importance to the taxpayer. Recent investigations by the Auditor-General and Estimates Committee C have indicated serious deficiencies within the management and operation of the Corporation. Hopefully legislation such as the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill will go some way towards improving the situation. However, I have some reservations about the Board's capacity to direct the Corporation successfully in the commerical market-place. In the report entitled `The ABC in Review', prepared in 1981, one of the general conclusions stated: The ABC has been led into changes which have ended nowhere, such as the experiment with access radio; on the other hand, it has remained aloof from other directions of obvious change, such as multicultural broadcasting. It stood on its dignity and independence when pressing priorities cried out for attention. It has tried to maintain an idea of Australian society after that idea has undergone change. Its energies have been sapped by bitter industrial conflict. It has not only slipped from the forefront of change but threatens to be eclipsed by it. The ABC has been slow moving, overgrown, complacent and uncertain of the direction it is heading, despite the efforts of many talented and dedicated people who work for it. In spite of the fact that changes have been made, the ABC still appears to suffer from a lack of direction and control. At present, because of the restrictions imposed by budget and manpower legislation the ABC is essentially a non-competitive and commercially-orientated environments in our society. The ABC and the taxpayer will ultimately benefit from the establishment of self-supporting subsidiary companies and joint ventures with other business groups. The legislation ensures that the activities engaged in by these new ventures will be authorised business activities; that is, confined to the current range of the Corporation's permitted activites. This Bill also repeals the power of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to prohibit the broadcasting or televising of any matter. While I do have some reservations about this lack of control, I feel that there are sufficient safeguards in the existing legislation to ensure that the public is not offended by broadcast material. In a democratic society freedom of speech must be maintained and be seen to be maintained. In the same manner, political parties must be seen to have no power of veto or censorship over the media. An example of that is Mrs Thatcher vetoing the segment on Northern Ireland on British Broadcasting Corporation television. Despite the poor image the ABC has in the eyes of commercial radio and television services, it has a very strong listening and viewing audience throughout Australia. In fact, the national population study showed that one in three people over the age of 15 listen most days every week to ABC radio. Furthermore, one in two people watch ABC television most days every week. Ninety-three per cent of Australians turn to the ABC selectively for programs that they particularly want to watch or listen to. Thus the ABC, despite its deficiencies, plays an important part in the lives of most Australians and is therefore accountable not only to parliament but also to the people. However, while I would rise to speak in support of this particular legislation, I am very strongly opposed to the suggestion of an amalgamation between the ABC and the Special Broadcasting Service. The SBS has proven expertise in meeting and serving the needs of the multicultural community and I for one would not like to see such a unique and important service being swallowed up by the present ABC, which is still coming to terms with its own role in the community and its numerous internal problems. At the moment the SBS is an effective, respected and well supported high technology broadcasting organisation with limited overheads, maximum flexibility and high efficiency. Perhaps it could show the ABC a thing or two. A takeover or amalgamation, as suggested, would destroy the identity, efficiency and unique quality currently provided by the Special Broadcasting Service. I commend parts of this Bill to the Senate. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(4.03) —Senator Vigor asked for an assurance that the Government does not have the Australian Broadcasting Corporation lined up for funding cuts next year. It is true that the Government does not have the ABC lined up, but I add the caveat that the ABC, along with every other claimant on government funding, will have to take its place in the queue. I will give no guarantees. I refer to the amendments that are proposed to the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. The amendment to clause 18 adds a 60-day provision. It provides that if the Minister for Health has not responded to the form of an application to advertise medicine within 60 days, the advertisement may proceed. The Government will oppose this amendment, but not very strongly because we see it as being superfluous. I am advised that approval for such advertising is usually given within 10 days, so a 60-day limit is well outside that. It appears from the debate in the House of Representatives that Mr Porter, who spoke for the Opposition, was somewhat confused about this. The confusion was between the advertising of medicines on wireless and television and the requiements under the Customs Act for the Department of Health to approve the promotional pamphlets which are issued. It is pretty clear that some of the spivs, sleazebags and snake oil merchants that hang around the Liberal Party have been lobbying Opposition members on this matter. Opposition members know they do not need this amendment but they feel they have to throw some sort of bone to the spivs and sleazebags. We will oppose that amendment but we will not really push our opposition. Before I leave that subject, I have a telex here, dated today. It is addressed to Mr Wilson of the Department of Health and it says: In response to this morning's telex I confirm that to the best of our knowledge there have been no significant delays or problems associated with the Department's administration of section 100 (6) of the Broadcasting and Television Act. As for section 116 (2) which the Opposition proposes to amend, the Government will oppose this amendment. It is the Government's intention to amend that section on the prohibition of political broadcasts within five years and, indeed, to remove that prohibition. That particular amendment has nothing to do with the substance or the subject matter of this Bill and it is the Government's view that this provision should not be tied on to this Bill because we will act on it next year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Referral to Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.05) —I move: That the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in February 1986. I do not wish to canvass the details of that. I understand the Australian Democrats will oppose the motion. We would not seek a division on it. Question resolved in the negative. The Bill. Amendment (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: Page 5, clause 5, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clauses: ``(3) Where, before the commencement of this Act, a purported election of a person as the staff-elected Director or as the deputy of the staff-elected Director was held or commenced to be held in a manner approved by the Board, the purported election so held, or the purported election so commenced to be held as completed after the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been or to be as valid and effectual as it would have been or would be if it had been or were held after the commencement of this Act in accordance with sub-section (2). (4) An election of the staff-elected Director to which sub-section (3) applies shall, for the purposes of sub-section 4 (4), be deemed to be the first election of the staff-elected Director to be held after the commencement of this Act.''. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.07) —I move: After clause 18, add the following clause: Special provisions relating to advertisements ``19. Section 100 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section (6)', provided that, where a period of 60 days has elapsed from the date of lodgment of the text of the proposed advertisement and the Secretary to the Department of Health or the Secretary's delegate has not notified approval or disapproval of the text, the licensee may broadcast or televise the advertisement in the terms of the text as lodged with the Secretary or the Secretary's delegate' ''. I listened to the explanation of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) about this matter and, whatever its validity, it in no way diminishes the need for this amendment. Indeed, to put a reasonable time limit on the time available to certain departments to carry out their function is something to be desired. I commend the amendment. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.08) —We will support this amendment. We consider it to be innocuous. We have done some research and in fact the telegram that Senator Walsh read out has come to us as well. However, we believe there is some disquiet about this matter and we just see the amendment as a safety net at this stage. Therefore, we will support it. Amendment agreed to. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.09) —I move: After new clause 19, add the following clause: Broadcasting or televising of political matter or controversial matter ``20. Section 116 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2).''. Rather than speak to this amendment, I have spoken to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and obtained his permission to incorporate in Hansard several short documents. One is a brief statement of the history of this piece of legislation and the others are a couple of paragraphs from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform report which actually advocates making this change, and Mr Duffy's Press statement of 24 July 1985. These documents have previously been shown to Senator Button. I seek leave to have these incorporated because they establish the case that supports our amendment. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- History of Legislation Dramatisation. Section 116 (2) prohibits the broadcasting of: ``a dramatisation of any political matter which is then current or was current at any time during the last five preceding years.'' This ban of dramatisation was prompted by a 1940 radio advertisement in which a man with a German accent (assumed at the time to represent Hitler) urged electors to help Germany by voting Labor at the forthcoming election: Gibson Committee Evidence at 56. The ban was cast into its current form as a result of the ``John Henry Austral'' radio series of the 1940s which portrayed Labor Cabinet Ministers and others making outrageous remarks, some of them actual quotations: Cth Parl Debs vol 199 at 2482; vol 200 at 3556-8. Section 116 (2) was copied from a Canadian provision which has since been repealed, although the CRTC retains a power to make regulations about the use of dramatisation in political broadcasts: Broadcasting Act 1968 (Can) s 16(1)(iv). Some years ago the Broadcasting Control Board issued a definition of ``dramatisation'' after consultation with the Attorney-General's Department: TV Prog Std 24. This definition said that the term includes: (a) a representation by means of characters . . . of a past or imaginary event, speech or conversation, whether the characters portrayed are real or imaginary people; and (b) any statement, address or dialogue containing simulated voices. It suggested that the expression did not include dialogue between actual persons or the use of quotations or factual pictures. The meaning of s 116 (2) has been considered, but not pronounced upon, in two decisions of the courts. In Fraser v Combe NSW Ct of Appeal 10 December 1975 (unreported) the Prime Minister unsuccessfully sought ex parte to obtain an injunction to prevent the broadcasting of a Labor Party election advertisement. The advertisement involved a ``clip'' of a statement by Mr Fraser about the right to govern of the Party holding the majority in the House of Representatives. The clip was embodied into an imaginary interview with an actor, in such a manner that the statements of Mr Fraser apparently contrasted with the course he had followed to become Prime Minister. Street C. J., Moffitt P. and Samuels J. A., the three members of the court, were all inclined to think that the advertisement would be a dramatisation of political matter. They refused an injunction because the application was made only hours before the advertisement was to be transmitted, because the defendants had not been served, because the impending ``blackout'' under s 116 (4) [526] would make their decision in effect a final decision of the case, and because in such a sensitive area as electoral broadcasting a person was not lightly to be injoined from expressing his opinion when only one side of the case had been heard. The judges did not purport to give final or fully considered decisions on the dramatisation issue in these circumstances. In fact, the stations nevertheless refused to transmit the advertisement. Samuels J. A. said that ``dramatisation'' must be given a fairly broad meaning and that the advertisement was ``exactly the kind of material which the sub-section is designed to exclude''. Street C. J. and Moffitt P. were less confident about what broadcasts come within the sub-section. Furthermore, they were uncertain about whether any individual, such as Mr Fraser in this case, was given any private right by s 116 (2) to obtain an injunction: see also [715]. Moffitt P. said at 1-2 of his judgment: The proposed telecast and broadcast is of a dialogue by an actor with the applicant, Mr Fraser which, as a whole, is a dramatic representation of an announcement by Mr Fraser as leader of the Opposition in April of this year. The fact that the dramatisation is a false representation of what occurred, does not prevent it from being a dramatisation. The fact that what was represented as being said by Mr Fraser on three occasions in the proposed telecast and broadcast was in fact said by him, albeit on one occasion, does not alter the nature of the proposed publication. The subject matter of the dramatisation was, as I have indicated, an announcement earlier made by Mr Fraser. The subject matter of his announcement at that time was a political matter, and the public announcement of Mr Fraser's attitude as leader of the Opposition itself was a political matter within s 116 (2). The proposed publication is a dramatisation of that last mentioned political matter. It seems to me that this is the type of conduct against which s 116 (2) is directed. Samuels J. A. considered that the relevant ``political matter'' might be either the fact that the statement was originally made by Mr Fraser or the nature of the principle involved in the statement itself. The nature of ``political matter'' in s 116 was considered by Waddell J. in Attorney-General (NSW) ex rel Clark v Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd [1977] 2 NSWLR 813. In the name of the Attorney-General of NSW an injunction was sought several days before the 1977 federal election to restrain the broadcasting of a programme entitled ``Uranium: Time for a Verdict''. The control of uranium mining was an issue in that election. The programme was cast in the form of a criminal trial. The accused was a scientist who advocated the peaceful use of nuclear power. Numerous witnesses were presented in support of nuclear power. The only evidence against took the form of film clips of an interview with Mr Ralph Nader. Waddell J. did not have to decide whether the programme contravened s 116 (2) because he held that the Attorney-General of a State did not have locus standi [715] to enforce a Commonwealth law. Nevertheless, he was inclined to think that the programme did not contravene. He said that ``political matter could have either a broad meaning or a narrow meaning'': at 815. The broad meaning would include political issues, as Moffitt P. and Samuels J. A. thought it would in Fraser v Combe. The narrow view would confine s 116 (2) to ``the dramatic representation of past or present political events exemplified in speech or action, or of pretended political events'' at 815. Waddell J. said that the sub-section was difficult to understand and that ``possibly it would be unfortunate if the broad view was correct'': at 817. He remarked that ``Parliament may well have expressed a fear in relation to the dramatisation of political matter by broadcasting and television akin to the fear of the Puritans to the playhouse'': at 816. Section 116 (2) has been much criticised in recent years, and the Self-Regulation Report of 1977 recommended its repeal: at 130. However, there has been no indication that repeal is likely. Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform-Transcript of Evidence and Committee Report Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Does the Act at present prevent satire or ridicule? Mr Grey (Australian Electoral Office)-Again, it just comes down to whether it is a dramatisation of any political matter that was current in the last five years. We have been asked, for example, whether Mike Carlton's puppets, which you may have seen, would constitute dramatisation of political matter. Without a great deal of confidence, I must say, we have said: `No, we do not think it does'. CHAIRMAN-We were talking about that this morning. On what basis would you say that? Mr Grey-In the appendices to this submission you see the Broadcasting Control Board gave an opinion some years ago as to what it thought would constitute dramatisation of political matter and you see that, perhaps if that were applied literally, situations such as the puppets would be caught. But in recent times, particularly since considering some advice from the Solicitor-General, the Tribunal has felt that the appropriate stance to take is a much narrower one where we are talking about something much more akin to dramatisation of a real event. We have taken that view recently. But I would have to say that if the matter came before a court it is by no means certain that a court would support that particular view. Senator MACKLIN —But if it were deleted, the Tribunal would see no problems in its work arising from that? Mr GREY —We are not able to see any at the moment. Dramatization of Political Matter 3.18 The Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 (s.116(2)) prohibits the dramatization of ``any political matter which is then current or was current at any time during the last 5 preceding years''. 3.19 This section was opposed by witnesses representing media organisations, and by the Liberal Party. Mr C. J. Puplick, a member of the Federal Council of the Liberal Party of Australia, told the Committee that the ban on dramatisation was now outdated and unsupportable (transcript, p. 41). The argument for repeal of this provision is that it is an unwarranted interference with the public's right to information and views. The success and public interest in the recent television series ``The Dismissal'' demonstrates this. A series such as this could not have been shown within the 5 year period of 116 (2). 3.20 The term ``dramatization'' is vague and subject to differing interpretations. Mr Grey was asked whether the use of puppets which are caricatures of public figures, would breach this section. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal feels that they do not, but noted that this opinion was ``without a great deal of confidence''. Mr Grey acknowledged that if the section were applied literally, situations such as the puppets would be caught, and suggested that the ban could be removed (transcript, p. 58). If problems of misrepresentation of persons in public life occurred, this could best be tackled by fairness standards in broadcasting. 3.21 The problem which s. 116 (2) was directed at occurred some 40 years ago, when the ``John Henry Austral'' radio advertisements used actors whose voices mimicked Labor Party figures. A similar provision which existed in Canadian law has since been repealed, with no apparent difficulties, although the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission retains a power to make regulations about the use of dramatization in political broadcasts. 3.22 Mr McMullen said there was no great demand for change to s. 116 (2), and that its repeal would not lead to any identifiable benefit. In his view there is an opportunity for injustice to occur when candidates are represented in dramatizations in a way which may be politically unfair (transcript, p. 107). The Queensland and Victorian branches of the National Party of Australia also support the present ban, and submitted that the depiction of actual political events in advertising could cause severe problems. 3.23 No evidence was given to propose that the ban be restricted to political advertisements, or to the election period. Such a solution would allow the broadcast of a series such as ``The Dismissal'', within five years of the events depicted, but would retain the protection against misrepresentation during a campaign. 3.24 The Committee believes that there is no justification for retaining the ban on dramatization, even for political advertising and recommends that: section 116 (2) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 be repealed. Press Statement BAN ON RADIO/TELEVISION POLITICAL DRAMA TO END, MINISTER SAYS A ban on radio and television stations dramatising political events occurring during the immediate preceding period of five years is to be lifted by the Federal Government. The Minister for Communications, Mr Michael Duffy, announced today the Government's intention to introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act providing for the ban to be lifted. The action will implement one of the recommendations of the Second Report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, recently accepted by the Government. ``The Government considers the prohibition to be an unwarranted restriction on the rights of stations to broadcast matters in the public interest,'' Mr Duffy said. Legislative amendments planned to give effect to several Government decisions will be introduced in the forthcoming Budget session by the Special Minister of State, Mr Young. One of these amendments, implementing another of the JSC recommendations, will require television broadcasters who currently maintain an audio recording of political or current affairs matters for six weeks, to also keep a visual recording. The Government intends to have the B &T Act amended to give people the right of access to these records, which will include news reports, statements, commentaries and discussions. ``The amendment will provide that access be allowed to the public on payment of a reasonable amount to cover a broadcaster's costs in providing a copy,'' Mr Duffy said. The amount would be prescribed in regulations. Talks would be held between his Department and the broadcasting industry to determine how the level of charges would be calculated. On another issue, Mr Duffy said that at present both the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the B &T Act carried provisions concerning identification requirements for political matter broadcast on radio and television. In some cases these requirements differed. ``The Government intends to move to repeal these provisions in the Electoral Act and consolidate and rationalise those in the B &T Act. This will overcome any confusion caused by having different requirements in the two Acts. Identification requirements included the name of the registered political party, association or corporation, the location of its principal office, and the name, address and occupation of the person responsible for authorising the broadcasting or televising of political matter. ``These changes will bring the relevant legislation into the 1980s and mean that viewers and listeners will be fully able to perceive the content of political current affairs programs broadcast in Australia,'' Mr Duffy added. The Government planned to have the amendments come into effect during the forthcoming session of Parliament. 24 July 1985 Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(4.10) —The Government does not accept the amendment. In view of the statement which has been made that the Australian Democrats will support the amendment, although we oppose it, we will not force a division on it. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.11) —We will support the amendment. I have an interesting history and an amendment, which I will reserve for another time. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Consideration of House of Representatives message resumed from 14 November, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: (1) That the Senate concurs in the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 194 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on the Government's proposals for an Australia Card. (2) That the provisions of the Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (3) That the foregoing Resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by Message. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.12 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 199) Senator Short asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) What criteria does the Australia Council use in allocating its funds between different categories of the arts. (2) Does the Council take into any account the allocation of funds as between different States. (3) What proportion of the total funds allocated, by category, has Victoria received in each year from 1975. (4) What level of funding has the Victorian State Opera received from the Council in each year from 1975. (5) What proportion of the total funds allocated by the Council to opera in Australia has gone to the Victorian State Opera in each year from 1975. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australia Council has advised me that- (1) Allocation by the Council of its funds between different artforms is based on consideration of a case presented by each Board in respect of on-going programs and new policies, as well as detailed submissions in relation to particular areas of interest such as incentive funds for art in working life and multicultural arts. The funding of major organisations such as the Australian Opera and Australian Ballet Foundation is determined in the light of Appropriations to the Council, broad Government policy guidelines, priorities determined by the Council, submissions from relevant Boards and applications from the companies concerned. For 1985-86 the Australia Council allocated its funds on the basis of an indexation increase of 7% to each of its eight artform Boards (Aboriginal Arts, Community Arts, Crafts, Design Arts, Literature, Music, Theatre and Visual Arts) and the five Council Programs (Arts Information, Inter-Board, International, Policy and Research and Touring and Access). Allocation of the balance of funds ($501,000) reflected the Council's concern about the level of funding available for Aboriginal Arts and the priority given by Council to supporting individual creative artists. (2) In July 1985 the Council adopted a guideline for its Boards which requires them to make annual reports on significant discrepancies between the distribution of grants and the distribution of population. The Council will be able to consider these reports and take appropriate action when it considers future allocations of funds to its Boards. (3) Proportion of Australia Council grants funds (excluding national and international) allocated by category to Victorian applicants are as follows: 74-5 75-6 76-7 77-8 78-9 79-80 80-1 81-2 82-3 83-4 84-5 % % % % % % % % % % % Aboriginal Arts... 6.8 4.8 6.8 8.3 7.9 13.1 12.4 12.2 9.2 8.8 6.5 Community Arts... - - - 25.1 26.2 25.0 22.3 21.6 26.4 19.7 17.9 Crafts... 20.3 17.1 13.2 19.2 25.7 25.5 23.0 21.1 24.3 28.0 28.7 Design Arts... - - - - - - - - - 27.7 26.1 Film, Radio &TV... 45.5 27.7 25.9 - - - - - - - - Literature... 32.8 28.2 25.5 26.2 28.5 23.6 22.4 28.0 28.6 21.8 26.3 Music... 18.7 21.8 21.4 27.0 24.5 18.4 20.1 20.4 26.5 22.4 18.0 Theatre... 26.5 28.8 24.7 23.9 28.6 27.4 25.0 22.2 23.8 23.3 21.6 Visual Arts... 28.2 27.9 21.9 25.7 21.8 27.2 26.7 30.5 25.0 29.0 27.8 Council Program... 24.3 19.2 16.7 7.2 16.1 28.6 16.9 52.5 32.1 70.0 30.9 (4) Level of funds received by the Victoria State Opera from the Australia Council in each year from 1975 is as follows: 74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $57,340 42,750 68,650 51,625 54,125 48,750 49,500 46,500 38,000 91,500 47,880 (5) The proportion of Australia Council funds to opera in Australia allocated to the Victoria State Opera, in each year from 1975 is as follows: 74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 3.2% 2.1% 2.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.0% 2.2% 1.1% (Question No. 504) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What was the total administrative budget of the Australia Council in the year 1975. (2) What is the administrative budget for the latest available year. (3) What proportion of the administrative budget was devoted to the administration of the individual boards of the Australia Council, and what proportion to the general administration of the Council, for the years in (1) and (2). (4) What were the titles and salaries of the administrative officers of the Australia Council in 1975 and in the latest available year distinguishing between officers serving the boards directly and general administrative officers and excluding office secretaries and clerks. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The total Administration Budget of the Australia Council for the financial year 1975-76 was $3,538,000. (2) The total Administration Budget expended for the financial year 1984-85 was $7,046,000. (3) For 1975-76, the Administration Budget was not divided according to amounts spent on administration of the individual boards and general administration. However, a broadly estimated breakdown of the expenditure for that year suggests that approximately 56% was spent on the individual boards and related areas and 44% on the general administration of the Council. For 1984-85, 63% of the Administration Budget was spent on the administration of the individual boards and related areas and 37% on the general administration of the Council. (4) The titles and salaries of administrative officers of the Australia Council for the years 1975-76 and 1984-85, excluding clerical support, keyboard and part-time staff, are set out below. These represent the establishment of the Council-a number of the positions shown were unoccupied from time to time. TITLES AND SALARIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE AUSTRALIA COUNCIL IN 1975-76 Annual Title salary $Secretariat Executive Officer... Level 3 24,615 Deputy Executive Officer (Finance)... Level 2 22,616 Senior Project Officer... Class 9 15,224 Council Secretary... Class 7 12,929 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Senior Internal Auditor... Class 6 11,777 Secretary to Council Committees... Class 4 9,570 Administration Director... Class 11 17,523 Accommodation Officer... Class 9 15,224 Administration Officer... Class 8 14,079 Asst. Admin. Officer... Class 5 10,718 Clerk... Class 2/3 8,422 4 x Clerk... Class 1 7,174 Methods Officer... Class 6 11,777 Personnel Officer... Class 6 11,777 Clerk (Staff)... Class 2/3 8,422 Clerk (Personnel)... Class 1 7,174 Training Officer... Class 6 11,777 Recruitment Officer... Class 4 9,570 Purchasing Officer... Class 4 9,570 Travel Officer... Class 4 9,570 Recruitment Clerk... Class 1 7,174 Clerk (Relief)... Class 1 7,174 Clerk (Relief)... Class 1 7,174 Chief Accountant... Class 8 14,079 Senior Accountant... Class 7 12,929 Senior Accountant... Class 7 12,929 9 x Accountant... Class 6 11,777 Chief Finance Officer... Class 10 16,375 Computer Systems Officer... Class 8 14,079 Programmer... Class 5 10,718 8 x Clerk... Class 2/3 8,422 Clerk... Class 1 3,624 Administration MLO Secretary... Class 4 9,570 Graduate Clerks 11 x Clerk... Class 1 3,624 BOARDS Aboriginal Arts Board Director... Level 1 22,274 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Secretary... Class 6 11,777 Assistant Project Officer... Class 4 9,570 Crafts Board Director... Level 1 22,274 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Secretary... Class 6 11,777 Assistant Project Officer... Class 4 9,570 Assistant Project Officer... Class 4 9,570 Film, Radio and Television Board Director... Class 11 18,130 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Assistant Project Officer... Class 4 9,570 Assistant Project Officer... Class 4 9,570 Literature Board Director... Class 11 20,306 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Secretary... Class 6 11,777 Music Board Director... Level 1 22,274 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Secretary... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Assistant Project Officer... Class 4 9,570 Assistant Project Officer... Class 4 9,570 Clerk... Class 1 7,174 Theatre Board Director... Class 11 20,616 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Secretary... Class 6 11,777 Assistant Project Officer... Class 4 9,570 Assistant Project Officer... Class 4 9,570 Visual Arts Board Director... Level 1 22,274 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Secretary... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 2 8,422 PROGRAMS Community Arts Director... Class 11 17,525 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Secretary... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 4 International and Entrepreneurial Co-ordinator... Class 10 16,375 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 14,079 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Assistant Project Officer... Class 4 9,590 Assistant Project Officer... Class 4 9,590 Publicity and Information Director... Class 10 17,042 Clerk... Class 9 15,224 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Project Officer... Class 6 11,777 Librarian... Class 1 7,174 Research Director... Level 1 20,616 Senior Research Officer... Grade 2 12,929 Senior Research Officer... Grade 1 11,777 TITLES AND SALARIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE AUSTRALIA COUNCIL IN 1984-85 Title Annual allowance Annual salary $ $ General Manager... 3,116 69,653 Arts Co-ordination Director... Level 2 815 50,507 Project Officer... Class 8 31,646 Project Officer... Class 6 25,885 Project Officer... Class 6 25,088 Aboriginal Arts Director... Level 1 815 46,019 Project Officer... Class 8 31,646 Project Officer... Class 8 31,646 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 25,088 Board Secretary... Class 4 20,033 Community Arts Director... Level 1 815 46,019 Project Officer... Class 9 34,190 Project Officer... Class 8 30,452 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 25,885 Project Officer... Class 6 25,885 Board Secretary... Class 4 20,033 Crafts Director... Level 1 815 46,019 Project Officer... Class 8 31,646 Project Officer... Class 6 25,885 Project Officer... Class 6 25,885 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 25,088 Board Secretary... Class 4 20,033 Design Arts Director... Level 1 815 46,019 Project Officer... Class 6 25,088 Literature Director... Level 1 815 46,019 Project Officer... Class 9 34,190 Board Secretary... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 25,885 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 25,088 Project Officer... Class 4 20,033 Music Director... Level 1 815 46,019 Project Officer... Class 8 30,452 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 25,885 Board Secretary... Class 4 21,839 Theatre Director... Level 1 815 46,019 Project Officer... Class 8 31,646 Project Officer... Class 6 25,885 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Board Secretary... Class 4 20,033 Visual Arts Director... Level 1 815 46,019 Project Officer... Class 8 31,646 Project Officer... Class 6 25,088 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 25,885 Board Secretary... Class 4 20,033 Special Services Principal Project Officer... Class 9 34,190 Project Officer... Class 8 31,646 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 25,885 Project Officer... Class 6 25,885 Project Officer... Class 4 21,839 Project Officer... Class 4 20,636 Financial Advisory Division Director... Level 2 815 50,507 Project Officer... Class 8 31,646 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Management Services Director... Level 1 815 46,019 Principal Finance Officer... Class 9 34,190 Senior Finance Officer... Class 7 29,100 Finance Officer... Class 6 26,680 Finance Officer... Class 6 26,680 Finance Officer... Class 6 26,680 Administration Accountant... Class 6 26,680 Certifying Officer... Class 4 21,839 Accounts Officer... Class 2/3 18,816 Accounts Officer... Class 2/3 19,363 Accounts Officer... Class 2/3 18,271 Personnel Personnel Manager... Class 8 31,646 Personnel Officer... Class 5 24,339 Staff Clerk... Class 2/3 19,363 Administration Administration Officer... Class 8 31,646 Services Officer... Class 5 24,339 Travel Officer... Class 4 21,839 ADP Supervisor... C.S.O. 3 31,646 Policy and Planning Director... Level 1 815 46,019 Principal Project Officer... Class 9 34,190 Principal Project Officer... Class 9 34,190 Project Officer... Class 8 31,646 Project Officer... Class 7 29,100 Library Officer... Class 7 27,555 Library Officer... Grade 2 18,624 Secretariat Director... Class 11 38,315 Senior Project Officer... Class 8 30,452 Media Officer... Class 6 26,680 Liaison Officer... Class 6 26,680 Project Officer... Class 6 26,680 Council Officer... Class 4 21,839 Journalist... Grade A1 31,860 (Question No. 561) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has the Minister for Community Services seen the recent welfare spending report produced by a Mr Scott Prasser when he was a senior research officer with the Queensland Welfare Services Department which shows that Queensland spends less per head on welfare than any other Australian State; if so (2) Is the Minister confident that Federal funding provided to the Queensland Government for the new Home and Community Care Program will provide the same standard of care to the elderly as will be provided throughout Australia. (3) What action will be taken to ensure a proper accountability of this finance. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) I understand that the recent report on welfare spending in Queensland to which the honourable senator referred is an internal document prepared by Mr Prasser while he was an officer of the Department of Welfare Services. I also understand that the report has not been released publicly and as a consequence, I have been unable to obtain a copy. Some of the figures to which the honourable senator referred have however been reproduced in a recent article by Mr Prasser in the May issue of Australian Society. These figures indicate that, in aggregate terms, per capita state welfare expenditure, 1983-84, in Queensland was the lowest in Australia. (2) Should Queensland decide to participate in the New Home and Community Care Program, I have every confidence that the Commonwealth and State will be able to work towards developing levels of care appropriate to the needs of the population. This will be achieved through the development of a comprehensive and integrated range of basic maintenance and support services thus enabling the frail aged and younger disabled to be maintained in their own homes preventing inappropriate or unnecessary institutionalisation. The introduction of the HACC program is however contingent upon individual States signing a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth. This agreement details program aims, objectives, a broad outline of administrative detail and, funding arrangements. It also provides for the joint approval of projects and detailed evaluation of new services and service types particularly during the first three years of the program. This will enable the evaluation of the Program against its aims and objectives ensuring that funds expended are directed appropriately towards the target population. The level of funds available for home and community care services over the next three years are dependent upon States and Territories agreeing to participate in the Program. In those States/Territories that have agreed to participate the Commonwealth has offered to provide additional funds for the development and expansion of services. In 1985-86, an additional $25 million will be made available on a $3 Commonwealth $1 State/Territory basis and in 1986-87 this will rise to $30 million on a $2 for $1 basis. From 1987-88 onwards, the Commonwealth will provide funds for existing and new programs under HACC equal to an additional 20 per cent over the previous year's expenditure unless otherwise jointly agreed by the Commonwealth and State/Territory Ministers and providing that the State/Territory increases its contribution to the Program by the same percentage. In States/Territories which do not agree to participate, funds will remain at their current level indexed for inflation. (3) The Commonwealth is currently developing detailed arrangements for the administration of the Program including financial accountability requirements. Under the terms of the Agreement, financial assistance will be granted to the State on the basis that the State apply that financial assistance in relation to the provision of approved projects. The State will further be required to furnish the Commonwealth with a statement giving particulars of that expenditure and certifying that funds were expended in accordance with the Agreement. Should Queensland agree to participate in the Program there will be detailed bilateral negotiations on the information to be provided pursuant to these clauses ensuring that funds are accounted for to the satisfaction of the Commonwealth and State. Under the terms of the Agreement the Commonwealth and State will also work towards the establishment of a comprehensive information system to enable the ongoing monitoring and review of the Program. This system will incorporate both statistical and administrative data in order to ensure both financial accountability and the measurement of the Program against its objectives. In addition, the Program will be jointly reviewed every three years in order to evaluate and assess the nature and extent of the services provided. This process of monitoring and evaluation will ensure that the Program remains sensitive to the needs of the target population and will facilitate the development of appropriate and innovative methods of service delivery. (Question No. 249) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: Which State and Federal Governments, including their commissions, instrumentalities or other bodies, have sought and obtained approval from Treasury during the last 3 years for overseas borrowings in overseas currencies, including the: (a) name of financing organisation; (b) country of origin; (c) amounts of finance; and (d) date of application. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Under the Financial Agreement, State Governments may borrow in their own right in only limited circumstances and no overseas borrowings have been approved by Loan Council. As to State authorities, each State is free to determine, in accordance with its own priorities, the annual amount of borrowings by each of its authorities, subject to any overall limit that may be agreed by Loan Council. Under the Global Approach resolution, adopted at the 30 May, 1985 meeting of the Australian Loan Council, voluntary global limits have been set on authority borrwoings for each State, covering all forms of conventional and non-conventional borrowings by semi-government authorities, government-owned companies and trusts. Within the overall global limits there is also a ceiling on overseas borrowings, but disclosure of details of individual overseas borrowings is a matter for each State. Information about the Loan Council arrangements and about the total amounts raised by authorities in each State during the last three years is provided in the 1985-86 Budget Paper No. 7 on pages 43 to 46. Overseas borrowings by the Commonwealth Government are determined by the Treasurer consistent with the total annual borrowing program approved by Loan Council for the Commonwealth. Overseas borrowings by Commonwealth authorities are normally subject to the approval of the Treasurer in accordance with legislative requirements. Overseas borrowings by Commonwealth financial institutions, such as the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the AIDC, are not subject to such legislative approval, while borrowings by Commonwealth statutory marketing authorities, such as the Australian Wheat Board, are generally required by legislation to be approved by the Minister for Primary Industry. Information on overseas borrowings by the Commonwealth Government during the last three financial years is set out below. More details on Commonwealth Government borrowings are set out in Budget Paper No. 8, Government securities on Issue. Also shown below for the last three financial years are overseas borrowings by Commonwealth authorities which have been approved under legislative requirements by the Treasurer, other than borrowings under trade credit facilities, lease arrangements and other types of borrowings classified for Loan Council purposes as `non-conventional' borrowings. (1) COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT LOANS The following table sets out overseas loans raised by the Commonwealth Government over the last three financial years. Subscriptions to these borrowings are made by numrous investors; the table shows the lead manager/arranger for each loan. As loans are often subscribed to by investors from a number of countries, the table specifies the market or currency of each loan; for example, the Eurodollar market is a market for United States dollar denominated debt which is subscribed to by investors largely resident in Europe, the Middle-East and the Far East. For consistency, the date of signing the loan agreements for each borrowing is given as the date of application. (1) COMMONWEALTH OVERSEAS BORROWINGS 1982-83 TO 1984-85 Date of signing loan agreement Amount in currency of borrowing (millions) Market (type of loan) Lead manager/arranger 1982-83 19 July... #100.0... United Kingdom (public) S. G. Warburg &Co. Ltd 26 July... Yen 20,000.0... Japan (institutional/bank) Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, Limited 8 September... $US400.0... United States (public) Morgan Stanley &Co. Inc 1 October... Yen 15,000.0... Euroyen (public) Nomura Securities Co. Ltd 7 October... DM200.0... Germany (public) Deutsche Bank A.G. 15 November... DF200.0... Netherlands (public) Amsterdam-Rotterdam Bank N. V. 20 December... DM200.0... Germany (public) Deutsche Bank A.G. 22 December... DF200.0... Netherlands (private placement) Algemene Bank Nederland N.V. 8 June 1983... Yen 20,000.0... Japan (public) Nomura Securities Co. Ltd 1983-84 21 July... $US400.0... United States (public) Morgan Stanley &Co. Inc. 4 October... $US500.0... Eurodollar (public) Deutsche Bank A.G. 17 October... #100.0... United Kingdom (public) S. G. Warburg &Co. Ltd 13 March... SF60.0... Switzerland (public) Swiss Bank Corporation 1984-85 26 July... Yen 100,000.0... Japan (institutional/bank) Nippon Credit Bank Ltd 1 August... Yen 50,000.0... Japan (public) Nomura Securities Co. Ltd 8 October... DF400.0... Netherlands (public) Amsterdam-Rotterdam Bank N.V. 30 October... DM600.0... Germany (public) Deutsche Bank A.G. 22 February... SF500.0... Switzerland (private placement) Credit Suisse 20 May... $US300.0... Eurodollar (public) Deutsche Bank A.G. (2) AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION During the period 1982-83 to 1984-85 the Wool Industry Act (the Act) 1972 provided that the Australian Wool Corporation (AWC) could enter into certain types of borrowings with the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry. Until 1984 the Act also provided that such approval had to be with the concurrence of the Treasurer. In 1978 AWC entered into a twelve month overseas credit facility through Chase Manhattan Bank NY for an amount not exceeding the equivalent in United States dollars of $A40 million or up to $US50 million whichever is the less. The facility has been renewed on a calendar year basis for each subsequent year. AWC first made a drawing under the facility in 1983. (3) THE EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974 permits the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) to borrow with the approval of the Treasurer from an approved bank or other lender for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act. On September 1984, the Treasurer approved EFIC borrowing up to $US50 million by way of a Euronote facility arranged by Morgan Grenfell and Co. Ltd, London. (Question No. 558) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) How many Repetition Strain Injury (RSI) cases are currently recorded with the Department of the Treasury, and what is the breakdown of these figures in the years 1980-85. (2) Are there any significant trends in regard to where these staff are primarily located (i) by State and (ii) nature of work. (3) How many workers, by State, are currently on leave because of RSI claims. (4) How many workers, by State, have sought compensation. (5) What periods of time are taken to process claims and finalise claims. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The following table indicates the number of Repetition Strain Injury (RSI) cases recorded in the Department of the Treasury in the years 1980 to 1985. 1980 -; 1981 -; 1982 -; 1983 3; 1984 29; 1985 18-total 50. Twenty one of the cases were in respect of Royal Australian Mint Staff. (2) (i) All staff with RSI have been located in the A.C.T. (only a few Treasury staff are located outside the A.C.T.). (ii) The staff concerned worked in the following areas: Keyboard Staff... 26 Clerical... 4 Tea Attendant... 1 Proof Coins and Medals... 12 Count and Wrap... 4 Engraving... 1 Tooling... 1 Maintenance... 1 (3) 9. (4) 48. All compensation claims are referred to the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation for determination. The average time taken to process claims from the date of lodgement until the date of determination is 4.6 months. (Question No. 697) Senator Harradine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) Who authorized the attendance, as one of Australia's official observers, of Mr Russell Scott at the Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on Progress in the Biomedical Sciences established by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. (2) How is the visit being funded and at what cost. (3) Is not the function of the Ad Hoc Committee to study the set of problems posed for law, ethics and human rights by progress in the biomedical sciences with a view to harmonising the policies of member States as far as possible and, if desirable, framing appropriate legal instruments. (4) What are the policy attitudes Mr Scott will be expressing at the Ad Hoc Committee meeting. (5) Has Mr Scott been provided with any instructions by the Government or any Statutory Authority in respect of these questions of major public policy. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) An invitation was received by the Australian Embassy in Paris from the Council of Europe for one or more Australian representatives to attend this meeting in an observer capacity. Australia is not a member of the Council of Europe. The Department of Foreign Affairs forwarded this request to the Departments of Health and the Attorney-General requesting nominations of individuals to attend as observers. The Department of Health and the National Health and Medical Research Council were aware of this Ad Hoc Committee's activities because of previous invitations which led to the attendance by the Department's Regional Medical Director, Paris, at the January/February 1985 meeting. The NHMRC's Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) was fully briefed by the Regional Medical Director, Paris, following the previous meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee. The MREC's on-going general activities relate to these areas, and the Committee is presently formulating national guidelines for human gene therapy. It was therefore suggested to the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Attorney-General's that suitable representatives would be Mr Russell Scott, member of the NHMRC's Medical Research Ethics Committee, and the Regional Medical Director in Paris, who would attend as observers. Mr Scott is Deputy Chairman of the N.S.W. Law Reform Commission and is a recognised expert in the fields of ethics and law related to national and international biomedical advances. (2) The NHMRC recommended funding from the Medical Research Endowment Fund for this visit by Mr Scott, to the extent of $6,000. (3) Yes. However, I understand that outstanding agenda items from the January/February meeting of the Council of Europe's Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on Genetic Engineering will be considered at this meeting. (4) Mr Scott will be attending in an observer capacity only. (5) No.