Monday, 2 December 1985 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hamer) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 29 November 1985, of the Hon. Sir Charles Davidson, KBE. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 29 November 1985, of the Hon. Sir Charles William Davidson, KBE, a former Minister of the Crown and Member of the House of Representatives for the Queensland Divisions of Capricornia, from 1946 to 1949, and Dawson, from 1949 to 1963, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and the members of his family in their bereavement. Sir Charles Davidson was born in 1897. He served in two world wars and received the Order of the British Empire in 1945, having been mentioned twice in dispatches. Sir Charles was a dairy farmer by occupation and a sugar cane farmer before entering Parliament. He was elected for the Country Party to the House of Representatives in 1946 for the Queensland seat of Capricornia and following a redistribution he was elected for Dawson in 1949. He was Country Party Whip from 1950 to 1956 before being promoted to the positions of Minister for the Navy, which he held from 1956 to 1958, the Postmaster-General, which he held from 1956 to 1963. He was created a Knight Bachelor in 1964. Sir Charles was a long- standing and respected member of the House of Representatives and of the Parliament and on behalf of the Government I extend to his family our sincere sympathy in their bereavement. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the Opposition, I support the motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). As he has indicated, Sir Charles Davidson was born in Brisbane on 14 September 1897. He was the son of a sugar grower and his father became a cane inspector. Sir Charles served in World War I, having enlisted in the Australian Infantry Forces in 1916. He served as a Lieutenant in the 42nd Battalion in Flanders, France. He also served in World War II, once again in the 42nd Battalion, and rose to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. He served in New Guinea and was twice mentioned in dispatches. He was awarded the Order of the British Empire in 1945 and the Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1964. After the world wars he transferred to the Reserve of Officers. He was a dairy farmer on the Atherton Tablelands from 1921 to 1925 and at the same time worked as a bullocky. In Evelyn Maunsell's book Suppose I Die-that is our former colleague Senator Ron Maunsell's mother-he was mentioned in his role as a bullocky on the Tableland. He always dressed a little differently and a little better than the rest of the bullockies who operated in the timed industry at that time. In 1925 he had an interest in a sugar farm in the Flaggy Rock area south of Sarina and he maintained that interest until 1973. At that time he was also a member of the Plane Creek Mill Suppliers Committee and the Mackay and District Cane Growers Committee. Later he held many other high positions in the sugar industry. Of course, that industry has done so much to decentralise and provide stability in the economy of the great State of Queensland. In 1946 he won the seat of Capricornia, which was much larger then than it is now, for the then Country Party. After the redistribution he won the seat of Dawson in which he served from 1949 to 1963. He was a contemporary of Sir Arthur Fadden, Sir Jack McEwen and Sir Charles Adermann. One of his first positions, I think in 1950, was that of Country Party Whip in the House of Representatives, which puts him in much more illustrious company than mere mortals. As has been indicated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, he was also the Postmaster-General and the Minister for the Navy. Before the Senate met today I read his maiden speech. I wish to read three excerpts from his maiden speech which go to prove that nothing much changes over a period. On 26 November 1946 he said: I do not propose, however, definitely and emphatically to align myself with those speakers who contend that there cannot be any recovery of our pre-war standard of living in this country, or any realization of the possibilities that we are so fond of saying lie ahead of this country, until there has been restored to everyone in the community, incentive to produce and to improve himself-an incentive that is not evident in the community to-day. He also spoke about rural industry which, of course, was his first love, and he was quite conversant with it. He said: There are two main methods by which the Commonwealth can assist primary industries. The first is that of providing means to ensure at all times adequate returns to the producers. I emphasize those three important words-``At all times''. The second is that of taking nation-wide action to reduce losses caused by recurrent disastrous droughts. The third quote is from a short paragraph of his maiden speech when he spoke about subsidies. He said: I warn honourable members that the term ``subsidy'' is becoming more and more bitterly resented by primary producers because, by its use-and it is a misnomer-primary producers are being made to appear as beggars instead of as a national asset. As I said, nothing much has changed since Sir Charles Davidson took his place in this Parliament and, indeed, nothing much has changed so far as the rural industries are concerned. The fact that they do make a considerable contribution was probably as misunderstood then as it is now. I support the motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and place on record my appreciation, as a National Party senator from Queensland, of the life of a great man who served this country with distinction in both war and peace. Indeed, in many ways he was a pioneer, not least on the land in opening up dairy farms and sugarcane farms. I would like to extend my sympathy and the sympathy of the Opposition to his widow and to the rest of the members of his family. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and support the comments made by him and the Leader of the National Party in this place, Senator Stan Collard, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition. I associate all members of the Liberal Party within the coalition with the remarks which have been made. The late Sir Charles William Davidson served Australia in a great range of ways. He was a very fine citizen, a soldier, a member of parliament and a Minister. I believe his record shows that he served Australia well in all of those respects. I suppose my closest connection with him was two-fold: I used to sit in the House of Representatives as a schoolboy and watch him at work as a Minister. I also had the privilege of working in the Post Office as a postman while he was Postmaster-General. I never got the opportunity to pass on the tips that I had as to the improvement of the efficiency of the Post Office. In retrospect, I wish I had. The Liberal Party joins the rest of the Senate in expressing condolence and sympathy to the family of the late Sir Charles William Davidson. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I wish to associate members of my Party with this motion and also extend sympathy to members of Charlie Davidson's family. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. We the undersigned express our concern over the sale of the Belconnen Mall due to the likely detrimental effect on the provision of community facilities presently existing in the Belconnen Mall. 1. In particular we seek guarantees that the present Child Care Centre and Community Facilities be retained by incorporating the same into the conditions of sale of the Belconnen Mall and that the services will receive the same real level of funding and support currently provided by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. 2. That a financial commitment to the Building of Stage 4 of the Belconnen Mall listed under Section 14C in the Ordinance of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority be undertaken. Stage 4 to consist of Community Facilities such as Community Hall, Large glassed enclosed community park, exhibition space, health and fitness club, ice rink, amusement centre and office accommodation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this petition be considered. by Senator Vigor (from 71 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 15 citizens) and Brownhill (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 36 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 invitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 711 citizens), Harradine (from 515 citizens) and Morris (from 842 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations and enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 78 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, recently discovered 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River Tasmania, equal in importance to those in the Vesers Valley in France, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. The constitutional basis for protecting historical and environmental assets remains weak. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government To hold a referendum to amend the constitution so that: The Federal Government has the duty and a right superior to a state and local governments to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore, those things we hold in `trust' for the future- Being relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance; To care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and act in any other matter seen to be in the same spirit; To prevent beach and related mining, military and commercial use of uranium; to preserve Heritage Areas, The Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and extended into Torres Strait. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show that: We deplore and oppose the decision of the Federal Government in legislating to allow the importation and distribution of hard-core pornographic video films and material into Australia and the social consequences of this action particularly for our children. We request the Federal Government to re-enact immediately the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and sale of this hard-core pornographic material, until the Enquiry into the Effects of the current legislation in relation to adults and children has reported to the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that because it will cause serious harm to the community, the Parliament will not legalise the possession, sale, hire, or supply of any publication or video tape, video disc, slide or any other recording from which a visual image can be produced, which displays degradation of any person, particularly women and children, or animals; scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy, mutilation, child pornography, urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia, bestiality; and the use and effect of illicit drug taking; explicit fellatio and cunnilingus; explicit nudity including touching genitalia, erect penis. Your petitioners pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Senator Jessop (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Joint Defence Space Research Facility, Alice Springs commonly known as Pine Gap is a vital link in developing first strike capacity for the United States and as such makes Australia a nuclear target. Your petitioners humbly pray that the lease to the facility known as Pine Gap not be renewed in 1986 and that the military base be closed down. We ask that the required notice of termination of the lease be given to the government of the United States in December 1985. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 526 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia. Respectfully showeth: that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers' conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on Behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Short (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That a Government decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcaster) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan T.V. stations from this requirement, will place in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial T.V. operator. Your petitioners request the Senate to protect the interests of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the Government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 54 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the Federal Government's recent public commitment to eliminating spinal injuries caused in all football codes; (b) notes the excellent work being done in the area by the Spine Care Foundation, of Sydney; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to reconsider its refusal to provide funds to the Spine Care Foundation to establish a central register of all spinal injuries caused through football accidents. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Federal Government has developed a new and improper practice of introducing major changes in policy through legislation which is operative from the date of announcement but not presented to the Parliament for consideration until many months or even years later, a breach of previous practice that limited such procedure to the closing of loopholes in existing tax legislation that involved no policy changes or to specific Customs Act changes; (b) regrets that this practice imposes an unfair and unreasonable burden on citizens whose actions are affected for many months by laws which do not yet exist, whose terms are not yet specified and whose operation is uncertain, and which may be amended or defeated by the Parliament when ultimately presented to it, or which may be (and indeed have been) considerably changed by the time they come before the Parliament from the broad outline in the original announcement; and (c) condemns the Government for this improper practice (evident in the present capital gains tax and negative gearing proposals which operate from 20 September 1985, but which will not be introduced until next February or March 1986) which represents a subverting of the rights and obligations of the Senate and constitutes an authoritarian and unacceptable form of Government by decree. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I seek leave to postpone until two sitting days after today Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 1 and 2, standing in my name for this day of sitting for disallowance of the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 3) 1985 and the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 4) 1985. Leave granted. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- 1. aware of the growing disquiet amongst both the financial community and the general community about the degree of indebtedness of Australia; 2. recognising that Australia's indebtedness is growing at an incredible rate; and 3. certain that unless the pattern is reversed that the living standard of all Australians will continue to fall, calls upon the Hawke socialist Government to develop and announce to the people of Australia a financial master plan to reverse the trend, including a reduction of Government spending as quickly as is practical, and the shelving of all unnecessary new Government plans that involve additional expenditure for the period of the years it will take to save this country from financial ruin. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- 1. endorses the concept of an International Year of Peace in promoting the values of peace, disarmament and conflict resolution through community education; and 2. commends the Government in promoting these concepts and for the setting up of IYP committees in each State and Territory; 3. nevertheless, expresses its concern at the situation where only $185,000 is being allocated to community-based IYP groups, out of a total Government Budget of $3m; 4. also voices its concern that much of this remaining $3m will be used for public relations exercises by the Department of Foreign Affairs to promote the Labor Government's views on disarmament; and 5. suggests that a thorough review of IYP funding priorities be undertaken with a view to giving community groups a greater proportion of the funds allocated for IYP activities. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave to have that list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group-final report volume 1 and 2-together with the text of a statement by the Special Minister of State relating to the report made in the House of Representatives on 27 November 1985. 2. Australian Postal Commission-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975. 3. Judiciary Act 1903-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to sub-section 50 (1) of the Judiciary Act 1903. 4. International Monetary Agreements Act-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreement Act 1947. 5. Australian Overseas Projects Corporation-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation Act 1978. 6. Primary Industry Bank-report on the operation of Part II of the Act from 25 October 1984 to 28 November 1985-pursuant to sub-section 10 (2) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977. 7. Australian Tourist Commission-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967. 8. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. 9. Christmas Island-annual report 1984-85. 10. Canberra Development Board-annual report 1984-85. 11. Australia Council-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975. 12. The future development of the National Film and Sound Archive-report. 13. Australian Sports Commission-annual report 1984-85. 14. High Court of Australia-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979. 15. Public investment in research and development in Australia-report and future directions for CSIRO-report-both reports prepared by the Australian Science and Technology Council-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Science relating to the reports made in the House of Representatives on 27 November 1985. 16. Recommendations of and government response to the task force report on Aboriginal and Islander broadcasting and communications-text of a statement by the Minister for Communications made in the House of Representatives on 27 November 1985. 17. Government response on recommendations concerning the Joint Intelligence Organisation-text of a statement by the Minister for Defence made in the House of Representatives on 27 November 1985. 18. Government response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety; `Report on Road Safety Generally'-text of a statement by the Minister for Transport made in the House of Representatives on 27 November 1985. 19. Parliamentary Liaison Group on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome-text of a statement by the Minister for Health made in the House of Representatives on 27 November 1985. 20. Australian Industry and Technology Council-annual summary of proceedings 1984-85. 21. Working party on affirmative action legislation-report. 22. Freedom of information-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 93 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Senator CHANEY —Does the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce believe that Australian industry, particularly manufacturing industry, is in a position to cope with added across the board labour costs which the superannuation proposals represent, on top of the 3.8 per cent across the board national wage rise and likely further wage rises? Senator BUTTON —The short answer to that question is yes, but as that will clearly not satisfy Senator Chaney, I will give some explanation as to why. The 3.8 per cent increase which has been awarded by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will be offset in part by the increase which is likely to be awarded in the April 1986 national wage case. Senator Chaney and all other honourable senators are fully aware that the Government, in a series of negotiations with the unions about the effects of the devaluation, reached an accommodation which provided for that offset to be obtained in the case next year. I am asked whether industry will be able to cope with the effects of superannuation claims or the effect of a superannuation burden. Before these things are finally negotiated, there is always a lot of speculation about what the effects will be. There has been a great deal of speculation and ill-informed speculation engaged in by Opposition spokesmen in the last week or two which has been reflected in Question Time in the Senate. I think that the superannuation arrangements, depending on what they are because again they are subject to determination by the Arbitration Commission in terms of amount, can be accommodated by an industry sector which is much more productive and profitable than it has been for many years. Senator Chaney knows that full well. Senator Chaney —Senator Chaney is shaking his head in disbelief at this answer. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney is shaking his head and if he keeps on shaking his head it may well drop off because it is a wooden head. He can shake his head and he can do all these things. I suppose it is the role of an Opposition to shake its head. There has not been much else in the way of talent supplied in the Senate in the past few weeks. The honourable senator can keep on shaking his head. I think these matters will be successfully negotiated. Senator Messner —When will we get the guidelines? Senator BUTTON —In the longer term the benefits to Australian industry and to improving the relationship between employer and employee within an industry I believe will be greatly enhanced by these measures. Senator Messner interjects about the guidelines. The guidelines will be the subject of discussion between the Government and business groups, I believe, this week. Senator Messner —We have not seen them yet. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator has not seen them yet, but what would be the relevance of his seeing them? None at all. He will see them after they have been negotiated with business representatives and others, and then they will be published. There is no point in publishing guidelines before agreement is reached about their contents which is satisfactory to the parties, and that is what we will be doing. Senator CHANEY —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the Minister seen the estimates that the superannuation schemes could increase labour costs by $6,000m a year? Does he seriously suggest that industry generally, and manufacturing industry in particular, can take that impost without suffering damage? Senator BUTTON —If wages are cut in half- Senator Chaney —That is not the question. Senator BUTTON —It may not be the question but I am giving the answer, not Senator Chaney. If wages are cut in half then everybody in Australian industry would say that they were better off as a result, except the employees and their families, who would not be able to buy things any more. Senator Chaney —I know of no one in industry who would argue that. Senator BUTTON —No, I am arguing. If the wages burden is left static, we get a static situation. If the wages burden is increased over time, that may make it harder. But wages cannot be isolated from all the other factors which bear on industry competitiveness. If only the Opposition could get out of that habit it might have a much more constructive view to offer about a wide range of issues. We have said consistently in this place that under this Government we have had no wages explosion such as there was under the Fraser Government in 1981 and 1982. We have had a 17 per cent decline in industrial disputation. They are factors which one should take into account. We have had a vastly improved performance in the profitability of Australian companies. That is also a factor which has to be taken into account. A wide range of things have to be taken into account in producing a satisfactory solution. So to take this issue out of context displays all the capacity to see through a keyhole with both eyes at once, but that really does not help very much with the problem. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of Senator Ruth Coleman. I hope she will soon be able to rejoin us. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has his attention been drawn to a recent claim by the Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, about the importance of interest rates? Can the Minister advise the Senate of the Government's attitude towards home mortgage rates, in particular by comparison with the policy of the Liberal Opposition? Senator WALSH —It is well known that the Liberal Party is for the deregulation of housing interest rates. It was announced by the Leader of the Liberal Party only a few weeks ago that that should be done. If that were done it is beyond doubt, under present circumstances, that interest rates for home mortgages would increase under a Liberal government. The Premier of South Australia said recently, I understand, that if the Liberals get their way, that is, in deregulating housing loan interest rates, the typical borrower of a bank housing loan will be facing an extra $70 a month in repayments. That is what the people of Australia, and the people of South Australia in particular, can expect if the Liberal Party gets its way and implements Liberal Party policy. The Treasurer gave a firm assurance about a month ago, and I think he may have even repeated it since, that this Government will not deregulate housing loan interest rates. I was pleased to note that just last week the Commonwealth Bank of Australia wrote to its borrowers advising that it had decided not to proceed with a loan service fee which it had previously announced-I think that was back in September-it intended to apply. As a result of that change in the policy of the Commonwealth Bank, the banks are not using the device of a loan service fee to circumvent the mortgage interest rate ceiling or to surreptitiously increase the effective rate of interest. I would be fascinated to know whether the Liberal Party, under its present Leader, appreciates that action by the banks. However, I am sure that the Australian Labor Party, not only federally but also in South Australia where the Labor Party and particularly the Premier are very closely in touch with the needs of families, will appreciate that action by the Commonwealth Bank. Finally, I suppose that one might say that if there were no Commonwealth Bank around, which, of course, is also Liberal Party policy, there would be no effective competition from the public sector on private sector banks. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the circular from the Commonwealth Bank dated 19 November 1985 in which the Bank announced that it had decided not to proceed with the proposed loan service fee. Leave granted. The document read as follows- COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA General Manager Retail Banking 19 November 1985 Dear Borrower LOAN SERVICE FEE In August 1985 we announced that a fee to offset the costs of conducting your loan account would be charged half-yearly from December 1985. There have subsequently been very many representations made to us concerning the effect of the fee particularly in the light of recent movements in market interest rates which have flowed on to home loan borrowers. We have decided not to proceed with the proposed fee and no loan service charges will now be debited to your Home Loan Account. Please accept our sincere apologies for any concern we may have caused you on receipt of the earlier notification. Yours faithfully B. K. STOTT General Manager, Branch Operations Senator PARER —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware that the Business Council of Australia is seeking an urgent meeting with the Government to discuss the implications for company superannuation schemes of last week's deal in the paint industry? Is he further aware that a major concern of the Business Council is that employers should be allowed to choose whether they pay into a union-controlled scheme or into their existing schemes, a matter raised with the Minister by Senator Chaney last week and in respect of which the Minister promised a definite answer? Will the Government agree to meet with the Business Council? If so, will the Government be represented by only Mr Willis or will the Minister himself attend, given his responsibilities for the future of industry and commerce? Senator BUTTON —I would counsel Senator Parer and others not to get too excited about this issue. We met with the Business Council of Australia a month ago. This issue was raised. I was there, amongst other Ministers, and we gave an undertaking that we would discuss superannuation guidelines with the Council. That will be done. There is no need for it to request a meeting as it has done. An agreed meeting is to take place. The honourable senator asked about an alleged deal with the paint industry in the settlement of the industrial dispute involving that industry. The Confederation of Australian Industry was represented in those negotiations. There have been some very misreported or misunderstood views about what took place. The answer to the question asked by Senator Chaney about whether employers will be forced to make double contributions in respect of the same employee is, no. Senator Chaney also asked me whether employees will be required to contribute. The answer is that the Government will fully support the idea of employee contributions and will do everything it can to encourage them. Those issues will be discussed in the context of any discussion with business organisations about superannuation guidelines and other matters associated with superannuation. If the honourable senator asks a question in February next year when Parliament comes back for the autumn sittings I am sure that we will satisfy him about the results of those negotiations. Senator PARER —I ask a supplementary question. Senator Button said that a meeting had been agreed upon with the Business Council of Australia. When will the meeting take place? Senator BUTTON —I am not quite sure. I think it is this week some time or early next week. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I ask him whether he is aware of reports in today's Age concerning the tendering process for the submarine replacement project. Did the Ombudsman find any evidence of bias in the tendering process? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of reports in today's Age purporting to give an account of an inquiry by the Ombudsman, sought by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Campbell, relating to the conduct of the tendering process in which there were some suggestions of bias, the main evidence being advanced for that being the apparent availability to the company HDW-IKL of a list of questions to which the company would later respond in a parliamentary committee. As the Age report states, the Ombudsman did find that it was likely that there had been some leakage to the company of the questions concerned which did enable the company to make a presentation that was very responsive to the questions of the Caucus combined industry and foreign affairs and defence committees. However, the Ombudsman made the point that the Caucus committee inquiries were not in any sense part of the tendering process and in fact occurred after the Department had come to its conclusions on the subject. As to the larger question as to whether that or any other evidence was indicative of some bias or some inappropriate behaviour by the Defence Department or anyone else in the conduct of the tendering process, this is a matter to which the Acting Ombudsman addressed considerable attention in his reply to Mr Campbell of 15 November, which I will table at the conclusion of this response. The letter explores all the available information as to the way in which the tender evaluation process was conducted within the Department of Defence. The flavour of the Acting Ombudsman's conclusions can best be summarised in the following paragraph: Given all the foregoing, I can see no reason, on the basis of the papers I have examined, to think that there has been any bias or special pleading in the selection of the successful tenderers, and I must say therefore that I have found nothing in my preliminary inquiry to confirm your suspicions. Indeed I have seen enough of the deliberative and analytical processes involved to say that subversion of them would require a conspiracy of vast proportions. It might be, of course, that examination of the detailed reports which went to the project team would suggest prejudice on the part of some specialists but I do not propose to take my inquiry into that sort of detail. Neither I nor my officers have the expertise to undertake what would be an enormous task, and I must say in any case that individual bias or error would have been, in my opinion, quickly exposed during the wide-ranging and wide-disciplined development of the recommendations which eventually went to government. As indicated, I now table the full text of that letter from the Ombudsman which I understand he is publicly releasing today. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it accurate to say that this Government is proposing to give $1.5m worth of military aid to the disgusting Marcos Government? Is it also true to say that part of that military aid will be spent on training Filipino troops so that they can better massacre and torture innocent human beings? Is it also true to say that part of that $1.5m military aid will be used to service the Nomad aircraft which has been known to drop napalm bombs on women and children in villages whose only crime is to resent the greed of officials of the Marcos Government? In light of the Government's acknowledgment of the appalling violation of human rights and of open corruption by the Marcos Government, will the Hawke Government now finally stop all military aid to that country? Senator GARETH EVANS —The brief I have is from the Minister for Defence and I believe that it is more appropriately directed to him as the Minister responsible for defence co-operation programs. So it is in that capacity that I answer the question. It is the case that the total value of the defence co-operation program with the Philippines in the financial year 1985-86 is estimated to be about $1.5m, compared with $1.356m last financial year. That program comprises joint projects and training as follows: First of all, Nomad maintenance; that is to say, maintenance assistance for the 12 Nomad aircraft commercially purchased in 1975. One civilian engineer is located at the Mactan Air Base in Cebu. A three-man army engineer team completed its attachment in July 1985, which concluded Australian Defence Force involvement in the project. There is also a project involving medical co-operation in which planning has commenced for the provision of a modified mobile light field hospital and associated training and advisory assistance. So far as training of Filipino military personnel in Australia is concerned, it is the case that under this program about 65 Filipinos will undertake such training in 1985-86. Such training includes administration, driving and Army Corps courses in infantry, artillery, ordinance and transport, air traffic control and C130 maintenance. I do not stop to comment as to whether the emotive terminology used by Senator Chipp is appropriate in this particular context so far as the particular personnel here are concerned or the use of the Nomad aircraft to which he refers. I simply say that the Minister for Defence has advised me that it would be premature to consider any question of termination of that aid before the receipt by him of the Cooksey report on the evaluation of the defence co-operation program which is expected to be received by the Minister for Defence within a matter of weeks. Senator CHIPP —I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister categorically deny that any instruction or suggestion whatsoever has come from the United States of America to Australia on this matter? If he cannot deny it, will he get an assurance from the Minister for Defence about this? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will see what answer the Minister for Defence feels able to make to that question. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Minister for Education read an article by Kenneth Davidson in the Age of last Thursday which questioned the Government's commitment to full accountability for funds provided to non-government schools? What measures have been taken and will be taken in the future to ensure full accountability for these funds? Senator RYAN —I did read Kenneth Davidson's article. While I had a great deal of sympathy with the general tenor of his article, namely, that funds spent on non-government schools should be accounted for in the same way as any other public expenditure of funds, I think that Mr Davidson, along with a few other organisations and journalists who have interested themselves in this topic, is confusing a number of issues. There was an implication in Kenneth Davidson's article that our Government had not increased the accountability requirements for non-government schools in receipt of Commonwealth funds and that the fact that we had not yet made decisions on the 1986 report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission meant that we had not made decisions at all about increasing accountability. These assumptions or implications are quite wrong. When our Government came to office one of the things we were determined to do was to ensure that there were better and more thorough accountability requirements. I think this is a very important principle. Expenditure on non-government schools this year will be in excess of $806m, a very large amount of public money indeed and considerably more than is spent directly by the Commonwealth on the government school system, which educates 75 per cent of Australia's children. So it is entirely right and proper that our Government should ensure that the expenditure of that $806m is appropriately accounted for. Senator Teague —You are intruding too far already. Senator RYAN —I need no assistance from Senator Teague in this matter. Senator Teague has always displayed a total ignorance-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator RYAN —It is very interesting that honourable senators opposite start interjecting, grumbling and groaning whenever the word `accountability' is mentioned. Senator Chaney —I don't want your sticky fingers in my children's school. Senator RYAN —There you are; did the House hear what Senator Chaney said? His children's school does not need to account for the funds that it receives. Unlike any other recipient of government funding, the recipients that have responsibility for the education of Senator Chaney's children need not account. I might say that that is typical of the double standards that we expect from the other side of the chamber in this matter. Honourable senators in this place sit for hours, days, weeks and sometimes even months examining in minute detail expenditure of public money. There is no reason at all why the very large amount of money that goes to non-government schools ought not similarly to be subject to proper examination. In my dealings with non-government schools authorities I have heard no responsible authorities arguing against the principle of accountability. They have nothing to hide, and I must say in defence of Senator Chaney's school that I do not believe that it has anything to hide. No properly run non-government school has any reason not to account for the funds that it receives. It is quite unreason- able and quite mischievous to suggest that by requiring proper accountability our Government is doing anything other than what it ought to do and does in every area of public expenditure. As to the particular provisions for increased accountability, I draw the Senate's attention, and Mr Davidson's attention if he is listening, to the fact that in 1984 the States Grants (Schools) Act provided for a whole new range of areas where further information could be required from non-government schools. Those requirements were not implemented in the first year because the Schools Commission was very busy with the task of getting the new 12-category system in place, getting the information whereby the schools could be categorised, and developing the new non-government schools policy. But for next year's grants those new criteria, which have already been legislated for, will be applied. The Commonwealth Department of Education and the Schools Commission are currently involved in extensive consultation with non-government schools authorities and, indeed, with State governments with regard to accountability for government schools-because we are interested in that too-about those criteria. There is currently being implemented new and more thorough accountability requirements in accordance with the States Grants (Schools) Act. Whether next year the Government needs to add further accountability provisions along the lines that have been recommended by the Schools Commission remains to be seen. We may have a complete enough picture in terms of the present States Grants (Schools) Act; it may emerge that we need to require further information if we are to be properly accountable. But those questions have not yet been answered. The recommendations of the Schools Commission 1986 report have not been considered by the Government. When they are, they will be considered in consultation with non-government schools authorities and State governments, as all matters of education policy are. In conclusion, I would say that our Government is taking proper steps and increased steps-increased in their comprehensiveness and thoroughness-to ensure that public money spent in the non-government school sector is properly accounted for, and that after the new provisions are applied we will then consider whether the recommendations of the 1986 report need to be implemented. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to reports that transport companies have told the Government that the Transport Workers Union of Australia claim for a $12 a week superannuation claim, a claim which the union demands must be accepted within the next fortnight or industrial action will follow, amounts to a de facto pay rise of 4.2 per cent. Does the Minister agree that this claim exceeds the Government-Australian Council of Trade Unions agreement which permits only a 3 per cent productivity pay rise? What action is the Government taking to protect the transport industry from this threat of industrial action over a matter which probably cannot be properly resolved until the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission productivity hearing next year? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to say what is the basis of the calculation and whether it represents the equivalent of a 4 per cent pay increase. In the absence of any basis for the calculation, I am not prepared to accept Senator Collard's word for it. It is true that the quantum of superannuation claims will be dependent on the case to be brought in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the second half of next year. To that extent it is not appropriate to claim or estimate quantum at this stage. I will refer the other aspects of the question in regard to allegations of differences between the Transport Workers Union and others to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and obtain an early answer. Senator VALLENTINE —I address my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the report in yesterday's Northern Territory newspaper, the Sunday Territorian, which stated that impeccable sources had revealed that Senator Walsh supports a proposal to establish a site for the dumping of nuclear waste in central Australia. Firstly, is this newspaper report accurate? Secondly, will the Government give a categorical assurance that neither it nor any of its Ministers support any proposal to dump nuclear waste on Australian territory? Thirdly, will the Government give an undertaking to enact legislation banning the dumping of nuclear waste on Australian territory? Senator Walsh —Tell her it wasn't me. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by Senator Walsh that it was not he. The impec- cable source for anything could be under speculation. I have no knowledge of the report or what might conceivably lie behind it, other than the fevered imagination of the journalists of the Sunday Territorian, which would be par for the course in terms of their track record in accurately reporting the events of the day. I have no knowledge of any proposal to dump, as Senator Vallentine says, nuclear waste anywhere around Australia. There is an exercise going on at the moment, as there has been for some time, to try to identify, in co-operation with the States, possible sites for the relocation of low to medium level nuclear waste which is presently lying around in such locations as the St Marys munitions factory, to some extent at Lucas Heights and a miscellany of other locations. What we are talking about in this regard is radio nuclide waste material from medical uses and a miscellany of other things of that kind, as well as some debris, I think, still associated with the atomic tests during the 1950s. There is a continuing accumulation of low to middle level material of this kind. It is very necessary that we do establish before very long proper locations for the more effective interim storage and, indeed, the permanent disposal of such material. It may well be that someone has got hold of some information about that exercise, which is not an especially secret one, and has built some elaborate fantasy based on it. If Senator Vallentine or anybody else supplies me with some more detailed information as to what is the alleged activity that is going on, I would be only too happy to reply in more detail at an appropriate time. Senator VALLENTINE —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. If this incident does prove to be fantasy, does it not reaffirm the need for Australian Labor Party policy on nuclear issues to be enshrined in national legislation, as was suggested recently by Senator Childs? Does this incident not also reveal a major weakness of the so-called South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty which only prohibits nuclear waste dumping at sea? Senator GARETH EVANS —It does not prove anything of the kind. Our credentials are quite impeccable on anti-nuclear matters, as I said in the course of the debate on Senator Chipp's Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill, and it remains entirely unnecessary for us to go on re-establishing those credentials to the satisfaction of Senator Vallentine and her acolytes, solely for the benefit of a chest-beating performance when the facts of the matter are perfectly self-evident. Senator SHEIL —I ask a question of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. It follows his reply to an interjection by Senator Messner during his answer to a question from Senator Parer concerning the Government's superannuation guidelines. The Minister will no doubt be aware that the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare is currently considering evidence on retirement incomes. There is a lot of confusion amongst industry and business about the guidelines. If the Cabinet has already considered the submission on superannuation, when will it make known the results, if it has been approved? If it has not been approved, when does the Minister expect to make the announcement? Senator BUTTON —Senator Sheil identifies his question as one which follows questions asked by Senator Chaney and Senator Parer. I suppose he means in time because, as far as anything else goes, his question does not follow them at all. In fact, it is almost incapable of being followed, with respect, by anybody. The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare may well be considering those issues, and I hope it keeps on doing so. However, the position about guidelines which Senator Sheil was concerned about I have already answered. That is, the Government will be discussing guidelines with business community representatives in the next week or so and they will be announced at the appropriate time. There is nothing the honourable senator can do to stop us announcing them at the appropriate time and there is no point in pursuing this question. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Notwithstanding the letter from Senator Jessop tabled in Parliament last week, I ask whether the Minister has seen the letter from John Olsen, dated 12 November 1985, in which he claims: A Liberal Government will end the ever-increasing spiral of taxation and Government spending. . . . the Liberal privatisation programme will let your Government concentrate on the services which you expect it to provide . . . health, education, law and order. So privatisation will mean more efficient services at less cost and lower taxes. He goes on to guarantee that not one public servant will be forced out of a job. In the light of the conflicting views of the Opposition, especially as expressed by Senator Chaney last week, could the Minister take us through these claims once again, particularly the one about no public servant's job being lost? Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I fail to see how the question as posed in any way relates to the Minister's responsibilities. It seems to me to be quite out of order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Minister for Finance should respond in the areas of his responsibility. South Australian finances directly are not his responsibility. Senator WALSH —Given that more than 50 per cent-I am not sure of the exact percentage-of the South Australian Government's Budget comes from Commonwealth sources, anything that concerns the finances of South Australia or any other State is a Commonwealth matter and specifically-- Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. It is quite clear from what the Minister has said that he has no intention of putting any limit at all on what he says. He says that anything to do with the finances of South Australia is a matter within his portfolio responsibility. I suggest to you, Mr Deputy President, that that flies in the face of your direction to him and that he should be sat down. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I am not prepared to rule Senator Walsh's preamble out of order but I will listen with care to what he says in answer to the question. Senator WALSH —When Senator Chaney interrupted me again, I was about to say that it has been advocated, for example by the Federal Opposition, that the 2 per cent real increase in general purpose payments to the States, which has been forecast for next year, be cancelled. Obviously, if the Government were to take up that suggestion-indeed that policy-of the Opposition, as stated by its Treasury spokesman, Mr Carlton, it would be necessary for the State Government to increase its taxes and charges to the extent necessary to raise an extra $25m in revenue. Of course, the question of privatisation has implications at all levels of government, because all governments in Australia are either directly or indirectly the owners of some government business enterprises. When looking at the question of privatisation, one possible area where costs could be reduced would be a publicly owned enterprise carrying an excess of staff. I am not saying that any of the government enterprises do have an excess-with the notable exception, I suppose, of the Tasmanian railways-but if any publicly owned enterprise were carrying an excess, it would be possible to reduce the cost to the public, either by way of operating subsidies or service charges if some of the surplus staff were retrenched. Given that that is an option for possible lower charges to the public, the Liberal Leader in South Australia has explicitly ruled that out, as Senator Crowley's question stated. There is, however, one area of privatisation related to this question. I invite the Liberal Party to commit itself in this case, and I speak here as the Finance Minister, who has the global governmental responsibility for the payment of Commonwealth moneys. The taxpayers of Australia have been paying an operational subsidy of $20m or so a year to the Tasmanian railways for a number of years. As a result of improvements which the Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, has engineered, that amount is likely to be reduced somewhat in the next few years, and I welcome that. But as Finance Minister, I would welcome even more the privatisation of the Tasmanian railways and the consequential removal of that burden from the Commonwealth taxpayers and the Commonwealth budget. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Minister, you are getting rather wide of the question you were asked. Senator WALSH —I was about to finalise my answer, Mr Deputy President. I certainly invite members of the Opposition-particularly Mr Howard and Mr Carlton-and Mr Gray, to tell us whether they support that sort of privatisation. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney- General. I refer to unfortunate remarks which were made by Premier Wran last Thursday following the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in regard to Mr Justice Murphy. I ask: Is the Attorney-General giving consideration to the question of whether these remarks by Mr Wran were in contempt of court and whether he or the Director of Public Prosecutions should take action against Mr Wran? If the Attorney-General is not giving consideration to that question, will he do so? If he is giving it consideration, when is he likely to announce his decision? Senator GARETH EVANS —Given the way in which the Opposition forces conducted themselves, at least in the early stages of this matter, it is not surprising, perhaps, that people with strong views on this subject periodically react publicly in ways that are perhaps inappropriate. I think that it would be generally accepted that silence on these matters is the most appropriate course when such matters are still before the courts. I am sure that the view that has been expressed by Senator Button is one that would be shared by the Attorney-General, on whose behalf I reply to this question today. I have no further advice from him on this matter, but I will refer Senator Durack's question to him for such further comment as he might care to make. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the progress of the Parramatta Commonwealth offices project, given the lengthy delays which have occurred since it was first announced? Senator GIETZELT —When the Government came to office it was alarmed to find that large amounts of money were being paid out of the Budget each year for privately rented premises which were being occupied by the Commonwealth. So in July 1983 it began the process of addressing this problem and of developing a higher level of public ownership of the buildings required to house government agencies and departments. Contracts have subsequently been signed for projects at Phillip St, Sydney, Fremantle, Devonport, Port Pirie, Parramatta and Rockhampton, with construction already under way on the first three that I have mentioned. It is expected that contract negotiations for Mackay will be completed early this month. Negotiations are proceeding with regard to Cairns, Dubbo and Wollongong. Subject to final agreement on the contract details, contracts should also be signed in respect of those projects. Projects at Devonport and Port Pirie are expected to be completed and the offices occupied in the current financial year. With respect to the specific question that Senator Richardson asked of me, the Parramatta project is due to be completed in early 1988. The construction cost of the 55,000 square metres office building is estimated at $115.2m. The building will be the largest building to be constructed under the instalment purchase process which this Government has adopted. The project will be undertaken by the Leighton construction firm on Commonwealth-owned land in Parramatta. I remind Senator Richardson, as I am sure he appreciates, that the Prime Minister turned the first sod on 22 November 1985 and we hope to be in occupancy in 1988. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is also directed to Senator Gietzelt in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Is it true that the person who selects the pilots chosen to fly for Qantas is not an Australian national and that some of the pilots who have been chosen for the Australian national flag carrier are in fact foreign pilots, when there are many Australian commercial pilots who are seeking such positions? If the Minister is not in a position to reply at this stage, would he be good enough to attempt to inform the Senate before we rise, whenever that may be? Senator GIETZELT —I am not in possession of the answer to the question raised by Senator Townley. I will certainly seek an early reply for him. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that the Queensland Premier, in advocating that French-owned uranium should be mined at Ben Lomond, north Queensland, said that if he owned the deposit he would be tempted to fly the uranium out and sort out the legal consequences later? Can the Minister comment on the implications of such blatant irresponsibility coming from a State Premier who is threatening to ignore Federal Government export licence procedures? Furthermore, in view of the environmental deficiencies already identified by the former Department of Home Affairs and Environment in November 1984 in the proposal of Total Mining Australia Pty Ltd, can the Minister again advise the Queensland Premier of the risks inherent in this proposal, which ignores water quality for the Burdekin region, along with a number of other social aspects? Senator GARETH EVANS —The situation at Ben Lomond is that Total Mining Australia holds two mining leases which are issued by the Queensland Government. During the proving of the deposit the company excavated a quantity of material, including some 3,500 tonnes of uranium bearing ore which is stockpiled on the leases. That uranium bearing material has not been processed or concentrated in any way, so no safeguard requirements either apply or are imposed. Consequently the Commonwealth has no responsibility for any material on the leases. I make the point that it would take quite a number of trips by Beryl and the rest of the troops to fly out 3,500 tonnes of ore, so I do not think there is any immediate ground for concern about the possibility, as a practical matter, of security breaches in relation to it. I make the further point that the conditions of the leases require the company to comply with codes of practice relating to radiation protection and radioactive waste management developed under the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act which sets standards to ensure that the health and safety of the people in the environment are protected fully. I understand that the conditions at Ben Lomond in this respect are monitored, for what it is worth, by the Queensland authorities. I emphasise that the developments that have taken place at Ben Lomond were part of the exploration process and as such are the responsibility of the Queensland Government. Insofar as the Commonwealth is concerned, the Government's policy of permitting the mining and exporting of uranium from only three mines-Ranger, Nabarlek and the proposed new Olympic Dam site-remains unaltered. This will prevent any exporting of uranium from Ben Lomond, and Total Mining Australia is well aware of that. The expected effects of mining on the region are contained in the Ben Lomond environmental impact statement which is available in a number of libraries, I assume the Parliamentary Library among them. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to an article on the front page of last Saturday's Adelaide Advertiser, headed `Salisbury housing ``in danger'' '. In respect of the subject of that article, I ask whether the Minister for Defence has written to the South Australian Premier expressing concern over residential developments in the vicinity of the Edinburgh Air Force base? If so, when? Was it as far back as June this year? Secondly, did representatives of the Salisbury Council meet with officials of the Department of Defence in Canberra in September? Did the departmental representatives express the view that further development in the vicinity of Edinburgh Air Force base should not proceed? Thirdly, has the State Government responded to any communication from the Commonwealth on this matter? If so, what is the nature of this response? Lastly, will the Minister table correspondence between himself and the South Australian Premier on this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —That might be a hot issue so far as Senator Vanstone is concerned. It is not hot enough to get a mention in my hot issues brief from the Minister for De- fence. I will refer it accordingly to him and seek an answer at the earliest opportunity. Senator VANSTONE —By way of supplementary question, I accept that the Minister does not consider this a hot enough issue to have in his hot issues file. Nonetheless, will the Minister give an undertaking to give the Senate an answer as soon as possible so as to avoid any allegations of a cover-up to protect the South Australian Premier from scrutiny prior to the election this Saturday? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sure the Minister will have the courtesy to treat it as at least lukewarm for the purposes of Senator Vanstone, and I will draw that supplementary question to his attention also. Senator ELSTOB —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security tell the Senate whether the reduction in the number of people registered as unemployed in the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey is matched by a comparable drop in the number receiving unemployment benefit? Can he say which States have been responsible for the greatest reduction in unemployment? Senator GRIMES —As it happens, I do know that the fall in the number of people on unemployment benefit does match the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on those who are unemployed. The unemployment benefit statistics are very important, as Senator Elstob knows, because they are exact measurements of the number of people receiving benefits rather than the estimates that are given by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In the years just prior to our coming into government we used to watch very carefully, honourable senators will remember, the number of people on unemployment benefit because the increases in those days of people on benefit used to precede the startling increases demonstrated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. As it happens, since November 1983 there has been a drop of 111,000 people on unemployment benefit. At the moment there are approximately 518,000 people receiving unemployment benefit in the community. When one considers the increases in the work force, this reflects the large number of jobs that have been created since this Government came to power and in fact matches the fall in unemployment statistics of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. As Senator Elstob well knows, the biggest decreases in those areas happen to have been in the States of Victoria and South Australia. That is obviously because of the general growth in employment and in the economy in Australia, but also because of the good management of the governments in those two States. I think that will be reflected in the forthcoming events in South Australia. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is the Government aware that a report published by Mr Paul Parker of the Australian National University estimates that government subsidies given to the Tasmanian export woodchip industry total $10m to $15m per annum? This represents $5 per tonne or 10 per cent of the value of the woodchips exported. How can this Government call on the European Economic Community to stop subsidising its farm exports while doing nothing about its woodchip subsidy, which is probably in contravention of our international trade obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the report published by Mr Paul Parker of the ANU which estimates that government subsidies total $10m to $15m per year. I will direct Senator Siddons's question to the Minister for Trade in an attempt to obtain a satisfactory answer for him. I must say regarding the last part of the question about why the Government can call on the EEC to stop subsidising farm exports while doing nothing about subsidies for woodchips that the answer is quite easy: Australian governments have been calling on the EEC for years. The level of subsidy in respect of most matters that we complain about is considerably higher than any figure that Senator Siddons has suggested in respect of the woodchip industry. We should not delude ourselves that the level of subsidies to a wide range of Australian industries is of some magnitude, and that is a matter which has to be continually addressed. Senator FOREMAN —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services advise what property holdings the Commonwealth has in South Africa and the expected expenditure in 1985-86 on property services in that country? Senator GIETZELT —Some questions were asked at the Estimates Committee hearings about overseas property which was owned or leased by the Commonwealth. My brief informs me that with respect to property expenditure in South Africa some 23 properties are either owned or leased by the Commonwealth. In Pretoria the Commonwealth owns three residences and leases 10 including an office in which the Chancery is located. In Cape Town three residences are owned and two are leased, as well as an office for the consulate. In Johannesburg two residences are owned and an office for the trade commissioner is leased. Projected expenditure on property services in South Africa for 1985-86 is $421,000. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of Senator Button's stated opposition to monopolies, amalgamations and conglomerates, will he give an assurance that in the guidelines the Government is bringing down on industry superannuation schemes it will ensure that the superannuation industry will be controlled by registered life insurance agents and life insurance companies and it will not allow the biggest monopoly in Australia to be formed by giving the Australian Council of Trade Unions full control of the $3 billion premium income a year from the industrial superannuation scheme? Senator BUTTON —I congratulate Senator Boswell on his awareness of my well-stated opposition to monopolies, amalgamations and mergers-I think he said. Senator Boswell —Conglomerates. Senator BUTTON —Conglomerates. I thank the honourable senator; I had forgotten about that but I am very grateful to be reminded. I appreciate it. I have been asked a couple of questions about superannuation. The first was whether I will ensure that appropriate life officer people-I do not know who the appropriate people are-will be in charge of these schemes. I cannot give any such assurance. I am asked whether there will be full ACTU control of these schemes. It has never sought that so I imagine it is unlikely there will be. However, these matters will be subject to negotiation in the next few weeks. As I indicated earlier today in Question Time, as soon as the guidelines are fully in place the Government will advise the Senate of that fact. Senator MAGUIRE —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that economic growth and new job generation are major questions in South Australia at present? Does the Minister have any new indicators on the national economy and, in particular, on South Australia? If so, does the information further confirm the strong economic recovery both in Australia and South Australia under the policies of Commonwealth and State Labor governments? Senator WALSH —In the year ending November 1985-that is, of course, the period for which most recent figures are available-the number of people in South Australia on unemployment benefit fell by 7.6 per cent or, if honourable senators want the absolute numbers, from 52,600-odd to 48,900-odd. That decline was significantly faster than the decline in the national rate of unemployment beneficiaries which fell by some 6.8 per cent. South Australia is doing a bit more than holding up its end which is more than I can say for a couple of other States, one of which shares a common border with South Australia and is to the north east and is consistently dragging down the rest of the country on almost any economic index one can think of. The latest information on bankruptcies from the Attorney-General's Department-I give this as another economic indicator-is that the number of bankruptcies in South Australia in the first three-quarters of 1985 was only 544 which is the lowest figure for those nine months since 1977, before the Fraser-Howard team had done its demolition job on the Australian economy and economic growth. In the last 12 months there have also been very substantial increases in employment in retail sales, motor vehicle registrations and private investment. By contrast, the three years leading up to 1982 in South Australia produced massive job losses and rising unemployment rates. For example, South Australia had the highest unemployment rate of all the mainland States for 33 consecutive months. Happily that situation has been turned around and the South Australian economy is slightly more than keeping up with the rest of the country in terms of virtually any economic indicator that matters. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the forecast by the Treasurer that Australia's inflation rate will fall next year which is in conflict with the criteria on which the Government's recent Forward Estimates were based. This was that the conventional measure of the underlying inflation rate will be 7 per cent next year representing no reduction whatsoever from the Budget forecast of 7 per cent for the implicit price deflater for non-farm gross domestic product for the current financial year. In view of this conflict and of the even worse 2.6 per cent quarterly underlying inflation rate revealed so far this financial year in the national accounts for the September quarter alone, does the Minister still expect the underlying inflation rate to fall next year? How long will it take for the effective protection given by devaluation to Australian business against foreign competitors to be wiped out by Australia's inflation rate which now ranges between double and treble that of our major trading partners? Senator BUTTON —It has always been said that the effects of devaluation would wash through the system by the end of calendar year 1986. Senator Baume has confused the Treasurer's statement of, I think, Sunday on the declining inflation rate next year-I think he was talking about the latter portion of next year which is consistent with what he said on other occasions-with the Forward Estimates figures. That confusion reflects more on Senator Baume than on the Treasurer. I will look at the Treasurer's remarks, ask him about the matter and give Senator Baume an answer as soon as possible. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.20) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group, as we have come to expect from Mr Justice Stewart, is a massive one. He has made inquiries into the Clark syndicate and its ramifications. In dealing with the report I do not propose to go into any detail. Indeed, in the five minutes alotted to me for discussion of the report this afternoon I do not have the time to do so. The interesting aspect of the report of the Royal Commission is the way in which the Royal Commission rejects the allegations of the connection between the Nugan Hand Bank and the Central Intelligence Agency, of the bank's connection with arms running, gun running, and of the claim that it was a major drug trafficker, although some of its activities may have involved the laundering of funds for drug syndicates. The interesting aspect of this matter is that these charges were made by the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, when he was Leader of the Opposition at another time. In fact, he made these very dramatic allegations about Nugan Hand in April 1982. I think it is fair to say that if those allegations had not been made by Mr Hayden there would not have been the extension of the terms of reference of Mr Justice Stewart to include the activities of Nugan Hand. The findings of the Royal Commission on Nugan Hand reveal an organisation which was totally inept and dishonest. People with very little ability took part in criminal activities. Unfortunately, it has become a familiar picture where people such as that want to big-note themselves and become involved in setting up a merchant bank and in other commercial activities of a highly dubious, if not criminal, kind. There was a lot of publicity about this bank and the criminal activities of those who led it. The matters could have been dealt with quite satisfactorily by a police task force-there were ones in existence at the time-a law enforcement body, a police force itself or by inquiries from corporate affairs commissions. There were perfectly adequate bodies available to investigate an organisation of this kind. The organisation received a lot of publicity. The present Minister for Foreign Affairs, the then Leader of the Opposition, tried to get in on the act. He made extravagant accusations and claims which got him some headlines and created such a hullabaloo that the then Government decided the best thing to do was to refer the matter to Mr Justice Stewart who was already very heavily and deeply engaged in a major inquiry into the Clark syndicate. The reality is-this is evident from the report which has just been tabled and the study of which will certainly repay such consideration-that there is really no objective evidence concerning these allegations. The evidence by various witnesses concerning the allegations to the effect that there was CIA involvement was, in fact, backed up by the objective evidence that there was no such involvement. There was a vast increase in the expenditure of public money by extending the terms of reference of Mr Justice Stewart to deal with allegations which, as I said, were made by the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, all of which could have been perfectly and properly dealt with-or at least the allegations concerning the dealings of this company could have-by an ordinary law enforcement agency, of which there were many involved in similar activities and inquiries at the time. I think that this represents a very good example of how politicians should be very careful about coming into this chamber or the other place and making wild allegations and forcing special inquiries to be made into them when, as we have found in this case, the royal commission finds that there is no substance at all in the allegations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.25) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The 1984-85 annual report of the Australian Postal Commission is the tenth annual report of one of Australia's largest public enterprises. I think that in debating this report today we should take note of that fact. The Commission made an operating surplus for the year under review of $24.5m. I note that it is one of the few postal services in the world which does return an operating surplus. The Commission is one of Australia's major employers-in fact, it is probably in the top 10 employers in the country-with a full time official staff of over 34,200. When the previous Government was in power under Mr Fraser and Mr Howard, the then Minister for Communications, Mr N. A. Brown, had two reports before him: First, the report of the Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission and, secondly, the report of the Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunication Services in Australia (1982). Both of those reports raised some very concerning questions in Australia. Both reports proposed the end of cross-subsidisation in the Australian telecommunications and postal services. I am pleased to say that cross-subsidisation, which involves the subsidisation of costly services involving telephones and letters in country areas by metropolitan users, where most of the revenue for services is earned, was rejected. The end of cross-subsidisation was rejected by the Australian Labor Party in opposition. We made a pledge in the 1983 election that we would reject the proposal to end cross-subsidisation. I am very pleased to say that the Bradley report and the Davidson report were consigned to the dustbin of history. What is of major concern to me is that the Liberal Party of Australia is now at it again. It is now on the privatisation kick. Australia's major public enterprises such as Australia Post, Telecom Australia, Qantas Airways Ltd and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia are at risk because of this ideological position which is being taken by the Liberal Party on the question of privatisation. As Australia Post points out at page 14 of its report which has been tabled today, privatisation is no real option for the postal system in this country. Mr Howard, the present Leader of the Liberal Party, has made great play of the policy of privatisation; that is, the sale of public enterprises at bargain basement prices. The Liberal Party would sell off Australia's most profitable public enterprises because that suits its rhetoric and dogma. The Liberal Party puts the line that public enterprise must be necessarily unprofitable and inefficient and if it can sell Australia's profitable public enterprises it fits perfectly with its dogma about the waste and inefficiency which necessarily follow from public sector activity. Of course, that is a line which we in the Labor Party reject totally. It is of major concern to me now that privatisation has intruded into the South Australian election campaign. Not only do we have the Howard-led Opposition in Canberra proposing the sale of Australia's major public enterprises-I must admit that it is very hard to pin down exactly which ones it would sell because the list changes almost daily-but also its mad policy is now being embraced wholeheartedly by the current Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, Mr John Olsen. In a desperate scramble to try to win the election next Saturday in South Australia, Mr Olsen is following the policies of privatisation laid down by the Federal Liberal Party. He is proposing to sell off the South Australian Oil and Gas Corporation Pty Ltd and other major assets, including the substantial assets of the South Australian Housing Trust which has been Australia's most impressive public housing institution in the post-war period. Mr Olsen, like the Federal Liberal Party, would sell public assets in a desperate scramble to try to find revenues for reductions in taxation expenditure. Of course, public sector jobs are at risk as a result of those policies. Indeed, in a recent speech the Deputy President of this chamber said that public sector jobs would go as a result of privatisation policies. Of course, privatisation means enormous dangers for country people in Australia, the danger of higher prices for postal and telecommunication services, consumer rip-offs and poor standards of service. All of those are some of the major dangers from the privatisation policies which are being espoused by both Mr Howard and the Opposition in South Australia. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.30) —What comes out of the annual report of the Australian Postal Commission is the sheer size of the operation. Over 3,100 million articles were handled in 1984-85. If one were working a six-day week, one would actually be handling 10 million articles every working day. Australia Post employs, directly and indirectly, around 45,286 people, including both permanent officers and the people who serve in branch post offices and agencies. The report mentions that the post office is now looking at enhanced career structures and devolution of authority into regional areas. This is particularly important because it means that local services can be developed and subsidised by the more lucrative central facilities which are offered in the cities. I too would like to join Senator Maguire in deploring the fact that the Liberal Party of Australia is considering privatisation. Privatisation has been explicitly rejected on several occasions in the report, and reference is made to the fact that country services, particularly in outer regions, would probably not be maintained at the right level by people who would buy Australia Post. The subsidy is very high, particularly in the area of the registered publication services, which helps a number of voluntary organisations within our community. There is also an enormous subsidy on the long range haul services to the country and into the outback. However, the Australian Postal Commission made a profit last year after the Prices Surveillance Authority suggested some modified increased charges as a result of its inquiry into operations and pricing within the Commission. Some new services which I think are worth looking at are the express courier service and the priority paid services, in which there has been a strong growth. This may have been due to the fact that the normal services are no longer within the declared service parameters which Australia Post advertises; so people are relying more and more upon the courier and priority paid services. Perth and New South Wales have suffered in these areas. In fact, 31 per cent of articles going to Perth are delivered late. My State of South Australia, however, has a very good record. Around 99 per cent of articles in both these classes have been delivered on time. I compliment our local officer on that. Eventually, from questions asked in the Estimates Committee, we managed to find out why the Perth services were so poor. The reason was simply that the airlines had no sensible contracts with the post office and no penalty clauses applied to the airlines if they did not deliver the articles on time. The Government still has not said what it will do to solve the problem, nor has Australia Post. I call on them to do something pretty quickly about introducing standards and penalty clauses in the negotiation of new contracts with airlines, particularly on the east-west run. I conclude by saying that, according to the Prices Surveillance Authority report last year, we pay 1c extra on every letter because of the cost of industrial disputation in New South Wales. That is really a problem for the post office to tackle and to handle as soon as possible. I call upon the Commission to do something about it pretty quickly. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.35) —The Senate is noting the annual report of the Australian Postal Commission. We have had one highly political and, I think, selective contribution from an honourable senator from South Australia and another rather less highly political and selective contribution. For the suggestion to be made by a South Australian Labor senator that there is no cause for concern about the Australian Postal Commission I think leaves most consumers in a rather puzzled position. Obviously, the honourable senator concerned has not been listening to the speeches made by his Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who has made some very critical comments about the state of the postal service and the need for a totally different attitude to be adopted if, in fact, the Commission is to survive in its role. I find myself very puzzled by the first contribution to this debate, which seemed to ignore the very substantial and obvious difficulties that have emerged in the operations of the Australian Postal Commission during both the period of the annual report for 1984-85 and since. It was also a matter of regret that Senator Maguire, for the short term electoral interests he represents in this place, tried to suggest that there was an ignoring of the national obligation that we on this side of the chamber have to maintain a postal and communications service for remote Australia. Of course, it was the previous Government which entered into the commitment to take Australia into the satellite age. That decision was very heavily influenced by our desire to ensure that Australians in very remote parts of Australia, including remote parts of South Australia and certainly in my State of Western Australia, have a service which is comparable to that which can be received by the great bulk of Australians who live in the metropolitan capitals. I think this debate ought to focus on the acknowledgment that there is a need for an efficient, national postal service and that, largely because of trade union action, over recent times and particularly in the State of New South Wales, the standards of performance have fallen below what is properly expected by consumers and by the responsibile Minister, Mr Duffy. I think Mr Duffy has made his position very clear, and I acknowledge that. I wish him well in his efforts to root out some of the sillier practices which have so reduced the performance of the Postal Commission, particularly in New South Wales. No proposition is being put forward at either the Federal or State level by the Liberal Party of Australia or the National Party of Australia which would admit to there being a reduction in the services provided to remote Australia. I think remote Australia has generally shown by its voting pattern what it thinks of the various sides of politics. People in remote Australia know that the Liberal and National Parties have a very keen concern to ensure that services to those areas are maintained. I acknowledge in this debate that in the operations of the Australian Postal Commission-including the periods when we have been in government-there are significant practical difficulties in providing an adequate postal service to remote Australia. I do not know whether Senator Maguire has any real knowledge of the remoter parts of Australia, but certainly what he had to say showed no signs that he has. In fact, under the system whereby the Postal Commission has had to arrange for the contract delivery of services, it is a continual difficulty to ensure regular services in areas which are often very difficult to reach. If one travels by road through the pastoral areas of Western Australia, for example, and indeed through the Pilbara in Western Australia, one soon begins to understand the sorts of road conditions which make the delivery of this essential service difficult. We on this side of the chamber are very much aware of that matter. I welcome the fact that attempts have been made to break down some of the very significant difficulties the Postal Commission has faced. The very substantial revision of the postal sorting arrangements, for example, in New South Wales I think would have unanimous support in this place because of the very bad working environment which was developed in the highly centralised postal sorting arrangements which applied. I think most Australians would say that there is a clear obligation on the Parliament and the government of the day to maintain a national postal service. I think most Australians would also say that the admitting of some of those services to a greater degree of competition from the outside has been a positive step in the right direction. The massive use of couriers and delivery services by Australians is a very good indication of the value of providing some competitive element in this area. I suggest that Senator Maguire might address his attention to that matter instead of making silly and short term contributions which are aimed at the short term election situation in South Australia. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.41) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The International Monetary Fund was established in 1945 to promote international monetary co-operation and to provide temporary financing for member countries experiencing balance of payment difficulties, thereby promoting an orderly exchange arrangement. Australia is one of the 148 member countries of the International Monetary Fund and as such our quota determines both our obligation to provide resources to the IMF, and our voting power, and our entitlements to financing facilities and to receive allocations for special drawing rights from the IMF. Australia's financial transactions with the Fund in 1984-85 included incurring a maintenance of value obligation to the Fund and the use of the Australian dollar under the Fund's quarterly operational budgets and payment of SDR charges. It is to these three particular aspects that I wish to direct the Senate's attention. The SDR is an international reserve asset created by the Fund whose value is defined and calculated as the value of five major currencies-the United States of America dollar, the Deutschmark, the Japanese yen, the French franc and the pound sterling. In July, the falling value of the Australian dollar against the value of the SDR necessitated the payment by Australia to the Fund of a considerable amount of money-$548,586,365.99-in order to maintain the SDR value of the Fund's holding of the Australian dollar. This is a tremendous price to pay for a falling Australian dollar. In other words, if the value of a member's currency depreciates against the SDR in the course of a year, the member has to increase the amount of the currency which has been lodged with the Fund. This is just a price that the Australian Government has had to pay for the falling Australian dollar and for its poor economic management. This payment was made by issuing to the Fund an Australian dollar denominated, non-interest bearing and non-negotiable promissory note to the value of $480,352,012.28 by crediting the remaining amount to the accounts that the Reserve Bank of Australia holds on behalf of the Fund. Again, one of the problems we have to acknowledge is that this indebtedness not only creates increased obligations to outside organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, but also that our interest payments to foreign financiers for public sector accounts or debts totalled $1.9 billion in 1984-85. Of course, our growing borrowings impose an increasing strain on Australia's balance of payments. The more money the Government soaks out of the domestic capital market, the less that is available to the private sector market. I would also like to quote from the accompanying Press statement from the International Monetary Fund, which says: While the external debt problems of many developing countries remain serious, the Committee felt that good progress had been made in the implementation of the co-ordinated strategy of debtors and creditors to tackle these problems within the framework of adjustment programs-a development that has been facilitated by the recovery in world trade. The Committee stressed that a satisfactory resolution of debt problems would continue to require close co-operation among all parties concerned. In this connection, it is important that reasonable economic growth be maintained in industrial countries, that real interest rates come down . . . The Press release states further: The major industrial countries have a special responsibility to pursue policies that result in noninflationary growth, and permit developing countries adequate access to markets. I think this is a real lesson that Australia has to acknowledge in this particular area. On the other hand, the borrowing countries themselves have to make a fundamental contribution by perservering with programs of economic adjustment that strengthen their external position-another lesson for Australia from the IMF. In conclusion, I would like to mention the problem that the interest and principal repayments on our burgeoning debt has increased at a very rapid rate from $1 billion in 1974-75 to $10 billion in 1984-85. One of the problems with this increasing overseas indebtedness in that the funds have been used increasingly for current consumption rather than for productive investment. The fastest growing element of that is the Commonwealth sector-the Government sector-in this burgeoning deficit. Until the Government takes appropriate steps to overcome this problem, we are going to have a serious economic crisis in this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.47) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I believe the Australian Tourist Commission annual report 1984-85 is a most interesting report. The Chairman of the Commission at the time of preparation of the report, Mr Peter Derham-he has now retired as Chairman-is to be congratulated, together with his staff, General Manager John Rowe and all those people who work not only in Australia for the Australian Tourist Commission but also in overseas posts. It is interesting to note that the report states: For the first time visitor arrivals exceeded one million, up 7.5 per cent on the 1983 figure. Traffic for December alone totalled 125,700-a record for any one month . . . The report indicates that the growth in visitor arrivals from Japan is up 22.4 per cent to 87,000, that arrivals from the United States of America increased by 21,000 to 161,000-a rise of 14.9 per cent-and traffic from Asia, excluding Japan, rose by 10.6 per cent. During the year, the Singapore and the Philippines markets also recorded particularly good growth. For those who are interested in the promotion of tourism, it is interesting to see just how the Australian Tourist Commission has carried out its promotion. Perhaps honourable senators have seen the efforts of the advertising agency, Mojo Australia, which has used the creative talents, as the report says, of Mr Paul Hogan. They have been tremendous advertisements which have been circulated around the world and which have brought tremendous recognition to Australia. They are certainly ads to be commended. A matter of extreme importance to Australia's developing tourism is the projection of Australia as a safe, attractive and friendly destination. During the period covered by the report the Australian Tourist Commission received very many major awards, as has the present Chairman of the Commission, Mr John Haddad. Another organisation which received an award was the Yalara Town Authority. Yalara is to be commended. It has been the subject of much criticism but it is up and away and the fact that it has won a distinction so early in its operations indicates that in future Yalara will play a very important part in Australian tourism. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under sessional order for the consideration of Government papers has expired. As there is no General Business this Thursday, I will accept motions to take note of any of the remaining papers. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Bill presented by Senator Kilgariff, and read a first time. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.54) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- When the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was passed by this Parliament, some nine years ago, it was hailed as one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to be considered in the field of Aboriginal affairs. It was also said at the time that the legislation to grant land rights to Aboriginals in the Northern Territory would be a most significant and progressive step in the social and political history of this country. It would, at long last, signal Australia's acceptance of Aboriginals as a people having a unique and distinct culture within Australian society. Indeed, many saw the Northern Territory Act as the forerunner to acceptance of land rights legislation throughout the whole of Australia. The fundamental principle of the Land Rights Act was to encourage Aboriginals in the Northern Territory to give full expression to their affinity with the land, that characterises their traditional society and gives a unique quality to their way of life, by granting them inalienable freehold title to their traditional lands. The land would be theirs in perpetuity for the enjoyment of this and future generations. Nine years ago there was considerable support throughout the Australian community for Aboriginal land rights. The basic philosophy of the Land Rights Act in extending inalienable freehold title was accepted and seen as essential for the preservation of this unique part of Australian society. However, today this is not the case. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act has created divisiveness in the Australian community and open resentment of the benefits extended to Aboriginals which are not enjoyed by other Australians. This has been most unfortunate as the main reason for this changed attitude has not in essence been aversion to Aboriginals being granted land, but to the manner in which, and the extent to which, land claims have been made with little regard to the needs and aspirations of other Australians. In the Northern Territory we have witnessed wholesale severance of land to the degree that nearly half of the land mass of the Northern Territory is either now held by Aboriginal interests, or is under Aboriginal land claim. This has led to the development of severe racial tensions in the Territory and turned the community against the principles and intentions of the Land Rights Act. I do not believe that it was the intention of the original proponents of the Act for this to happen. The intentions surely were to recognise the special social and cultural aspirations of the Aboriginal people and to implement policies for the betterment of those people which could effectively coexist with public and private business sector initiatives and which would be readily accepted by the community at large. Despite those well intentioned and honourable objectives it is an undeniable fact that in practice the Land Rights Act is not working and is in need of change. That change does not have to interfere with the underlying commitment to granting title to Aboriginals in respect of their traditional lands, where those needs can appropriately be met, but to the manner and basis on which land may be claimed and, following the grant of title, administered. I have lived in the Northern Territory for most of my life and have always held a deep commitment to furthering the well-being of the Aboriginal people. In the early years following introduction of the Land Rights Act I was pleased to witness the development in Aboriginal communities of a sense of purpose and desire on the part of Aboriginal people to have a real and effective say in the management of their lives. To this extent the Act has obviously made some worthwhile contribution to meeting the needs of the Aboriginal people, but I ask you at what cost? I have been saddened by the racial disharmony that has now eventuated from the operations of the Act. In the first instance we witnessed a commitment to Aboriginal people which would lead to their acceptance as an integral part of the Australian community. By the very operation of the Act on which this assumption was based we now see again their deterioration of status within the white community. We therefore have to ask ourselves whether land rights has gone too far. Is it defeating the original purposes, and if so, what can we do about it? Over recent years I have witnessed the development of racial tensions not only in the Northern Territory, but over the whole country. I believe that there has been a general lessening of support within the Australian community for certain Aboriginal policies. I am quite convinced that the disharmony which has developed is directly related to the concept of Aboriginal land expressed in its present form in the land rights Act. In the Territory, the legislation has led to the granting to Aboriginal people, or claiming, of title to land, which includes stock routes on pastoral leases, reserves, national parks, public rivers, roads and so on. This has created divisions and resentment and, most of all, has created unacceptable uncertainty. For instance, pastoralists with stock routes running through their land can never be sure that a claim will not be lodged on those stock routes. The effect of such claims could be to fragment the pastoral property, sometimes literally cutting the property in half. Mining interests can never be sure that, if they proceed with expensive and time consuming exploration for minerals on land which is available at the time, their efforts will not be thwarted by the effective right of veto which Aboriginal organisations have over land use in the Territory under the current legislation. Figures from the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines bear witness to that fact. Since the introduction of the land rights legislation in 1976 no new mining operation, aside from the Tanami gold project, has been commenced in the Territory on Aboriginal land or land under claim. This is largely attributable to the difficulty which the legislation causes those mining interests which might wish to proceed with exploration and development. In almost ten years, despite the fact that over 175 applications have been under consideration in respect of Aboriginal land, only one new mining permit has been granted. This is a situation which cannot be allowed to continue. Many of you will have heard me speak on pastoral and mining difficulties on Aboriginal land before and my words may sound familiar and repetitious. I make no apologies for raising those matters again. The economic and overall future development of the Territory is heavily dependent on continued growth within those two essential industries and it is important that something be done to alleviate their problems and regenerate their activities. That is not to say that this must be done to the exclusion of all other interests. Government land use policies must take account of the various competing interests concerned and government must adopt management objectives which allow for appropriate recognition of public and private sector requirements, whilst at the same time fostering the reasonable aspirations and expectations of the Aboriginal people. I do not accept the argument that these interests are necessarily mutually exclusive and that an integrated land use policy is unobtainable. In recent years there have been repeated attacks on the land rights legislation and calls for amendment of the Act from a wide variety of community interests. It could be said that a number of those representations have been made on ill-conceived contentions and can be easily put aside. However, there have been many that have put forward genuine grievances, substantiating the fact that the Act is operating on too self-centred a basis to the detriment of wider community needs. This contention is no more exemplified than through recent observations made by none other than Mr Justice Woodward, the principal architect of the original land rights legislation. Mr Justice Woodward was reported as having questioned, during a recent address at the Australian legal convention, as to whether land rights had gone too far. Mr Justice Woodward was further reported as having recommended that Aboriginal land councils and their advisers give careful thought to the extent of future claims and even consider the advisability of foregoing or surrendering some land already claimed or granted. Clearly, Mr Justice Woodward supports the contention that all is not well in the land rights arena and that there is need for review. The confusion and anxiety in relation to land rights throughout the Australian community is an undeniable result of the present Federal Government's procrastination. The Federal Government has admitted that the Act is in need of change, but its ministers and advisers are clearly unable to come to any agreement within their own ranks as to how best to deal with the issues. They continue to vacillate on proposed amendments. The Government has had the benefit of Mr Justice Toohey's findings on his review of the Act for two years. We have continually been informed that as a result of the Toohey report the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs intends to make appropriate amendments to the Act. However, the Minister has been saying this for some time and many of us doubt his intentions, or the ability of the Federal Government, in that regard. Quite simply, none of us, Aboriginal or otherwise knows what to expect from the present Federal Government. I believe that we cannot allow this procrastination to continue any longer, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act must be made to work efficiently and effectively to the benefit of all concerned. If the present Federal Government is not prepared to look to its obligations and responsibilities then someone must do it for them. It is for this reason that I have decided to introduce this Bill to amend the Act. I would now like to take the opportunity to explain the main amendments to the Act which I have proposed in the Bill. Mining The most significant and perhaps controversial changes suggested are those associated with mining activities on Aboriginal land. The Bill repeals all of the current mining provisions of the Act and replaces them with entirely new regulatory procedures. Mining has been, and will continue to be, a major contributor to the economic development of this country. Its progress over the years has been encouraged by both Federal and State Governments on the presumption of exploration and mining taking place, subject to appropriate controls to protect land owners, the environment and the public interest. Experience has shown that any policies which depart from that presumption will inevitably retard development and deter investment, cutting off a major source of government revenue, export earnings and economic stimulus. Mining industry activities in the Northern Territory have been paralysed by the existing legislation. The main contributing factor to this situation has been the power of ``veto'' which can be exercised by Aboriginal traditional owners with regard to any exploration or mining proposal. This has led to excessive financial demands for consent to exploration and mining proposals, intended imposition of unrealistic and inappropriate conditions on exploration and mining activities, protracted agreement negotiations with land councils and unnecessary moratoriums on the processing of mining applications pending determination of land claims. Although minerals on Aboriginal land, by virtue of the Act, are owned by the Crown, title to explore for and mine those minerals can only be granted with the consent of the relevant land council. This in fact means that traditional owners have de facto ownership and control of minerals on or under their land. That is a right not enjoyed by other private land owners in the Northern Territory and most other parts of Australia. Practice has shown that a land council will not consent on behalf of the Aboriginal traditional owners until an agreement has been reached with the miner on the terms and conditions under which exploration and mining will take place and the compensation monies to be paid. By requiring agreements to be negotiated in this manner land councils have been using the ``veto'' provisions of the Act to hold miners to ransom. Excessive financial incentives for consent are being demanded which have little or no regard to assessment of compensation in real terms which in respect of other private land is related to loss or damage of the land. The right to ``veto'' applications under the existing legislation negates the principle of Crown ownership of minerals and the responsibility of government for resource management in the interest of all territorians. It is a provision which I believe cannot continue to be supported and must be removed. If it is removed, Aboriginals' interests would still be sufficiently protected by the mechanisms necessary for entering into compensation agreements with miners and consultation processes which must take place. The Bill which you have before you will remove the `veto' provisions but will make it compulsory for a miner to enter into an agreement with the Land Council before any mining interest can be granted. Unlike the existing legislation, under the amendments I have proposed, the matters which may be negotiated and incorporated in agreements will be prescribed in the Act. Those matters concern- (a) compensation payments which must be assessed in the same manner as for other private land (i.e. loss or damage); (b) guidelines to be adopted by the miner for identification and protection of Aboriginal sacred sites; (c) employment opportunities to be offered to Aboriginals by the miner; (d) the method of distribution of compensation payments to traditional owners; (e) security or bond provisions to secure compliance with prescribed conditions of the mining interest; (f) provision for restoration work and the like to be completed by the Land Council where the miner fails to do that work, with the cost thereof being a debt due and recoverable by the Land Council from the miner, and (g) arbitration process to determine all disputes relating to compliance with the prescribed conditions of the mining interest. A limit of twelve months has been placed on the agreement negotiation process. If the negotiations are not completed within that time, either party has the right to refer the matter to arbitration for decision. The decision of the arbitrator is to be binding on both parties but will not compel the miner to proceed with the grant of the mining interest. For the purposes of arbitration on agreements, or for determining disputes in relation to compliance with conditions where no other arbitration process has been agreed to, the Bill provides for the Warden's Court established under the Northern Territory Mining Act to be the arbitrator. Placing the role of arbitration with the Northern Territory Warden's Court has been done in the interests of appropriate expertise and cost savings. The Warden's Court is an established institution with established procedures and experience in the mining field and is an established court hierarchy within the Territory legal system. I see no reason why some other special tribunal to arbitrate on mining matters under the Land Rights Act should be used when an acceptable alternative exists. The setting up of a specialist tribunal would require additional government expenditure and would not have any advantages over and above the Warden's Court. Prescribing in the Act those matters which may only be negotiated in agreements, and limiting those matters to realistic and appropriate considerations, will overcome what hitherto has been a major contributing factor to agreements being delayed, and at best finalised after many years of negotiations. In the interests of overcoming other potential avenues for delay I have also made provision in the Bill for the Act to prescribe certain conditions which must be included in the grant of a mining interest. These cover matters which have previously been revealed as being of particular concern to Aboriginals in coping with possible exploration or mining activities on their land. Those conditions, prescribed in greater detail in the Bill, will ensure that a miner, his servants or agents, shall- (a) have regard to the aspirations and welfare of Aboriginals; (b) not interfere with Aboriginal sacred sites; (c) not bring firearms onto the land; (d) not bring alcohol onto the land except for consumption by employees; (e) not bring animals onto the land without permission; (f) employ as many Aboriginals as practicable; (g) adjust working hours of Aboriginal employees to suit their culture; (h) rehabilitate disturbed land in accordance with good environmental practice; (i) liaise with traditional owners on all work programs; (j) comply with government directions for protection of the environment; and (k) comply with government directions on waste disposal. The final mining change in the Bill relates to access to Aboriginal land by the holder of a mining interest. This is covered in two parts. Firstly in ensuring ingress and egress to the mining interest area by the shortest practicable route. Secondly, by prescribing an entitlement to a right of way for all reasonable ancillary purposes in connection with the operations to be conducted under the mining interest. A right of way is to extend to access for or in connection with- (a) conveyor apparatus for transporting minerals; (b) electricity lines and roads; (c) water races or drains; and (d) obtaining water supplies. Both forms of access must be by agreement with the Land Council. In respect of right of way if agreement cannot be reached the matter may be referred to the Warden's Court for determination. Compensation is to be paid to the Aboriginal traditional owners in respect of a right of way and again, as for the grant of a mining interest, compensation is limited to normal private land assessment for loss of or damage to the land. Before leaving the mining section and passing on to other issues in the Bill, I would like to assure honourable members that nothing that I have proposed in the mining amendments will dilute in any way the existing provisions of the law relating to the protection of Aboriginal sacred sites. Aboriginal sacred sites will retain the full protection that the Land Rights Act and the laws of the Northern Territory currently offer. No miner will be exonerated from the obligation to protect known sacred sites in the strictest sense possible. Land Claims Under the Act as it now stands there is no cut-off date beyond which no further Aboriginal land claims may be made. There is also nothing to prevent repeat land claims being made for the same parcel of land which was previously the subject of an unsuccessful claim or claims. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act has now been in force for nine years and in that time any land that could be rightfully claimed has been. At this stage there is a considerable backlog of claims awaiting hearing by the Land Commissioner and it is going to take many more years before they can be settled. I do not believe that we can allow land claims, repeat or otherwise, to be able to continue unabated. To this time nearly half of the total land mass of the Northern Territory, including the majority of the coastline, is either now under Aboriginal land grant or subject to claim. Surely, we have to ask ourselves whether it is the intention to ultimately hand the whole of the Territory over to Aboriginal title, or is there to be some realistic and sensible cessation of the land claim process. We must face the fact that not all Aboriginals will be able to achieve the grant of title to their traditional lands. In the Territory there will be continuing need to foster the pastoral and fledgling agricultural industries, and to provide further lands for government and community requirements. These cannot be ignored to the total satisfaction of Aboriginal aspirations and expectations. I firmly believe that the time is now right to decide upon a date for cessation of land claims. In the Bill I have proposed that the effective date should be 1 July, 1986. Public Purpose Land The Land Rights Act as it now stands allows for applications for the conversion of unalienated Crown land to Aboriginal land. Some of the land which falls within the description of unalienated Crown land has been nominated over the years by the crown for any number of public purposes. These range from land set aside for the purposes of stock routes and travelling stock to uses as racecourses and for other entertainment purposes, from reserves for the erection of police stations to land for historical monuments and conservation parks, from forestry reserves to land set aside as a cemetery. It is the intention of the Bill that land so dedicated, set aside or reserved shall no longer be identified as Crown land for claim purposes. It is my intention, through this Bill, that the land specified in Schedule 5 to the Bill will not be available for conversion to Aboriginal land. This land is of two types; the first being the beds and banks of various streams and estuaries which would otherwise be available for claim; the second being the remaining foreshore areas of the Territory which are not already Aboriginal land. There is already more than 60% of the coastline of the Northern Territory to which more than 75% of the population (including many Aboriginals) have effectively been denied access because it is Aboriginal land. This, in proportional terms, would in New South Wales be equivalent to depriving something in the order of the population of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong of access to a stretch of coastline from Batemans Bay to Coff's Harbour or, in Victoria, the population of Melbourne, Geelong and the Latrobe Valley of access from the South Australian border to Wilson's Promontory. I do not believe that exclusion of this magnitude would be considered a fair thing or, indeed, be politically tolerated in either of those states. I also firmly believe that the right to enjoy the coastline by the majority of territorians should not be further eroded from that undesirable poisition which already exists. My Bill is designed to prevent that. Leasehold Conversions Most Australians will recognise that Aboriginals have played an important part in the establishment of the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory and other parts of Australia and I pay tribute to them for this role. Indeed, until fairly recent times it could be said that they effectively subsidised the industry through their cheap labour. As a result of their participation in the industry population groups were established on pastoral properties, sometimes quite away from their traditional areas. Many of those involved in the industry have acquired skills which have equipped them to seriously contemplate running pastoral leases of their own and both the previous Commonwealth Government and the present one have encouraged the purchase of properties for this purpose. In my view it is in the interest of all Australians and, in the long run, of the Aboriginals concerned, that acquired pastoral properties should continue to be conducted as pastoral enterprises. However, as the Land Rights Act at present stands such properties are susceptible to conversion to Aboriginal land and not always for the benefit of those who are suited to operating them as productive units. One of the purposes of my Bill is to remove from the possibility of conversion to Aboriginal land pastoral leases held by or for the benefit of Aboriginals and by so doing, hopefully, ensure that large areas of the Territory remain as productive land for the benefit of the economy as a whole. There is however a trade-off in my proposal, a trade-off that was in the course of being negotiated between the Territory and Commonwealth Governments in 1982. The Territory in 1983 introduced a system of pastoral tenure which would allow qualifying pastoralists to convert their leases from a term of years to perpetual leasehold tenure. That tenure is seen as a more acceptable basis on which to plan and develop the pastoral industry. The conditions on which such conversions are permitted however are quite onerous requiring in part the demonstration of sufficient financial resources to ensure compliance with lease conditions. It was seen that Aboriginal pastoral leaseholders would not always have access to resources to enable them to avail themselves of the conversion and a scheme had been suggested whereby the Commonwealth would guarantee the necessary condition requirements to enable the Territory to grant the new titles. Clause 13 of the Bill is designed to bring that arrangement into effect when the corresponding Northern Territory provisions are in place. I should emphasise that the scheme is completely elective and depends on agreement in each particular case. Some Aboriginals may not be interested in converting their tenure. Others may be able to do so relying on means other than under the scheme. Acquisition for Public Purposes When the Land Rights Act was passed the Commonwealth reserved to itself the right to acquire under a law of the Commonwealth, Aboriginal land for public purposes. A similar power was not reserved to the Territory. The Commonwealth does not have a monopoly on good works. There are even some in the Territory (those of a less charitable disposition I hasten to say) who suspect the Commonwealth's motives in the Territory completly. Whatever the historical reason for the dichotomy, it is the Northern Territory Government that is expected and expects to provide most of the community services, such as health and educational services, on Aboriginal land or for the communities that can only be serviced across Aboriginal land. It is apparently expected to fulfil its obligations without the concomitant power of acquisition which is seen as essential to enable governments in other parts of Australia to provide such services. The lack of such power has caused aberrations such as suggestions that the Territory should meet some quite unjustifiable demands for payment for the privilege of providing such services. Clauses 14 and 15 of my Bill suggest a saner approach by allowing the Territory a power of acquisition for the public purposes indicated. The Bill represents the results of careful consideration of operational difficulties and injustices which I have seen emerging from the current Aboriginal land rights legislation. I firmly believe that the Bill should be subjected to the widest possible scrutiny and debate and I would welcome constructive comments and suggestions on the proposed amendments. I have a fond hope that I will see before I die all Australians treated equally before the law and with equal rights to pursue their opportunities. I believe that the creation of distinctions by statute law on the basis of race, call it traditional ownership or what you will, in the long term is not a course we should be following as a nation as a sound basis on which to be venturing into the next 200 years of our system of government. The Parliament, in my view, should not be in the business of creating cultural museums in perpetuity. Although I do not see the Land Rights Act as appropriate to remain on our statute books indefinitely, I am not so naive as to think that land rights, once so enshrined can necessarily, or should be, swept aside precipitously, and I am not in my Bill suggesting this. However, there are other means by which governments can make amends for past perceived injuries other than by the creation of legislative ``hair shirts''. It is not my desire that my grandchildren should be constantly reminded of my own shortcomings, but rather that they should be able to put such considerations aside and with all their fellow Australians strive towards a better Australian future for all rather than a more comfortable past. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Sanders) agreed to: 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. Bill presented by Senator Sanders, and read a first time. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(3.55) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to absolutely prohibit the testing of nuclear weapons in Australia and also to prohibit research into nuclear weapons and to make any such activities an offence. The significance of this Bill is that it is worded in such a way that absolutely no support will be given for any form of missile testing, nuclear weapon development, component development or the testing and research into anti ballistic missile systems. At the moment, there is no real way, in this country, to limit the development of nuclear weapons or their component parts. Over and over again, we hear of research into such programmes as SDI (Star Wars) being conducted in Australia, in some cases by commonwealth research agencies. The Government said that it would not participate in the U.S. Star Wars programme, but recent history shows that the Government is either unable or unwilling to enforce its own policies. Australia has no nuclear weapons that we know of. Our country, nevertheless, is actively engaging in research and development of nuclear weapons on behalf of the U.S. we have been involved in programmes-NAVSTAR, GEOSAT-TRIDENT II, MX. This Bill would also have the function of prohibiting visiting forces from any foreign country from participating in any prohibited nuclear weapons programmes. The Bill would also prohibit testing or research into nuclear weapons in Australia by the Commonwealth or by any person on behalf of the Commonwealth or a foreign country. The legislation would have the effect of barring such research or testing at the joint U.S./Australian facilities, such as Nurrungar, if such research is deemed to be for the purpose of development of nuclear weapons, missile systems, anti ballistic systems or component parts of these. The passage of this Bill would enshrine in law not only Democrat policy but also the Government's own oft repeated intention not to involve Australia in the development of nuclear weapons. The Hawke Government has stated that it is opposed to the ever spiralling arms-race, especially through their campaign for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Unfortunately, the Hawke Conservative Government has shown over and over again that it is not prepared to follow its own guidelines on nuclear issues. Basically they have to be forced to do the right thing. At present the world is at a watershed in terms of nuclear disarmament and world peace. Ronald Reagan and his very hawkish advisers would have us believe that the only way to achieve peace is through the construction of ever increasing numbers of nuclear weapons. Common sense dictates that this approach is wrong and extremely dangerous. Military leaders throughout history when given weapons have used them. The more weapons that are in existence, the greater the chance they will be used. It follows that the only way to eliminate the threat of nuclear war is to eliminate nuclear weapons. Opponents of peace through disarmament in Australia have often said that it really does not matter what stand Australia takes on nuclear issues because we are just a small country outside the major northern hemisphere population centres. New Zealand took a strong stand against nuclear weapons when the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, stood firm on his party's policy to ban nuclear armed ships in New Zealand ports. The action of this country, far smaller than Australia, sent shock waves around the world, frightened the U.S. and encouraged other members of the International Community to also take a stand against nuclear madness. Passage of the Nuclear Weapons (Research and Testing) Prohibitions Bill 1985 through the Australian Parliament would send a similar message to the nations of the world that we can halt the nuclear arms race by taking strong, positive action. This Bill if enacted, would close off one aspect of Australia's nuclear involvement. It would mean that any future Australian Government would have to face public debate and scrutiny, when repealing this law, should that Government wish to become involved in nuclear research or testing. It would not be possible for a future Liberal Government to secretly involve this nation in nuclear weapons research if this Bill were law. If for no other reason than this, the Government must support this Bill; to do otherwise, would be irresponsible and morally reprehensible. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) 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 all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole, and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. 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)(3.56) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- AUSTRALIAN BILL OF RIGHTS BILL 1985 It is with great pleasure that I move the introduction of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. This Bill will provide real and significant protection for rights and freedoms essential to real democracy and to the respect for human dignity in Australia. The rights and freedoms established by the Australian Bill of Rights are those rights and freedoms internationally recognised as the minimum standards to which governments should conform in dealing with individuals within their jurisdictions. I stress that a Bill of Rights only provides minimum rights which are fundamental. Other legislation in different areas can, of course, build upon these rights. The centre-piece of the Bill is the self-contained Bill of Rights in clause 8, which further implements the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. Before turning to the details of the Bill and of the Bill of Rights, I think it is vital to recall the genesis of the Bill and the history of Australia's approach to himan rights issues. Background to the Bill of Rights The starting point is the establishment of the United Nations under its Charter in 1945 and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The Universal Declaration is widely known and quoted. It sets out, in simple and inspirational terms, fundamental human, civil, political, social and economic rights. In the aftermath of the Second World War, it marked a new stage in the development of international law, dealing with the rights of individuals themselves and not just nation States. It was agreed by all who signed the Declaration, that human rights could no longer be treated as merely internal matters but were now matters of concern to all humanity. However, the Universal Declaration was not a legally binding treaty. Accordingly, using it as a starting point, work began under the auspices of the United Nations to develop more detailed and legally binding treaty obligations by which States agreed to guarantee more rights and freedoms to individuals within their borders. On the initiative of the Menzies Government, Australia was elected a member of the relevant U.N. agency, the Commission on Human Rights, in the 1950s and as such participated in the work of developing and negotiating what became the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The text of the International Covenant was unanimously concluded by Australia and 105 other countries on 16 December 1966. Honourable Members will note therefore that both the Holt and Menzies Governments participated in the development of the Covenant. Australia signed the Covenant on 18 December 1972 and began work on the steps leading to ratification. This was a matter on which there was bi-partisan policy. The Fraser Government announced early on its intention to ratify the Covenant and eventually, after several postponements, they ratified the Covenant in 1980. As part of the process preparatory to ratification of the Covenant and with the intention of bringing Australian law into conformity with its standards, Attorney-General Murphy introduced an Australian Human rights Bill in 1973 designed to implement the Covenant. This Bill lay on the table but did not formally progress. Nevertheless, it marked the commencement of the debate about the feasibility and form of a Bill of Rights for Australia. The first Attorney-General of the Fraser Government, Mr Ellicott, introduced a Human Rights Commission Bill in 1977 as an alternate means of attempting to fulfill the obligations of the Covenant. The planned Human Rights Commission was to be part of the establishment of `systematic and comprehensive' procedures to protect the rights and freedoms of Australians. As such, the first Fraser model for the HRC was to have wide powers to administratively encourage observance by both the Commonwealth and States of the standards established by the International Covenant. The 1977 Human Rights Commission Bill did not progress either. Extensive consultations with the States were entered into. Although several States, under both Labor and conservative Governments, enacted their own equal opportunity legislation, the then Commonwealth Government was not able to secure agreement and did not take legislative action until 1981 when the Human Rights Commission Act was passed, establishing the present Human Rights Commission. Even then, in our view, the Commission, which was restricted to the Commonwealth sphere, did not have adequate powers or terms of reference to properly allow it to guard and promote human rights. Nevertheless, the achievements of the previous Liberal-National Party Government, in creating the Human Rights Commission and appointing its members, must be acknowledged. Accompanying this Bill is a Bill to reform and improve the Human Rights Commission, which will be renamed and reconstituted as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Finally, it is important to recognise developments at State Government level. Since 1977, the majority of States have become significantly involved with questions of basic rights in the areas of equal opportunity, sex discrimination and race discrimination. Now most states have their own legislation aimed at preventing specific forms of discrimination. Each of those jurisdictions has its own complaint investigation and dispute resolution machinery. Recognising the value and importance of these State laws and procedures this Government has developed new relations with the States on human rights questions. Co-operative mechanisms to streamline the processing of complaints and inquiries under State and Commonwealth laws by the Human Rights Commission and like State bodies have been introduced. Agreements were signed with Victoria in 1983, New South Wales in 1984, and South Australia and Western Australia earlier this year. In passing, I note that the Commonwealth Government is willing to sign such an agreement with Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania as soon as those jurisdictions enact their own Human Rights and Equal Opportunity legislation. Existing State co-operative arrangements will continue under the new Commission. I have traced these developments because there needs to be an understanding of the significance which successive Governments from both sides of politics have placed on human rights at both the international and domestic level generally, and of the importance of the International Covenant and the aspirations and obligations it embodies in particular. Liberal-National Party Governments, both recently and earlier, have espoused similar principles concerning human rights as have the Australian Labor Party Governments. However, this Government came to office pledged to more fully implement the terms of the International Covenant. The Need for a Bill of Rights The assumption of international obligations under treaty is a solemn and significant act. In becoming a party to the International Covenant, Australia bound itself by Article 2 of the Covenant to respect and to ensure to all individuals in Australia the rights in the Covenant. Unlike the previous Government, this Government has never been satisfied that administrative mechanisms, particularly of the limited kind which eventually emerged under the 1981 Act, were the only means by which Australia could or should carry out such a clear undertaking. What is equally significant so far as the introduction of this Bill is concerned, is that the Covenant itself specifically commits Australia to adopting legislative measures to give effect to the rights it contains (Article 2:2). A strategy of compliance with international human rights standards which does not involve legislative definition of rights must be half-hearted and hollow, if not suspect. Those who argue that our existing legal and social institutions make a Bill of Rights unnecessary, overlook: that the common law does not offer clear or wide-ranging statements of an individual's freedoms and liberties; at best, the common law offers remedies in a haphazard and incidental way often only after satisfying complex procedural requirements; the power of the Parliament to confine or withdraw totally common law ``rights''. This may occur unintentionally and even unnoticed by the public at large; the fragility of community attitudes and pressures on which so many of what are popularly regarded as individual freedoms rely. In the light of this, the Government does not believe that it is sufficient or appropriate to rely on administrative measures alone and those aspects of our common law or general culture which recognise rights here and there. Furthermore, the enactment of a Bill of Rights has a vital educative function. It has the capacity to inspire respect for fundamental freedoms and liberties by setting out rights in positive, declaratory form. It is a broadly based declaration drafted in Australia for Australians, in conformity with international standards. Alternatives-whether reliance on the common law, particular legislation or administrative mechanisms and programs without more-do not spell out and proclaim key rights and concepts in the same way as does the Bill of Rights. This approach was recognized in the Parliament in 1977 when former Attorney-General Ellicott spoke of the importance of such a charter. ``I think there is one aspect at which we should be looking, and that is whether there could be evolved a declaration of human rights that could be adopted by this Parliament and also by every other parliament in the country. Honourable members will know that in Canada there is a declaration of human rights. It is, in effect, part of Canada's constitutional documents. It would be a good thing in this country if we were able to use the covenant on civil and political rights to formulate legislation which formed the basis of a declaration of human rights in this country. It could then act as a guide to legislation in this Parliament and in every other parliament in the country. It could, in effect, be a broadly based, broadly stated document. It could, in effect, be almost a constitutional document . . . it would be a step-a very significant step-towards getting a broadly based system in this country.'' (House of Representatives, Debates, vol. 107, p. 2511). Legislative protection of human rights is of fundamental importance in assuring full democratic processes in Australia. It is vital to realise that the common law provides no guarantees of important rights such as freedom of expression, movement or peaceful assembly or the right to a speedy trial, legal aid or many other rights in the administration of criminal justice. Cases continually demonstrate the weakness of the common law in defining and protecting rights. For example, it has been held that the common law has never contained a fundamental guarantee of the right of religious freedom and expression. Such a right is included in the Australian Bill of Rights. Even where common law or statutory remedies exist, these can, in the absence of a Bill of Rights, be set aside by Parliament or by subordinate legislation. A Bill of Rights acts as a check upon possible excess by the Government of the day. It provides a positive means of guiding the actions of legislators, administrators and public officials. It applies also as a guide to the courts in determining the common law from time to time. In summary therefore, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill provides legislative recognition and protection and judicial enforcement of human rights. It also provides administrative measures for investigation and conciliation by the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Scope of the Bill of Rights In turning to the Bill in detail, it is important to emphasise the different levels of operation of the Bill of Rights and the functions which the Parliament, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the courts are to have in relation to the rights and freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights. The Parliament in passing this Bill spells out the legal meaning for Australian citizens and residents of the obligations assumed by the nation as a party to the International Covenant. The Parliament is the forum to which the Commission will report; the Parliament will also have the role of acting on reports of the Commission which identify areas of law or governmental practice which breach the Bill of Rights, by framing specific laws as necessary to ensure compliance with our obligations. In legal proceedings concerning Commonwealth and Territory laws, the courts will be able to protect individuals whose rights or freedoms have been trammelled, by referring to the Bill of Rights. The Commission and its delegates in the States will have the role of investigating and conciliating at the administrative level complaints by individuals against governments. The Commission will also have a central role to play in changing those attitudes that result in the denial of rights. By the development of programs of education and research, the Commission should make the public more aware of the need to respect human rights. The operation of the Bill with respect to governmental practices and legislation is structured in the following way- as to Commonwealth laws generally (earlier and later than the Bill of Rights), the Bill of Rights will act as a guide to construction and interpretation; as to later Commonwealth laws, the Bill of Rights will as far as possible (subject only to an explicit intention to the contrary) render inconsistent laws inoperative; as to earlier Commonwealth laws, after 5 years from commencement it will be able to be called upon to override inconsistent laws; as to Commonwealth and State laws and practices these may be referred to the Commission for inquiry, and conciliation where appropriate, and for study and report to Parliament. The Australian Bill of Rights consists of 32 Articles, contained in clause 8 of the proposed legislation. It attempts to avoid the sometimes difficult language of ordinary Acts. It has been drafted in succinct and understandable terms with the objective of providing an inspirational and educative charter that can be used separately from the Act. The embodiment of rights in such a Bill will make people more aware of their rights and make infringements more obvious and conspicuous. The scope of the Australian Bill of Rights is designed to protect individuals against violations of their rights by the impact of laws or by the actions of governmental institutions. It does not affect the rights of individuals in relation to each other. While not able to guarantee human rights, the common law has designed mechanisms to provide some limited protection or recognition of rights. Article 2 of the Bill of Rights provides that existing rights and freedoms will not be diminished or denied on the basis that they are not included in the Bill of Rights. Thus the Bill of Rights operates in addition to, and not in substitution for, any protection provided by or under any other law, which includes the common law. The six Divisions of the Australian Bill of Rights protect a wide range of fundamental and political rights. Article 1 guarantees the rights of equality before the law and to equal protection of the law without distinctions. The right to privacy, the right to marry and found a family and the rights of the child are protected under the Bill (Division 4). Freedom of movement and choice of residence are guaranteed to every person lawfully in Australia (Division 5). The Bill sets out the political rights and freedoms fundamental to a free, democratic society in Division 3. They include the right of every Australian citizen to participate in public life, to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections and to have access on general terms of equality to public employment. Freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, is guaranteed under the Australian Bill of Rights as are the rights of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought and conscience and freedom to adopt a religion or belief. The pluralist and multicultural nature of Australian society is also recognised in Division 3 of the Bill of Rights. That Division includes the rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, in community with other members of their own group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language. The rights affecting the administration of criminal justice, often called the ``due process rights'', are set out in Division 6 which deals with life, liberty and criminal processes. They include the right to be informed of reasons for arrest and of charges, the right to consult with a lawyer and to remain silent, the presumption of innocence and the right to be tried within a reasonable time. In criminal proceedings in the exercise of federal jurisdiction and in Territory Courts, the courts will be required to exclude evidence obtained in contravention of the Bill of Rights unless it is demonstrated that the admission of the evidence would substantially benefit the public interest in the administration of criminal justice, and that that benefit would outweigh the infringement of rights involved. The Government takes the view that such an approach is preferable to the United States position where there is a blanket exclusion of evidence obtained in contravention of the Bill of Rights. The test for the admission of evidence obtained in contravention of the Bill of Rights will be clearer and wider than that developed by the High Court in Bunning v. Cross. Limitation of Rights The Bill recognises that rights cannot be absolute. They must be balanced against other rights and the general welfare of the community. The Covenant itself qualifies many of the individual rights with elaborate limitation provisions. These provisions permit a wide range of exceptions and restrictions on such grounds as the necessity to protect national security, public order, public health or the rights and freedoms of others. Many such limitations are obviously necessary in terms of practical realities. Some may also have been necessary to achieve the wide range of international support from countries with differing political and legal systems and social values. The desire to have in Australia a broadly worded inspirational charter led to the inclusion in this Bill of a general test of permissible limitations on rights. By Article 3 the rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights are ``subject only to such reasonable limitations prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society''. In addition they shall not be limited to an extent greater than that permitted by the relevant Covenant provisions. This approach, which is similar to the one adopted in the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will allow all reasonable limits necessary in the interests of the community generally and of other individuals. The approach also allows some flexibility and adjustment to current community standards in the limitations which should be permitted in relation to any particular rights. The Bill of Rights will of course operate only as ordinary Commonwealth legislation. It will be able to be overridden by future Commonwealth legislation. We have endeavoured, in clause 12 of the Bill, to provide a mechanism so that any such overridding of the Bill of Rights in future will not happen by accident. Rather, it will only happen when the Parliament has clearly adverted to the possibility of conflict and, by clear words in the relevant new legislation, has indicated its intention that the provisions of the legislation, to the extent that they are in conflict with the Bill of Rights, are to prevail over the Bill of Rights. The Government is committed both internationally and nationally to promoting the fundamental civil and political rights detailed in the Covernant and implementing those standards in Australia. Naturally, it is our intention to hold those standards high and we would not lightly wish to diminish or override them in the future, or to see future governments do so. The Bill of Rights Bill will not be able to override existing Commonwealth or Territory legislation until 5 years after the commencement of the Bill. This period will permit an orderly examination of Commonwealth and Territory legislation to see if it might be in breach of the Bill of Rights. In that period we might expect some amendments to legislation which will utilise clause 12 and make certain provisions apply notwithstanding the Bill of Rights. We do not anticipate that much Commonwealth legislation will be found to be in breach of the Bill of Rights. However, the results which might flow from the invalidation of some aspects of Commonwealth legislation, particularly that with appropriation implications, may lead the Government to spell out, if only from an abundance of caution, that a small range of legislation may need to operate notwithstanding the Bill of Rights. A situation where this might occur might be the maintenance of military discipline and certain essential elements of Government immigration policy. All such areas would no doubt be areas where the Government was itself of the view that the restrictions it wished to impose were ``demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society'' within the terms of Article 3, but because of the nature of the legislation, wished to put the matters beyond doubt. The advantage of the approach taken in Article 3 is that there is a reverse onus on those who would limit the basic rights in the Bill of Rights. Similarly with clause 12, a Government would need to justify to the Parliament the need to override the Bill of Rights. Judicial and Administrative Enforcement of Bill of Rights Under Parts III and IV of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, the Bill of Rights will operate as a rule of construction in relation to Commonwealth and Territory legislation. It will have statutory force in that it will, 5 years after its commencement, deem any existing inconsistent Commonwealth enactment to be repealed. As discussed above, it will render inoperative any future inconsistent Commonwealth legislation which is not expressed to operate notwithstanding the Australian Bill of Rights. However, it will not operate to override any State law or Northern Territory law. The Bill of Rights is to be a shield and not a sword. It may be called in aid in any Federal or Territory proceedings whether criminal or civil; however it cannot of itself be used to found proceedings. Under Part V of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will have the function of examining and reporting on both Commonwealth and State legislation which conflicts with the Australian Bill of Rights. It will recommend to Parliament legislation needed to prevent any such conflict. The Commission will be empowered to inquire into the acts and practices of Commonwealth and State departments and statutory authorities, and local government councils, for possible infringements of human rights. It is to inform the responsible State or Commonwealth Minister when it decides to proceed with an investigation. It will conduct inquiries when requested to do so by the Minister, when a complaint is received. or when it appears to the Commission to be desirable to do so. However, it will not be able to commence an inquiry into State matters without receiving the consent of the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The Commission's role when a complaint is first received is to attempt to conciliate the matter between the parties concerned. The Commission will be able to require witnesses to give evidence and documents to be produced. The Commission may include in a report to the Minister, a recommendation that compensation be paid, or that remedial action be undertaken, when loss or damage has been suffered as a result of an infringement of a human rights. Where possible, the Government will develop co-operative arrangements with relevant agencies of the States and the Northern Territory concerning the investigation of complaints under the Australian Bill of Rights on behalf of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This will facilitate the continued development of ``one-stop shopping'' by which persons concerned about breaches of human rights need only have their complaint dealt with by one agency. The Government has chosen to limit the extent of application of the Bill of Rights to the States, not because of any doubts concerning constitutional power, but in order to achieve if possible a co-operative approach to human rights protection. However, the Commonwealth expects the States and the Northern Territory to take action to amend or repeal legislation which offends human rights and also it is hoped that at least some States will enact their own Bill of Rights. The Government wishes to make it clear that if such action on the part of the States is not forthcoming, the Commonwealth reserves the right to enact specific overriding Commonwealth legislation and to extend the operation of the Bill of Rights to the States. Financial Impact The cost of implementation of the Bill is expected to be $.35m this fiscal year and $1.4m for the next two years. The cost of administrative enforcement will be included in appropriations for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. There will be additional costs associated with the appointment of full-time Commissioners to the new Commission. I deal with those costs in my Second Reading Speech on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. There will be some costs of judicial enforcement, including legal aid, which are difficult to estimate at this stage. The Australian Bill of Rights represents a very significant step forward in the protection and promotion of respect for human rights in Australia. It will act as a yardstick against which legislation and administration intrusions on basic rights can be measured. It will provide a source of education and inspiration about the importance of fundamental rights and freedoms in a democratic society, and it will enhance Australia's international reputation in the field of human rights. I believe it is a Bill of historic importance to Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION BILL 1985 The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 is substantially the same as the Bill of the same title introduced into the Senate in September 1984 by the then Attorney-General. The Bill provides for the establishment of a new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to replace the existing Human Rights Commission. The new Commission will administer the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. It will also be the vehicle under which Australia's obligations under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (ILO Convention No. 111) will be implemented. The proposed Australian Bill of Rights Act and any future legislation in the human rights area will also be administered through the new Commission. The Government's aim is to ensure that the new Commission will have an effective and cohesive leadership. To achieve this, the membership of the Commission will be relatively small and the emphasis will be on full-time professional appointments, although the Bill provides for part-time appointments where such appointments are necessary. The Commission will comprise a President, the Race Discrimination Commissioner, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, and at least one but not more than three other Commissioners. The name of the new Commission, together with the inclusion of the specialist Commissioners among its members, will reflect the Commission's important role in the areas of equal opportunity and anti-discrimination. The Bill also provides for the appointment of advisory committees. It is proposed to establish an advisory committee of heads of State equal opportunity and anti-discrimination agencies to advise on matters including the co-ordination of procedures under Commonwealth/State co-operative enforcement arrangements. In addition, regional advisory committees may be established to keep the Commission in touch with community opinion and to utilise the expertise and goodwill which exists in relevant organisations and individuals in the community. Part-time members of the present Human Rights Commission and former members of State Employment Discrimination Committees could be included as members of the regional committees, together with representatives of relevant interest groups, including ethnic, disability and civil liberties organisations, women and Aborigines. It is also proposed to appoint a new National Advisory Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation, including representatives of State Governments, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Australian Industry and certain specially interested groups, such as Aborigines, women, people with disabilities and ethnic communities. This Committee will advise the Commission in the performance of its functions and will have, in addition, the special function of advising the Minister in relation to ILO Convention No. 111. New functions of the Commission in the employment and occupation area will enable the functions of existing State Employment Discrimination Committees to be subsumed within the new Commission. At the same time, the establishment of the advisory committee system should ensure that the valuable expertise developed by the State Committees during the past 10 years will not be wasted but will be put to an important and constructive use. The staffing arrangements and administrative structure of the new Commission will be the subject of review to ensure maximum efficiency and the most effective use of scarce resources. The functions of the Commission in the human rights area will be similar to those currently performed by the Human Rights Commission. Human rights, for the purposes of the legislation, are those rights and freedoms recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. These international instruments are attached to the Bill. The Bill also contains provisions whereby the Minister, after consultations with the States, may declare other relevant international instruments for the purposes of the legislation. The Commission will have investigation, conciliation and reporting functions in relation to complaints of infringements of human rights. It will examine international instruments, Commonwealth enactments and (if requested by the Minister) proposed Commonwealth enactments to ensure they contain nothing inconsistent with or contrary to any human rights. It will report to the Minister in relation to any laws that should be made, or action that should be taken, by the Commonwealth to comply with Australia's international obligations under the international instruments attached to the legislation and any declared relevant international instruments. It will undertake research, education and promotion activities and will perform functions conferred by any other Commonwealth or State legislation or under Commonwealth/State arrangements. In addition, the Commission will- formulate and publish guidelines in relation to matters (including the avoidance of discriminatory acts or practices) that fall within its functions; be able (with the consent of the court) to act as amicus curiae in cases where human rights or anti-discrimination issues are raised in legal proceedings; and be able to recommend, in relation to an act or practice that it finds infringes human rights or constitutes discrimination, that any loss or damage be the subject of a payment of compensation or other remedial action. I have mentioned the intended role of the Commission in implementing Australia's obligations under ILO Convention No. 111. That Convention, which Australia ratified in 1973, is included among the international instruments attached to the Bill. It requires, among other obligations, that each Member State undertake `to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice, equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating any discrimination in respect thereof'. Australia's national policy under the Convention was announced by the then Minister for Labour on 22 May 1973. The policy included the development of educational and conciliation processes and the establishment of National and State Employment Discrimination Committees on a tripartite basis. It sought to achieve the co-operation of State and Commonwealth governments, employer and worker organisations and other appropriate bodies. The National Employment Discrimination Committee comprises representatives of the Commonwealth Government, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Australian Industry, women, ethnic communities and Aborigines and has an independent Chairperson. Its functions include advising the Government on the implementation of the Convention, considering complaints of discrimination in employment and occupation having national significance and complaints referred to it by the State Committees, promoting equality of opportunity in employment and co-ordinating a national education program. The various State Committees (which include representatives of Commonwealth and State Governments, employers and unions, together with an independent Chairperson) consider complaints of discrimination in employment and occupation and implement a nationally developed education program. The national policy has undergone de facto changes since it was announced. It encouraged the development of administrative processes rather than the enactment of legislation providing enforceable rights. Special anti-discrimination legislation having an impact in the employment area has since been enacted by the Commonwealth Government and by all the State Governments except Queensland and Tasmania. It has for some time been clear that the original policy needs to be re-considered. In particular, the integration of the national and State Employment Discrimination Committees within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has been publicly forecast. To achieve this, the Bill will give the new Commission important functions in the field of employment and occupation. It will have investigation, conciliation and reporting functions in relation to acts and practices in the Commonwealth sphere that are discriminatory on the grounds specified in the Convention-namely, race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin-and on such other grounds as are determined by the Minister. It is expected that these will include the extra grounds developed over the years by the Committees-namely, age, criminal record, marital status, medical record, nationality, personal attributes, physical disability, sexual preference and trade union activities. The Commission will also be given investigation, conciliation and reporting functions in relation to discriminatory acts and practices engaged in within the States and the Northern Territory. It will not, however, have any coercive powers for obtaining information or evidence in this area. Unless it acquires additional powers in relation to acts and practices engaged in within the States pursuant to Commonwealth/State arrangements, the Commission's functions in the State area will be limited to functions of the kind already exercised by the existing State Committees. In considering these new functions, the Government has recognised the need to preserve existing State specialist legislation and to ensure that complaints of discrimination covered by such legislation, or by other Commonwealth legislation, continue to be dealt with under that legislation. Under the Bill, a complaint that is covered by the Racial Discrimination Act or the Sex Discrimination Act will be dealt with under that Act rather than under the proposed new provisions. Similarly, a complaint of a discriminatory act or practice occurring within a State and covered by anti-discrimination legislation in that State will be referred to the State authorities to be dealt with under that legislation. The proposals to which the Bill gives effect, and in particular the implementation of ILO Convention No. 111 through the new Commission, have been the subject of consultations with State Governments, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry. The Bill will establish a strengthened Commission with significantly widened functions. Its role in ensuring the effective compliance by Australia with its international obligations under the various relevant international instruments should contribute to the achievement of an effective scheme for protecting human rights in Australia and will increase Australia's international standing in the human rights area. The legislation is expected to come into operation during this financial year. Costs of administration are expected to be the same as those of the present Commission, with additional costs involved in salaries and support staff for the extra full-time members of the new Commission. Total additional expenditure is estimated at approximately $600,000 in a full year. I commend the Bill to the Senate. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1985 This Bill effects a technical change in the functions of the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, to be established by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985, to avoid, on the coming into operation of the Australian Bill of Rights Act 1985, a duplication of functions. As introduced in the House, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill confers on the new Commission similar functions in respect of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 currently confers on the Human Rights Commission. The Australian Bill of Rights legislation is to be the Government's means of implementing the Covenant. It is expected that the substantive provisions of that legislation will not come into operation until the middle of 1986. Until that time it is appropriate for the new Commission, which I expect will be established early in 1986, to continue performing the functions of the former Commission in relation to the Covenant. However, when the Australian Bill of Rights Act is in operation, it will no longer be necessary or appropriate for the Commission to exercise functions in relation to the Covenant other than those provided in that Act. To avoid this duplication of functions, this Bill removes references to the Covenant, and Schedule 2 containing the Covenant, from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. This Bill will come into operation at the same time as the substantive provisions of the Australian Bill of Rights Act. I commend the Bill to the Senate. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 deals largely with technical matters. It contains transitional provisions necessary upon the establishment of the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission legislation. It also contains consequential and other amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Part II of the Bill repeals the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. It contains transitional and savings provisions designed to ensure that complaints made to, and examinations and inquiries commenced by, the Human Rights Commission but not dealt with before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission legislation comes into operation can be dealt with by the new Commission. Agreements entered into by the former Commission will also be saved. Officers of the former Commission will continue to be bound by the confidentiality requirements in the former Act, and moneys appropriated for the former Commission will be available to the new Commission. Part III of the Bill contains amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act. The office of Commissioner for Community Relations is to be replaced by a new office of Race Discrimination Commissioner. This change will bring a measure of uniformity into the Commonwealth's anti-discrimination legislation. The Race Discrimination Commissioner will be a member of the new Commission and will not be subject to the directions of the Commission in the performance of functions under the Racial Discrimination Act. The Bill contains savings provisions necessitated by the change of office of Commissioner and by the establishment of the new Commission. In the enforcement area, certificates signed by a member of the former Commission or by the former Commissioner may be used as the basis for instituting civil proceedings after the new legislation comes into operation. Certain penalties under the Act have been up-dated. Part IV of the Bill amends the Sex Discrimination Act. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner will be a member of the new Commission and will not be subject to the directions of the Commission in the performance of functions under the Sex Discrimination Act. Here again, savings provisions are necessary as a result of the establishment of the new Commission. The Bill contains new provisions in relation to determination functions. The Minister will be empowered to appoint persons on a part-time basis to assist the new Commission in the performance of its determination functions under the Sex Discrimination Act. Persons so appointed will be deemed to be members of the Commission when they are called upon to take part in determination proceedings. The determination provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Racial Discrimination Act are under review, with a view to further developing a co-ordinated scheme of enforcement with the States which are already participating in co-operative arrangements with the Commonwealth in the field of human rights and equal opportunity legislation. In the interim these new provisions will enable the Commonwealth to expand the number of persons available to perform the determination functions of the Commission by appointing persons such as members of these State bodies which are already performing similar functions under existing State human rights and equal opportunity legislation. In this way, the Commonwealth will be able to utilise the expertise and experience which already exists in certain States. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.00) —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- AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION BILL 1985 This Bill establishes a new statutory authority, the Australian Trade Commission, with effect from 1 January 1986, or soon thereafter. One single statutory authority will replace the Exports Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC), the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation (AOPC), the Export Development Grants Board (EDGB), the Trade Commissioner Service and the marketing and promotion areas of the Department of Trade. The EFIC and AOPC Acts and the administrative provisions of the Export Market Development Grants Act will accordingly be repealed. The Department of Trade in the continuing performance of its trade policy and overseas trade relations roles will administer a modified form of the Trade Commissioners Act. Under this Bill the Australian Trade Commission is given prime responsibility for the development and implementation of programs for the encouragement, facilitation and promotion of the export of Australian goods and services. To achieve this goal the Bill provides the Commission with the powers of the existing Acts which established EFIC, AOPC and EDGB and with a number of new and expanded powers. I will elaborate on these shortly. The establishment of the Australian Trade Commission must be viewed in the context of this Government's record of improving the efficiency of public bodies. In the latter half of 1984 it introduced what is believed to be the most significant and wide ranging reforms to the Australian Public Service since Federation. The principles underlying those reforms are being progressively carried into other areas of Government activity to make them more effective. It is essential that in the vital area of promotion and encouragement of exports, government authorities operate at maximum levels of efficiency. The Government believes that by strengthening and reforming its own institutions it can better pursue its aim of creating a more internationally competitive and export oriented Australian economy, particularly in the manufacturing and service sectors. It considers that the interaction between the public and private sectors is such that the efficiency and effectiveness of one sector is highly dependent on the efficiency and effectiveness of the other. Only by first putting its own house in order can the Government expect a higher performance from the private sector. In establishing the Commission, the Government is also responding to the evident need for new and constructive moves to meet the major trading challenges which face this country. In his statement to the House of Representatives on 13 May, the Minister for Trade drew particular attention to the serious deterioration in Australia's trading performance. As a world exporter, Australia's ranking has slipped from 8th to 23rd over the last 30 years. Our share of the world export market has dropped from 2.6 per cent to 1.2 per cent and the international purchasing power of our exports has shown weak growth over the last thirty years by comparison with other major trading nations and actually declined in the decade to 1983. We have also lost ground in most major overseas markets including Japan, the Association of South East Asian Nations and the western Pacific. The problems facing Australia in its trading situation have been brought into sharp focus this financial year by the general weakening of our current account since the beginning of the 1980's and the related build-up in our international indebtedness. For 1984-85 the current account deficit reached $10.2 billion, almost 40 per cent above its level of $7.4 billion in 1983-84. Overall in the 1980's our current account deficit has averaged around 4.5 per cent of our gross domestic product (GDP), well above the long term average of the 1960's and 1970's of 2.5 per cent. This succession of large current account deficits has been due to a number of complex factors and has contributed to the rapid growth in Australia's net external indebtedness which is estimated to have increased from $7.3 billion in June 1980 (6.3 per cent of GDP) to $52.0 billion (25.1 per cent of GDP) in June 1985. Most of this external debt has been incurred by the private sector. The Treasury estimates that servicing this debt, public and private, absorbed about 34 per cent of the volume of our exports in 1984-85. The deterioration in Australia's current account position and increasing indebtedness have contributed to the depreciation of the Australian dollar since the beginning of 1985. The change in sentiment towards the currency no doubt reflects, in part, changed international perceptions about Australia's trade performance. The depreciation of the Australian dollar will help to improve Australia's trade and current account positions over time but it alone will not redress the structural weaknesses in Australia's trading pattern which have become increasingly apparent over recent decades. Australia's poor performance can be ascribed to many factors. Two stand out-the composition of our exports and the inward looking nature of manufacturing and service industries. Over the past three decades world demand for agricultural and mineral commodities, which account for some 75 per cent of our exports, has grown more slowly than the demand for manufactures and services for a variety of reasons, these include adverse terms of trade, sluggish world demand and escalating protectionism in the major developed countries. To compound these difficulties Australia's manufacturing industry has been ill-equipped to share in the fastest growing area of world trade; while manufactures exports have increased their share of world trade from 53 per cent to 60 per cent over the past twenty years, manufactures share of Australia's export mix has remained relatively static at around 20 per cent. Australia also, so far, has been slow to capitalise on the rapidly expanding trade in services. It was Australia's deteriorating position in world trade which prompted the previous Minister for Trade, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, to establish the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel, chaired by Mr Bill Ferris, Group Managing Director of Barlow Marine Limited and an active exporter. The Panel considered strategies for improving Australia's export performance in the manufacturing and service sectors and its report, which was presented to the Minister for Trade earlier this year, contained proposals on a range of policies by which manufactures and services exports could be assisted, including export incentives, overseas aid, government purchasing, offsets and export finance. It also supported the efforts by the Government to direct its marketing resources to those industries and markets with the potential to yield the best returns. I take this opportunity to thank Mr Ferris and his fellow panel members for the important contribution they have made. The Government acknowledges the significant role which primary products have played and will continue to play in Australia's economic development. The Government is also conscious of its responsibility to do its utmost to break down the barriers and distortions which are so disruptive to Australia's commodities trade. However, it is all too evident that any progress in this area will be painfully slow. These then were the factors which led the Government to undertake a major review of all the resources available in the trade portfolio for promoting and encouraging Australian exports and exporters. Arising from this review the Government concluded that more efficient and vigorous export marketing efforts could be achieved by rationalising and consolidating its various export assistance agencies into one body, the Australian Trade Commission. In announcing the Government's decision on 23 April, the Minister for Trade indicated that the Commission would act as a `One Stop Trade Shop'-providing exporters with a full range of advice and packages of assistance drawing on all of the Government's resources, including the promotion and publicity activities currently undertaken by the Department of Trade. This Bill, however, represents a good deal more than simply an administrative streamlining by the Government. By establishing the Australian Trade Commission as a body corporate, the Bill will enable the Commission to have sufficient flexibility and independence of management to respond quickly to changes in international market conditions. It will also be a source of valuable advice for the Government and provide an early warning mechanism on international changes and trends affecting Australia's trade. Since the Commission will have the power to charge for some services at present provided free, it will also more easily be able to identify those services which are of benefit to exporters and those regarded as of little value. The Government holds strongly to the view that very significant benefits will come from the guidance of a Board of Directors drawn principally from the private sector. Indeed, the Government is heartened by the very favourable reception that the recently announced interim Board of the Commission has received. The business qualities of that Board indicate the seriousness with which the Government is going about this task of putting the activities of the trade portfolio on a more commercially oriented basis. The Bill provides that the Board seek the overall guidance and direction of the Minister for Trade on major issues but on most matters of policy and day to day matters the board will have a free hand. In this regard, the Minister is specifically excluded from giving the Commission directions as to whether it shall or shall not enter into any particular contract, agreement or arrangement. The appointment of suitably qualified and commercially experienced members of the Board will, therefore, be crucial to the success of the Commission. The establishment of a new organisation of the size and complexity of the Australian Trade Commission involves a great amount of planning and preparation. The formative stage of the Commission is now being guided by the Interim Board which will have the assistance of a departmental team in drawing up the objectives and an appropriate organisation structure and an operational plan for the Commission. The Board also has been asked to recommend candidates for selection as Managing Director and Deputy Managing Director and advise on the nature and composition of the first Australian Trade Commission Board. To ensure that the Commission is established in the most professional manner the Minister for Trade has approved the appointment of a number of consultants. In particular, advice is being sought on appropriate financial management information system, organisation structure, corporate planning and legal issue. The advise of professional consultants interacting with a highly competent and experienced Interim Board is, I consider, an essential ingredient for a successful and professional organisation. Extensive consultations have been held with a broad cross-section of business leaders and major industry organisations on the proposed structure and activities of the Commission. The trade union movement, through the ACTU, also has had the opportunity to comment on the proposals on the establishment of the commission including staffing aspects. In addition, officers of the Department of Trade have held discussions with State government officials on the likely implications for the Commonwealth/State trade promotion program and other aspects of Commonwealth/State trade co-operation. I will now outline in more detail the main provisions of the Bill, particularly as they relate to the structure, functions, management and staffing arrangements of the Commission. As I indicated earlier, the Bill provides that the Commission will ensure assume the powers, functions and responsibilities of the three statutory bodies in the Trade portfolio-EFIC, AOPC, and EDGB-as well as the Trade Commissioner Service. It will also encompass those areas of the Department of Trade, including the regional offices, which are concerned with the marketing and promotion of Australian exports. Staff positions will total some 1400 of which around 370 are in Canberra, 580 overseas-including both Australia based Trade Commissioners and locally engaged staff-and the remaining 450 include the regional offices of the Department of Trade and the EDGB, and the staff of EFIC and the AOPC. Final decisions on the organisational structure to incorporate the various elements into the Commission will be the responsibility of the Australian Trade Commission Board. However, based on discussions with the Interim Board and the advice of outside management consultants, it is proposed that initially, the Commission will have a number of operating groups, covering the functions of export finance and insurance, market assistance, overseas projects, export development, operations and corporate services. The Export Finance and Insurance Group will handle Finance, Insurance and related matters; market assistance group will primarily assume the Functions presently undertaken by the Export Development Grants Board; Overseas Projects Group will be responsible for the former activities of the Australian Overseas projects Corporation augmented by some of the activities undertaken by the Department of Trade in the projects area; Export Development Group will be responsible for the Development and review of programs for encouragement, facilitation and promotion of exports while the Operations Group will be responsible for the implementation of those programs. The Corporate Services Group will provide for common management and co-ordination services. The Government has decided that the headquarters of the Commission will be in Canberra but the Export Finance and Insurance and Overseas Projects Groups will be located in Sydney-the present location of both EFIC and AOPC. Regional offices will operate in State centres. While the disposition of Commission staff will become a matter primarily for the Board to determine, it is envisaged that the only staff whose location could be affected are about 30 officers of the Trade Publicity Section in Melbourne who will be transferred to Canberra as Part of a Rationalisation of the promotion and publicity functions of the Commission. Honourable senators will be aware of the value which the Australian exporting community places on the Services available from the Export Finance and Insurance Coporation (EFIC). Successive Labor governments have been responsible for changes to EFIC's Operations so that Australian exporters might have access to support facilities comparable to their competitors. The 1974 restructuring of the corporation by the Whitlam Labor Government introduced an export financing function to facilitate the provision of finance for medium and long-term credit sales of machinery, capital equipment and services. This facility has proved highly beneficial to the Australian capital goods sector and since its inception over $600m in loans have been signed, supporting contracts valued significantly in excess of this figure. Further improvements to EFIC's Facilities have recently been instituted by this Government. They include foreign currency options for the finance facility, the availability of 100% cover against political risk and a pre-shipment finance guarantee facility. These evolutionary changes and an increasingly uncertain and competitive trading environment, have seen a rapid increase in the value of Australian exports supported by the Corporation. In the year ended June 1985 the total value of exports supported was a record $3200m, a four-fold increase over the past decade. EFIC has paid substantial claims to, or on behalf of, Exporters over this period, but its income has been sufficient to meet all claims and build adequate reserves. The Government expects this situation to continue within the Australian Trade Commission. The integration of EFIC's existing functions into the Australian Trade Commission will not diminish in any way the corporation's operation efficiency or the specialist services it provides to Australian exporters. The Commission will retain `Export Finance and Insurance Corporation' as the name under which it may conduct its export finance and insurance business, and separate accounts and reserves will be maintained for the export finance and insurance functions and liabilities. The expansion and rationalisation of EFIC's existing functions provided for in this Bill, together with the wider commercial environment of the Commission's activities, will provide the Government with a greater ability and flexibility to tailor its assistance in response to the rapidly changing needs of Australian exporters. Specifically, this Bill will allow the Commission to assume greater capabilities in the area of financing, bonding and financial advice and also provide for the Commission to play a greater role in the commercial application of aid funds. It will be easier for the Commission to introduce new or modified facilities as the need arises. I should add that such facilities have been, and continue to be, designed to complement the extensive range of service offered by other institutions, such as Banks and Insurance Houses, which assist the exporting community. In 1978 the then Government established the Australian overseas projects corporation and the Bill provides for the Commission to assume the AOPC's existing functions to assist Australian industry compete for overseas development project contracts. Against the background of only limited success and losses of some of $2m accumulated over the past seven years the Government has looked closely at the future role of an AOPC type operation. In so doing it has had the benefit of a review undertaken by the AOPC board. While AOPC has not been a profitable undertaking it has provided assistance to Australian organisations to gain business, totalling around $270m, which would, in all likelihood, not have occurred without its support. Clearly AOPC has fulfilled a useful trade promotion role and industry has indicated that there is a continuing need for this type of government support. Since its establishment the AOPC has operated under various contraints that have hindered its activities. These contraints will now be removed and the commission will in consequence be able to take a more active role assisting Australian firms and organisations to secure overseas contracts. The decision-making authority on individual contracts will rest with the commission. The opportunity also is being taken to make practical modifications in relation to acquiring and selling goods associated with overseas development projects and to the nature of business relationships which the Commission may need to form when undertaking such projects. The thrust of the changes is in accord with the considered views of the present board of the AOPC. These changes are intended to enhance the Commission's ability to improve Australia's performance in relation to participation in overseas development projects. I would stress that the Commission's involvement in overseas projects will be solely in conjunction with, and in support of, Australian firms. Beyond the area of overseas projects, the Commission will be able to acquire and dispose of goods only in relation to its own needs or in association with Australian organisations. The Board will make its own assessment of any needs which may arise and ensure that any decision made is a commercial one. This recognises the Commission's potential to mobilise its overseas and other resources in securing trading opportunities on behalf of Australian businesses. The Commission will also administer export market development assistance schemes. This will involve responsibility for the administration of the export market development grants (EMDG) scheme, a role which has been performed by the Export Development Grants Board since June 1974. The Government has decided that the existing Export Market Development Grants Act should be retained with only the administrative section being repealed to transfer the function to the Australian Trade Commission. Honourable senators will recall that legislation to amend the scheme to make it more cost-effective, eliminate abuse, and to restrain government spending in this area was passed by parliament earlier in this session. In addition, the Commission will monitor the effectiveness of the EMDG scheme, or any future scheme, and recommend such measures as may be required to meet the trade facilitation objectives of the Commission, including the introduction of new schemes, consistent with Australia's international obligations, to encourage Australian exporters to investigate and develop overseas markets. In this context the Minister for Trade will be requesting the Australian Trade Commission to develop proposals for export market development schemes tailored specifically to assisting small new exporters and exporters of high technology products. The Government will consider sympathetically schemes which are cost effective and offer real assistance. Whilst it will not be possible to implement any schemes in this financial year, depending upon the advice I receive from the Commission it may be possible to have new arrangements in place in the 1986-87 financial year. The Commission will be responsible for the role currently undertaken by the Department of Trade in overseas marketing, promotion and publicity. Trade Commission officers serving in overseas posts will represent and service the wider activities of the Commission. The Commission will build on the work already commenced by the Department of Trade in identifying those industries in Australia which have export capability or export potential and also those markets requiring and justifying special efforts. The Government is conscious of the low level of export orientation of Australia's service industries, particularly in the light of the large invis- ibles deficit in the balance of payments. In this respect, it is the Government's intention to develop services as an important export earner and significant steps have already been taken in areas such as tourism and education. The Commission will continue to develop marketing strategies aimed at improving the performance of the services sector in the broadest sense. Apart from reinforcing the activity which assists the export of professional consulting and contracting services, particular attention will be given to finance, insurance, entertainment and information industries. These initiatives will have a positive impact on our invisibles account. In view of the nature of most of the functions of the Commission which I have outlined, it will be neither feasible nor appropriate outside the insurance area, to recover a significant proportion of the Commission's costs. An annual appropriation will, therefore, be required from the Budget. In 1985-86 the amount will essentially represent a transfer of funds from the Department of Trade. For 1986-87 and subsequent years in respect of property and overseas common services, funds from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services will be transferred to the Commission. Apart from the cost of purchasing commercial insurance the establishment of the Commission will be achieved with no increase in net government outlays. The estimated net expenditure for the Department of Trade in 1985-86 is $229.7m and of that amount an estimated $130.7m will be allocated to the Australian Trade Commission for the six months period January-June 1986. The estimated net expenditure for the Commission in a full financial year will be of the order of $200 million. The budgeted revenue from the sale of the Commission's services has been set at $2.5m for the period ending 30 June 1986. Monies so recovered will be credited to the Commission's account. Future options for cost recovery are being assessed. Without previous experience in this area it is difficult to forecast what these levels will be, and the extent to which cost recovery will be an effective market test of the quality of the Commission's services to exporters. The Government is not seeking, through cost recovery, to reduce its commitment to the exporting community. The Commission's commercial obligations will be backed by an unqualified government guarantee. In addition to the normal requirement for statutory authorities to report annually to the Parliament, the Australian Trade Commission will be required each year to prepare a three year corporate plan setting out details of its objectives, policies and strategies. An essential aspect of the corporate plan will be the identification of staff and other resource implications of the Commission's proposed objectives and strategies. The corporate plan and any variations to it, will require the approval of the Minister. As mentioned earlier, the Australian Trade Commission will be managed by a board of a commercial character and which will comprise a chairperson, a deputy chairperson, a managing director, a government member and not fewer than five nor more than seven other members. The members of the board will be appointed by the Minister for Trade. The managing director and deputy managing director will be appointed by the Minister for Trade, having regard to the views of the board. The remuneration and allowances for these appointments will be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. Staff of the Commission will be employed under terms and conditions determined by the Commission with the approval of the Public Service Board. The Minister for Trade will be directing the Commission to ensure that terms and conditions of employment will be no less favourable than those currently in force in the Australian Public Service. The Long Service Leave and Compensation Acts will apply and the necessary regulations made in respect of the application of the CE (RR), Maternity Leave and Superannuation Acts. The Principles of Industry Democracy will be followed by the Commission. The Minister for Trade will be instructing the Board of the Commission to commence discussions with Commission staff with the view to implementing agreed and appropriate industrial democracy practices. Similarly, the Commission will be expected to follow an equal employment opportunity program. Consequent upon the establishment of the Commission the Department of Trade will be left with a staff of about 490 positions and an annual appropriation of about $22 million. The Department will concentrate its resources on matters of trade policy and broad strategic issues, including those relating to market access, export support policies, multilateral and bilateral negotiations and government to government trade relations. It will also play an important coordinating role in relation to the activities of various Commonwealth departments and authorities which impinge on our external trade with the object of developing a more cohesive approach to our international trade negotiations. The Government has decided that the Trade Commissioners Act will be retained to, among other things, provide a basis for some 20 overseas trade policy positions that will remain with the Department of Trade. The Act will, however, be amended so as to become the `Trade Representatives Act'. In the performance of its functions the Department will have a close and continuing working relationship with the Commission. This will particularly be the case overseas where Trade Commission officers will continue to undertake a Trade Policy role in countries where the Department has no representation. The Department will, of course, advise the Minister on policy issues arising from the operation of the Commission. Work is presently proceeding on a new structure for the Department of Trade and the Minister for Trade will announce the revised arrangements when that work is complete. The Government recognises that Australia's export performance will not be lifted by a single measure but by the integration of all its trade, industry and economic policies in support of the private and public sectors. Since coming to office this Government has moved decisively to develop a more cohesive set of policies, aimed at creating an environment which is conducive to the development of internationally competitive and export oriented Australian industries. The Government's record speaks for itself; in less than three years it has turned the Australian economy around from deep recession to a rate of growth which is one of the highest in the Western World. The Prices and Incomes Accord which the Government negotiated with the Unions in 1983 has played a key part by contributing to the decline in the inflation rate, rapid growth, and consequently the dramatic decrease in real unit labour costs. The recent historic renewal of the Accord has laid the basis for sustained economic growth and the preservation of the competitive advantage which our exporters have gained through the depreciation of the Australian dollar. In this climate the Government has created some 487,000 new jobs. Corporate profitability has been restored to historically normal levels and there has been a strong increase in investment. Industrial disputes are at their lowest levels for 17 years, considerably enhancing our reputation for reliability of supply. In industry policy the Government has, in close consultation with industry and unions, implemented a range of measures designed to assist and rejuvenate Australian industry. The Government's successful deregulation of important sectors has given a boost to the efficiency and dynamism of the economy and has provided a necessary stimulus to the export sector. There is still much to be done to meet the challenges ahead. I believe however that the measures taken by the Government over the past two and a half years, together with those in train such as the establishment of the Australian Trade Commission, have firmly placed Australia on course to an improved export performance, continued economic growth and an enhancement in the living standards for all Australians. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 This Bill is complementary to the Australian Trade Commission Bill 1985 which I introduced earlier. Its purposes are essentially threefold: Firstly, to repeal the existing legislation relating to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation and the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation; Secondly, to effect consequential amendments to a number of Acts, principally the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974, and the Trade Commissioners Act 1933; and Thirdly, to provide for transitional arrangements. I have already outlined in some detail the reasons behind the Government's decision to establish the Australian Trade Comission and the consequent need to repeal and amend existing legislation. I propose, therefore, to limit myself on this occasion to a few brief comments. The Australian Trade Commission will initially be staffed by members of the organisations now carrying out the functions to be transferred to the Commission. Of some 1400 staff positions being transferred to the Commission, approximately 17% will come from the Department of Trade in Canberra, 20% from the Department's regional offices, 13% from Australian overseas office staff including Trade Commissioner staff and 29% from overseas locally engaged staff. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC), the Export Development Grants Board (EDGB) and the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation (AOPC), will provide some 97, 76 and 19 staff respectively. The transitional legislation provides that the terms and conditions of staff being transferred to the Commission will be those existing at the time of transfer, so providing continuity pending determination of terms and conditions to apply in the Commission. I have already indicated that the Minister for Trade will be directing the Commission to ensure that the terms and conditions of employment will be no less favourable than those currently in force in the Australian Public Service. The Bill provides for the special appropriation of $142.2m from consolidated revenue to enable the Commission to operate for the January-June 1986 period. This amount includes $88.5m for the purposes of making grants under the Export Market Development Grants Act and $14.3m for the export finance facility. This provision of funds to the Commission was not anticipated in the annual appropriations. It essentially represents a transfer of funds from the Department of Trade to the Commission and, of course, involves no further expenditure. The Bill provides for the Minister for Finance to withdraw from the Department of Trade such amounts as have been appropriated in Appropriation Acts numbers 1 and 2, in respect of those activities transferred to the Commission. This is estimated at $130.7m. The balance of the $142m is essentially `Budget Neutral' and will not add to net government outlays. It covers those costs relating to fees for services provided by departments of state, such as payroll services and the provision of common services overseas. These funds will be appropriated to the Commision and will be offset exactly by an equivalent payment to a Department of State for the services provided. Finally, I wish to clarify, honourable senators, that the amendments to the Export Development Grants Act in this Bill are essentially to transfer the authority for administering the Act from the Export Development Grants Board to the Commission. Honourable senators will recall that substantial changes were recently passed by Parliament to make the export market development grants (EMDG) scheme more efficient and cost effective. No further changes to the EMDG scheme are proposed in this Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.01) —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 (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1985 This is the first of four Bills to amend the sales tax law. The Bills give effect to a decision announced on 5 September 1984 approving in principle the provision of inwards duty free shopping facilities at Australia's international airports. My colleague, the Minister for Science, in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, introduced complementary customs and excise amendments in another place on 13 November 1985. This Bill is one element in the legislative framework to provide exemptions from sales tax on a restricted range of goods purchased from on-airport inwards duty free shops by persons arriving in Australia on international flights. Inwards duty free shops will be warehouses licensed under the Customs Act and authorised to sell spirituous liquors, tobacco products and perfume to passengers and crew arriving on international flights after disembarkation, but before reaching the customs barrier. The establishment of inwards duty free shopping facilities at international airports will provide a convenient alternative to overseas or in-flight purchases of tax and duty free spirituous liquor, tobacco products and perfume. The provision of these facilities at airports is expected to increase airport concession revenues by about $5 million in a full year. Of the goods to be sold by inwards duty free shops, tobacco, cigarettes and cigars are presently unconditionally exempt from sales tax, but spirituous liquor is taxed at the rate of 20%, and perfume at the rate of 32.5% (to be reduced to 30% from 20 September 1985 under Bills currently before the Parliament). However, passengers and crew arriving on international flights are eligible for a sales tax exemption on certain goods imported by them, including one litre of potable alcoholic liquor and perfume to the extent to which it is not in commercial quantities. Mr President, I should emphasise that the amendments contained in this Bill will not increase the level of sales tax concessions available to persons arriving from overseas. The limits I have described will continue but will apply to the aggregate of specified goods, whether purchased by the passenger overseas, in-flight or from an inwards duty free shop on arrival. There is, therefore, no cost of this measure in terms of revenue forgone. To enable inwards duty free shops to acquire their supplies free of sales tax, a further provision in the Bill will exempt from tax purchases of spirituous liquor and perfume for re-sale through such shops to passengers and crew arriving in Australia on international flights. I commend the Bill to the Senate. SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 11) 1985 This Bill, together with its two related taxing Bills, completes the sales tax package for the establishment of inwards duty free shopping facilities at international airports. As I explained a moment ago, inwards duty free shops will be accessible to passengers or crew arriving on international flights before reaching the customs barrier. These people will be able to purchase spirituous liquor, tobacco products and perfume. In the hands of passengers and crew such goods will be exempt from sales tax if, together with similar goods imported by them, the total quantity falls within the prescribed limits I mentioned earlier. Mr President, the purpose of this Bill is twofold. First, to apply the sales tax law to Australian manufactured goods purchased from inwards duty free shops by disembarking passengers and crew where those goods together with goods imported are in excess of the prescribed limits. The Bill is limited to Australian manufactured goods for the reason that the existing sales tax law will apply to imported goods purchased from an inwards duty free shop and entered for home consumption by international travellers. Secondly, this Bill will extend the sales tax law to Australian manufactured goods dealt with, otherwise then by way of sales to disembarking passengers and crew, by the proprietor of an inwards duty free shop who is not registered for sales tax purposes. In situations where goods are sold to other persons or applied by the shop proprietor to his or her own use, the Bill will provide that sales tax is immediately payable by the proprietor on the goods. If such dealings occur where the proprietor is registered or required to be registered for sales tax purposes, the existing sales tax law, in conjunction with amendments of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act just introduced, will ensure that an appropriate amount of sales tax becomes payable. Finally, Mr President, I mention that, if sales tax payable under this measure is not paid on demand, the particular goods may, as can now occur under the customs law where customs duty is not paid, be seized by customs' officers, unless security for payment of the tax is given. In the event that the sales tax remains unpaid, the goods will be forfeited to the Crown. I commend the Bill to the Senate. SALES TAX BILL (No. 11A) 1985 This is the first of the two taxing Bills that I mentioned in introducing the Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 11) 1985. It is a requirement of the Constitution that a law imposing taxation shall deal only with one subject of taxation and that laws imposing customs duties and laws imposing excise duties deal only with those duties. This Bill will, respecting that requirement of the Constitution, formally impose sales tax payable under the proposed Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 11) on goods dealt with in a taxable manner, in cases where that sales tax is technically a duty or excise. This Bill will impose sales tax at the same rate as those to be imposed by a series of sales tax Bills currently before the Parliament. An exception to this is that the Bill does not impose tax on motor vehicles covered by the Fourth or Fifth Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act as goods of that kind cannot be sold through inwards duty free shops. I commend the Bill to the Senate. SALES TAX BILL (No. 11B) 1985 This is the second taxing Bill associated with the introduction of inwards duty free shopping facilities at international airports. By this Bill sales tax will be formally imposed on goods dealt with in a taxable manner where the tax is neither a duty of excise nor a duty of customs. In other respects, this Bill is identical in effect with the Sales Tax Bill (No. 11A) 1985. It is not necessary to impose sales tax where the tax is technically a duty of customs as the existing sales tax law does so in relation to dealings with imported goods. An explanatory memorandum providing a detailed explanation of the provisions of each of the four Bills I have just introduced is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) 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 Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purposes of this Bill are to enact legislation to validate the past collection of various fees for services provided by the Commonwealth under the Quarantine Act 1908. Firstly, the Bill validates the collection of certain human, animal and plant quarantine fees for which there has been no authority under the Quarantine Act as a result of the unintended effect that notices made under the Act have had in revoking the basis on which fees for some quarantine services have been charged. Secondly, the Bill validates charges levied on airline operators under the Act to offset expenses incurred in the removal and disposal of airline waste. The Quarantine Act was amended by the Quarantine Amendment Act 1984 with effect on 24 May 1984. As a result a new provision, section 86E, was inserted in the Act. Section 86E gave the Minister power to determine, by notice published in the Gazette, that fees of amounts set out in the notice are payable for certain services provided under the Act. The fees that were prescribed in regulations were kept in force as determinations by force of the amendment Act. On 1 October 1984 a notice published in the Gazette revoked all the determinations that, by virtue of the amendment Act, had remained in force but only determined new fees relating to export inspection of livestock. However, the requirement that the determination should be tabled in each House of Parliament was not complied with. As a result the determination became void and of no effect on 24 October 1984 and the earlier provisions relating to fees were revived by operation of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. In consequence, there were no quarantine fees, other than for export inspection of livestock, in the period 1-24 October 1984. However, fees were charged in this period as though provisions covering all quarantine fees were in force. Until 13 December 1984 the Quarantine Act was wholly administered by the Minister for Health. After that day the Minister for Primary Industry became the Minister administering the Act in relation to animal and plant quarantine. The Minister for Primary Industry subsequently made further determintions that were also defective, but these did not apply to human quarantine fees. Fees estimated to amount to approximately $2.5 million will have been paid and collected before new notices are published that consolidate, on the one hand, fees for export inspection of livestock, and, on the other all other fees relating to animal and plant quarantine. The Departments of Primary Industry and Health only recently became aware that past notices may have been defective. Advice of the Attorney-General's Department was immediately sought. That advice confirmed the Departments' suspicions and indicated that legislation would be necessary to rectify the defect. This Bill will overcome this defect in the legislative arrangements under which fees are charged for quarantine services that have been or are being provided by the Commonwealth. The second matter for which validating legislation is required concerns the collection of quarantine fees levied by the Commonwealth for expenses connected with the removal of galley waste from aircraft arriving in Australia. Galley waste from aircraft arriving from overseas has, for some time, been collected and disposed of either by or under arrangements made by the Department of Health in accordance with its quarantine responsibilities. Various charges, intended to offset expenses, have been levied for that collection and disposal. The amount of revenue collected from airline operators in 1984-85 is approximately $630,000. Until the need for validating the collection of other quarantine fees became apparent, the Department of Health considered that it derived authority for charging for the collection of galley waste from section 64 of the Quarantine Act. However, with the benefit of the closer scrutiny that the need for validation elsewhere has provided, it has become apparent that there has been no legislative authority for the imposition of fees for the service. A new determination under section 86E of the Quarantine Act to cover the levying and collection of charges for the collection and disposal of aircraft waste has since been made by the Minister for Health and took effect upon gazettal on 18 November 1985. This Bill will ensure a proper legal basis for the collection of fees for the provision of this service prior to that date. The Bill has no financial implications. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) 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 Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- In September the Government accepted the findings of the Remuneration Tribunal's 1985 review of the remuneration and allowances payable to the holders of all offices within its jurisdiction. I presented a copy of the Tribunal's review to the Parliament on 19 September. Honourable members will be aware that the Tribunal has again had regard to the wage fixing principles and has concluded that, apart from individual work value changes, it should continue to apply only national wage case increases to the offices within its jurisdiction. Allowances intended to reimburse outgoings-that is, travelling allowance, expense of office allowance, electorate allowance and charter allowance-have been increased in accordance with increases in costs as measured by the consumer price index or surveys of actual costs. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Tribunal's recommendations in respect of holders of judicial office and the president and members of the Inter-State Commission. The Constitution provides that remuneration for these offices shall be such as the Parliament may fix. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the principal Act to be amended to reflect the current salary payable in respect of the offices as reported upon by the Remuneration Tribunal, and adjusted by the most recent national wage case decision. Other parts of clause 3 deal with increases in expense of office allowances as well as the salaries and allowances of the members of the Inter-State Commission. Clause 4 deals with rates of travelling allowance payable to Justices of the High Court by providing for an increase and a new entitlement whereby an additional travelling allowance is paid in respect of an accompanying spouse whose travel costs are met by the Government. Clause 5 provides an increase to the additional allowance payable to Justices of the High Court who are not resident in Canberra. Clause 6 provides an increase in travelling allowance payable to other judicial officeholders, including the president and members of the Inter-State Commission, and provides for a new travelling allowance entitlement, as for the High Court, in respect of an accompanying spouse. Clause 7 provides for a new section which fixes the rate of travelling allowances payable to the president and members of the Inter-State Commission. Clause 8 provides an increase to the additional allowance payable to the Solicitor-General where the holder of that office is required to establish a principal place of residence in the Australian Capital Territory. The cost of implementing the Tribunal's recommendations in respect of judges and the Inter-State Commission will be in the order of $99,000 in 1985-86, before allowance is made for the most recent national wage case. Further information on the clauses of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) 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 Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is to strengthen and improve the working of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in significant respects. It provides for the amendment of key provisions directed at restrictive trade practices in order to increase their effectiveness. It includes important new provisions to extend the protection afforded to consumers by the Act. The Bill also clarifies the intended meaning of a number of provisions and effects other changes for which experience with the legislation has shown a need. The Trade Practices Act is a most important piece of legislation for the regulation of business practices in Australia. It is now some 8 years since the Act was last comprehensively reviewed and it is time to address a number of problems which have arisen. The Government has demonstrated its sound economic management and its commitment to restoring the efficiency and vitality of Australian industry, with consequent benefits in increased employment opportunities and greater availability of reasonably priced commodities. The Trade Practices Act plays an important role in ensuring that the maximum benefits are obtained through an efficient allocation of our national resources, as well as protecting the interests of the consuming public and reputable businesses. The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that the Act is effectively and appropriately achieving its dual aims of promoting efficiency through competition-and thereby ensuring goods are provided to the consumer at the cheapest price-and providing consumers and business people with an appropriate measure of protection against unscrupulous traders. This Bill represents the outcome of a major review of both the competition and consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act which was commenced immediately this Government came to office. The review, which was undertaken without preconceived notions or entrenched attitudes, led to the issuing in February last year of a Green Paper entitled `The Trade Practices Act: Proposals for Change'. The shipping provisions in Part X of the Act, administered by my colleague the Minister for Transport, are the subject of a separate review and are not dealt with in this Bill. The introduction to the Green Paper indicated that it was intended to be a catalyst for public discussion and debate about the Trade Practices Act. The Green Paper succeeded in fostering debate, and 120 submissions were received from a wide range of groups including large and small business groups, representatives of other special interest groups, trade unions, consumer organizations, academics and other individuals. The original proposals were substantially reviewed in the light of these comments. Further changes were made following consultations earlier this year with key interest groups representing large and small business, consumers and the ACTU. The process of consultation was extensive and proved valuable. As a result of that process, a number of the provisions of the Bill differ in significant respects from the proposals which were put forward in the Green Paper. The Bill also contains some provisions, not foreshadowed in the Green Paper, to deal with specific problems that have come to light since the Paper was published. Proposals for recall of unsafe products were canvassed in a White Paper entitled `Recall of Unsafe Products' issued for public comment by the Office of Consumer Affairs in my Department in June 1985. The paper was the culmination of discussion over some years with industry and consumer groups on the options for an effective product recall system. The proposals in the Bill have been developed in the light of that process of consulation and of comments received on the White Paper. As indicated in the ALP platform, this Government is committed to the development of uniform consumer protection legislation throughout Australia. The Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers is actively pursuing this issue, and has created a special working party of officials. Together with the Green Paper, the Government released a list of amendments to the Act sought by the State and Territory governments to facilitate the achievement of uniformity by making the Act a suitable basis for mirror legislation elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Public comment was invited and extensive consultation with the State and Territory governments has taken place. Some of the amendments to Division 1 of Part V have been formulated specifically to make Division 1 a more suitable basis for mirror legislation. Several States have now indicated their willingness to enact legislation mirrowing the majority of Division 1 of Part V and related provisions in Part VI of the Act as proposed to be amended. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of achieving uniform legislation in the consumer protection areas. Differences and conflicts between legislative provisions in force in the various jurisdictions can pose real problems for businesses and cause confusion on the part of consumers. By promoting uniform consumer protection legislation throughout the Commonwealth, it is expected that the costs of compliance for business, and ultimately the community, will be reduced. The Government will be actively encouraging those States which have not yet undertaken to enact mirror legislation to do so, and will be seeking to ensure that the uniformity is maintained in the future. Once the so-called mirror fair trading legislation is enacted, we will turn our attention to other areas of consumer protection law and seek to promote uniformity in those areas also. The question of uniformity is not a major problem in relation to the competition provisions in Part IV of the Act, since the States have not generally legislated in this area. In its approach to business regulation, the Government is committed to ensuring that unnecessary existing regulation is wound back, and adequate justification is put forward for new regulation. The Trade Practices Act lays down rules designed to preserve an environment in which the forces of competition can be effective and, at the same time, to protect consumers and reputable businesses from practices which are unfair. Beyond that, the Act does not seek to regulate the way in which firms carry on their businesses. Its aim is to enable businesses to make their own decisions in a free but fair market. Anti-competitive private regulation of business can be just as restrictive as, or even more inhibiting than, Government regulation without being based on the same broad concern with public interest. In improving the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act, we will ensure that anti-competitive private regulation of business is kept to a minimum, so that free and fair competition becomes the prime regulator for business. Content of Bill The more important features of the Bill, which I will now outline, represent significant advances in restrictive trade practice and consumer protection law. Definition of `consumer' The definition of `consumer' in section 4B determines the types of transactions to which the conditions and warranties contained in Division 2 of Part V apply. The current definition, which involves a monetary limit of $15,000 on some transactions, was set in 1977. The real value of that monetary limit has been significantly eroded since that time. It is proposed to increase the monetary limit to $40,000 to restore the protection given by the Act to consumer and small business purchasers. Also, the Government sees a need to provide protection for truck owner-operators whose business is directly affected by the dependability of their vehicles. After consideration of the recommendation of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry (the `May Report'), section 4B is to be amended to provide to purchasers of commercial road vehicles the protection given to consumers under Division 2 of Part V of the Act. Misuse of market power A competitive economy requires an appropriate mix of efficient businesses, both large and small. Whilst large enterprises may frequently have advantages of economies of scale, there are many occasions when large size does not of itself mean greater efficiency. However, a large enterprise may be able to exercise enormous market power, either as buyer or seller, to the detriment of its competitors and the competitive process. Accordingly an effective provision controlling misuse of market power is most important to ensure that smaller businesses are given a measure of protection from the predatory actions of powerful competitors. Unfortunately, section 46 as presently drafted has proved of quite limited effectiveness in achieving that result, principally because the section applies only to monopolists or those with overwhelming market dominance. Even in those cases, it can be extremely difficult for a plaintiff to establish the requisite predatory purpose on the part of the defendant corporation. The amendments proposed in clause 16 address these two problems and are designed to make section 46 much more effective. The test for the application of the section is to be reduced from that of a corporation `being in a position substantially to control a market' to a test of whether `a corporation has a substantial degree of market power'. As well as monopolists, section 46 will now apply to major participants in an oligopolistic market and in some cases, to a leading firm in a less concentrated market. The amendment will also make it clear that the court can infer the requisite predatory purpose from the conduct of the corporation or from the surrounding circumstances. Section 46 in its proposed form-which will be described as misuse of market power rather than monopolisation-is not aimed at size as such or at competitive behaviour as such of strong businesses. What is being aimed at is the misuse by a business of its market power. Examples of misuse of market power may include in certain circumstances, predatory pricing or refusal to supply. Price discrimination I should mention that the Bill does not propose amendments to section 49 which deals with price discrimination. The Government has concluded that amendments of the kind which were canvassed in the Green Paper could have unintended and undesirable effects in particular leading to price rigidity. However, predatory price discrimination can be merely one manifestation of misuse of market power. The strengthening of section 46, and its more effective application to powerful buyers, will extend the potential application of that provision to predatory price discrimination. Mergers There has been much public debate recently about the level of merger activity in the Australian economy and the extent to which it should be regulated. Whilst the level of the debate has intensified recently following merger activity in the retail sector and in other markets, the public discussion was largely initiated by proposals in the Green Paper relating to section 50. Section 50 prohibits mergers which will result in a corporation being able to `control or dominate' a market, except where prior authorization is obtained, on public benefit grounds, from the Trade Practices Commission. The Bill will close several loopholes which have come to light in section 50 in the last few years. The relevant provisions are directed to joint venture acquisitions and acquisitions by natural persons. Clause 18 inserts a new section 50A to deal with offshore mergers which affect a market in Australia. Opportunity will also be taken to make it clear that section 50 does not apply to the bare transfer of monopoly power. The Government is firmly committed to the encouragement of efficient Australian industry and to increasing our competitiveness on world markets. It has been decided that the existing `dominance' test in section 50 should remain essentially unchanged. The coverage of section 50 will not be extended beyond those mergers which result in undue concentration in a market. The competitive conduct of firms which increase their market power as a result of other mergers, will be subject to scrutiny under section 46 as proposed to be amended. At present the Act provides an opportunity for merger participants to seek authorization from the Trade Practices Commission on public benefit grounds. Some business groups have claimed that the existing authorization procedures are not adequate for dealing with industry restructuring. While the Government does not accept this view, this has resulted in reluctance to approach the Commission to ascertain its views on possible authorisation. The Commission has, however, made it clear that it regards desirable industry restructuring as a public benefit and has been prepared to authorize mergers for that purpose. In recognition of the reluctance and time constraints in merger cases, the Bill contains provisions designed to speed up considerably the authorization process. In addition, the Bill widens the scope of directions which the Minister may give to the Commission pursuant to section 29. This will provide greater flexibility in relation to directions which can be given to the Commission in respect of particular issues to be taken into account, or bodies to be consulted in authorization cases. In this respect I am considering directing the Commission to consult the Industries Assistance Commission in such matters. Other changes in competition provisions The Bill contains a number of other provisions which are of significance in relation to Part IV. By clause 50, the divestiture remedy in section 81 is being made more effective, particularly where the parties to the merger have conspired to breach section 50. To ensure Australia's international relations are not adversely affected, private proceedings which rely on the extraterritorial operation of the Act will require the Minister's consent. Provisions relating to the disclosure of financial interests by members of the Commission and the Tribunal are being brought into line with current practice. Also, it will now be made clear that the Court can grant consent injunctions and consent divestiture orders, and the Tribunal will be able to make consent determinations, without the need to have a full hearing of the matter. Prohibition against unconscionable conduct The Green Paper proposed a prohibition on unconscionable conduct by corporations in relation to a contract or proposed contract. Following consultation with business, industry and consumer groups, the scope of this amendment has been refined and the proposed section 52A will now prohibit, on a civil basis, unconscionable conduct by corporations in relation to consumer-type transactions. Where a contravention is proved, remedies under section 87 will be available, and the Trade Practices Commission will enforce the section by seeking injunctions where appropriate. The section is directed at conduct which, while it may not be misleading or deceptive, is nevertheless clearly unfair or unreasonable. For example, a corporation which attempted to take advantage of a buyer's obvious lack of understanding of a transaction might fall foul of this section. The new provisions will supplement existing provisions of Part V and strengthen the protection afforded to consumers against unscrupulous trading practices. Recall of unsafe products The Act already contains provisions enabling bans to be placed on the supply of unsafe products. However, these provisions have no application to unsafe products supplied before a banning order is issued. There are at present no powers available to deal with the problem of unsafe products which have already reached the hands of consumers. The Government recognises that many industries have established voluntary procedures for the recall of unsafe products in the market-place, and it commends this responsible approach. However, to provide an adequate mechanism for remedial action across the range of potentially unsafe products, the Government considers it necessary to provide mandatory recall powers which can be used when necessary. Where no voluntary procedures exist, or the procedures are inadequate, these powers will be able to be exercised to ensure unsafe products are recalled from circulation or other remedial action is taken. Clause 34 proposes the inclusion in the Act of a new Division 1A in Part V. The new provisions, dealing with product safety and product information, represent a most important development in measures for the protection of consumers. The Division incorporates, with some amendments, the existing sections of the Act dealing with product safety and product information standards. It also includes new powers dealing with the mandatory recall of unsafe goods supplied after 1 July 1986 and notices to warn the public of goods that are under investigation. I stress that the provisions for mandatory recall are designed to provide reserve powers which will be available for use where the safety of the public is threatened and the situation cannot be handled adequately by voluntary recall schemes or other means. In all cases, primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of consumer goods remains with manufacturers and importers. The Attorney-General will be relying on advice from his colleagues the Minister for Transport in relation to motor vehicles, and the Minister for Health in relation to pharmaceuticals, therapeutic goods and foodstuffs, who would undertake the appropriate consultative procedures within their areas of responsibility. Further, when the Government proposes to issue a mandatory recall order or banning order, there will ordinarily be an opportunity for suppliers of goods affected by the proposed order to seek a conference before the Trade Practices Commission before the order can be issued. In circumstances where there is an imminent risk of illness or serious injury the Attorney-General will be able to make an order without delay. In those cases which involve a declaration that goods are unsafe, there will be an opportunity for a conference after the event to review the declaration. The review procedures will provide opportunity for full canvassing and testing of the issues consistent with quick action when necessary to protect the safety of the public. Commission action on behalf of consumers Clause 54 provides for the amendment of section 87 to enable the Trade Practices Commission to obtain redress on behalf of particular named persons who have suffered loss or damage because of the conduct of a corporation or person in breach of the consumer protection provisions in Division 1 or 1A of Part V. One of the main obstacles preventing consumers from enforcing their rights under the Act is the high cost of litigation. By allowing the Commission to seek compensation on behalf of particular consumers in certain circumstances, consumers will more easily gain redress. The amendment will be particularly useful where the Commission takes enforcement action in situations such as where a large number of consumers have each been defrauded of relatively small amounts, or where a small group of consumers have lost their savings as a result of a fraudulent representation. This kind of proceeding will be a representative action rather than a so-called `class action'. The question of remedies for aggrieved consumers will only arise once the Commission has established a contravention of Part V in a prosecution or a proceeding for an injunction. The aggrieved consumers must be identified in the application and must have consented in writing to the Commission acting on their behalf. The Court is not empowered to make awards of damages to a class of persons, but only to particular named persons. The amount of the loss suffered by each individual by reason of the contravention will have to be established. Other amendments to Part V The Bill also contains other amendments to strengthen the operation of Part V, and their enforcement under Part VI. I draw attention to amendments dealing with misleading representations about employment opportunities, to provide greater protection for unemployed people looking for work; and with fraudulent claims for payment for unsolicited advertising, to ensure that small businesses have adequate protection against such claims. Further details of the amendments are given in the explanatory memorandum. Financial Impact Statement Generally speaking, this Bill will have only a minor impact on Government expenditure. This Bill does not involve additional staff or resources for the Trade Practices Commission. The only direct impact on Government expenditure concerns the administration of the reserve mandatory recall powers. This will require 5 staff in the Office of Consumer Affairs, to monitor industry product recall systems and advise the Attorney-General on the need to exercise the reserve powers when those systems are not adequate, to arrange testing of allegedly unsafe goods, and to conduct advertising to notify the public of unsafe goods. The full year cost is estimated at $250,000. I expect that this Bill will enhance the protection offered by the Act to consumers and will promote fair business practices and competition, to the ultimate benefit of the whole community. Further, if, as expected, several of the State governments enact legislation mirroring the majority of Division 1 of Part V of the Act and repealing State legislation thereby rendered unnecessary, I expect that the costs for business and industry of complying with government regulation in the consumer protection area will be reduced. Conclusion This Bill contains many important features aimed at promoting fair business practices and competition to the benefit of business interests and the broader community alike. In pursuing these objectives, the Government is demonstrating again its commitment to strong, efficient and internationally competitive Australian industry and to a fair market-place. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That consideration of the message in Committee of the Whole be an order of the day for the next day of sitting. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, Mr Ruddock, a member of the House of Representatives, has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in the place of Mr Cadman, discharged. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: 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) Notices 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, and (vii) Further consideration of Business as set down on the Notice Paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.07) —I move: Paragraph (b), leave out the proposed Order of Business, insert the following Order of business: (i) Petitions, (ii) Notices 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) 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. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to speak to the amendment other than to say that it simply repeats what is in the original motion but restores the normal arrangements for any proposal pursuant to standing order 64 and the consideration of Government Papers. That is not to say that the Opposition is giving any undertaking not to propose a matter of public importance on Friday. I suspect that we may feel we will be under the rather heavy pressure of legislative business on that day. We merely wish to preserve the normal arrangements which are open to the Opposition in those circumstances. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(4.08) —in reply-I do not like this amendment much but, having made some discreet inquiries, I find that it will be passed; so I will not oppose it violently. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 29 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.09) —The Australia Bill 1986 [1985] and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill 1985 are most historic pieces of legislation, the subject matter of which is of equal interest to the Opposition as it is to the Government. The major details of the legislation were in fact developed by the Opposition when in government under the Prime Ministership of Malcolm Fraser. As the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) indicated in his second reading speech, agreement was reached on most of the matters covered by this legislation at the 1982 Premiers Conference. There is, however, a slight historical inaccuracy in the statement that agreement was reached following extensive consultation between Commonwealth and State governments dating from the 1982 Premiers Conference. Perhaps that inaccuracy is not so slight when I look at it again because the position is that there had been extensive consultations between the Commonwealth and the States, and between the Commonwealth and not only the United Kingdom Government but also the Private Secretary to the Queen, during the years of 1980 to 1982. I have not actually looked at the former files on those consultations but my recollection is very clear having, as Attorney-General in the Fraser Government, discussed those matters with the United Kingdom Ministers in 1980 and 1981. In fact the Premiers Conference in 1982 had before it a very detailed report from the Standing Committee of Commonwealth-State Attorneys- General which set down the blueprint for this legislation. There is only one matter included in this legislation which had not been agreed at the time of the 1982 Premiers Conference, and that was the nature of the relationship between the State governments and the Crown in relation to the appointment of State governors and the conferring of imperial honours on the recommendation of the States. The difficulty with that issue hitherto had been that such recommendations by the States for imperial honours and for the appointment of governors had to be made through the United Kingdom Government and dealt with by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It was the United Kingdom Minister who made the recommendation to the Queen for the appointment of a State governor or the conferring of State honours. That certainly has been a matter that has troubled the States for many years. They have sought to have direct access, or at least a direct opportunity of giving advice to the Queen, rather than having to go through United Kingdom Ministers. I am pleased that that matter has been resolved and the Bill now includes the way in which that was resolved. It provides that advice to Her Majesty on the exercise of those powers may be tendered by the Premier of a State. In my view that is a perfectly proper solution to the problem. As I have said, all the other matters dealt with in this legislation were the subject of agreement by the Premiers in their conference in June 1982. I can only register my disappointment that it has taken over 3 1/2 years, since the Premiers entered into that agreement, for such legislation to be presented in this Parliament for our concurrence. Following passage of this Bill, legislation in similar terms will be presented to the United Kingdom Parliament because it is a complementary exercise by the parliaments of the States in Australia, which requested this legislation by this Parliament, and the United Kingdom Parliament. It will probably seem strange to the vast majority of Australians that in 1985 it is necessary for the State and Federal parliaments in Australia and the United Kingdom Parliament to pass legislation of this kind. The reason for this is that, despite the freeing of the Federal Parliament from colonial fetters as a result of the Statute of Westminster back in 1931, such colonial fetters have remained on State parliaments and governments despite the passage of the Statute of Westminster. They will remain until this legislation is passed by this Parliament and added to and confirmed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There has been considerable debate in legal and political circles about the need for any legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament. A view has been very strongly held that the constitutional power under which we in this Parliament are passing this legislation is sufficient to remove the colonial fetters on the State parliaments. The view is held that we can do that under the constitutional power referred to by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) under section 51, placitum (xxxviii) of our Constitution which provides that this Parliament may 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 . . . Until recent years that has been a very obscure section of our Constitution which as far as I am aware had never been used by this Parliament until in 1980 when we passed what is known as the off-shore constitutional settlement. This was another result of extensive consultation between the Commonwealth and the States by the Fraser Government, which gave effect to that legislation at the request of the State parliaments at the time. There was much doubt whether that would be effective but I am pleased to say that as far as I am aware there has been no legal challenge in the High Court of Australia to the constitutional validity of that legislation. It seems to be accepted that that is a clear power of this Parliament. Therefore, I have no doubt that this legislation, which is also based on that same constitutional power, is a perfectly valid exercise of our powers and I am inclined to the view that it is not strictly necessary to have United Kingdom legislation. Nevertheless, it is very sensible that we are seeking to have, and I am sure that we will have, United Kingdom legislation because there is still a strongly held view in Australia-I suppose it is confined to legal circles but it is a view strongly held-that there is still a residual power in the United Kingdom Parliament to pass laws with respect to the Australian States. The United Kingdom has in fact divested itself of that power by the Statute of Westminster in regard to the Commonwealth Parliament. I suppose there are even some theorists who will argue that, despite the Statute of Westminster, a subsequent United Kingdom parliament could repeal that and could in fact even pass a new constitution for Australia or amend our present one. I think the time has long since gone when there is any reality to that argument, but it is one that is held and it is correct to have a symbolic act of severance of the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament which is contemplated by this legislation. Part of the exercise we are now considering is that this Parliament request the passage of legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament which will declare that it no longer will exercise any powers over Australia. That is why I have said that this is truly historic legislation because it will put beyond all doubt, in the fullest possible way, the severance of those old constitutional links between the United Kingdom and Australia. I think it is very important to emphasise that the legislation in no way severs the link between the Crown as the Queen of Australia, and Australia and Australians. Absolutely nothing in this legislation does that or gives greater power to do that to subsequent parliaments by any referendums in Australia than the power which may exist at the moment. If this legislation-because of the provision dealing with the State Governor and the role of the State Governor as the representative of Her Majesty in a State-has anything to say on the subject of the relationship between the Queen as Queen of Australia and Australian parliaments and governments, it would serve to enhance the relationship. As my learned colleague in another place Mr John Spender has observed, there is nothing in this legislation-and it is certainly not to be seen in any way such-which is a step towards republicanism in Australia. That is obviously a subject for debate on another occasion. I hope that will be never. This is certainly not the occasion for a debate of that kind because this legislation is totally irrelevant to that question. There have been a number of limitations on the powers of State parliaments as a result of United Kingdom legislation. The State parliaments have been unable to resolve those limitations and they still remain unable to do so until this legislation is passed. I do not propose to go into the technical details of those matters. However, suffice to say they are certainly not simply theoretical limitations, they are limitations which could have quite horrific consequences in certain circumstances for the citizens of the States. Indeed, we may recall that only a very short time ago legislation in the Victorian Parliament was thought to be in breach of the United Kingdom Act of Settlement of 1701. That was a very real fetter on the powers of the Victorian Parliament which wished to make an appointment to a public office in Victoria of a person who was, in fact, an alien. That would have been likely to have been in breach of the Act of Settlement. I just give that as an example. There are numerous others, but I do not intend to go into them. The highest profile matter which this Bill does deal with is the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council directly from State courts dealing with State matters. That has been the subject of very considerable debate for many years in Australia. In the late 1960s and 1970s this Parliament took all the steps it could to abolish appeals to the Privy Council from decisions of Australian courts. But it was thought at the time that this Parliament did not have the power to abolish completely appeals to the Privy Council from supreme courts of the States when they were dealing with purely State matters. I think it is very dubious that there is a limitation of that kind on this Parliament. It has nothing to do with the dam case; it has more to do with the decision of the High Court of Australia in the seas and submerged lands case emphasising the extent of the external affairs power, not in relation to treaties but in relation to other matters. It is highly likely that this Parliament has the power to abolish appeals to the Privy Council under the external affairs power. For very good reasons neither the previous Government, the Fraser Government, nor the present Government has sought to exercise that power in relation to appeals to the Privy Council and has chosen the path of this legislation, namely, consultations and negotiations with the States leading to formal requests from all the States to this Parliament to pass legislation which, amongst other things, abolishes the appeals to the Privy Council. No doubt there will be some disappointment, based on sentiment, in some legal circles about that decision. I suppose a number of lawyers have had some satisfaction in being able to go off to the Privy Council and argue a case for their Australian client in the Privy Council. No doubt other lawyers may be disappointed that they will not be able to do that in the future. But I think it is totally inconsistent with Australia's independent role in the world and our sovereignty that there be an appeal from any court in Australia to a body outside Australia, even to a body with such historical connections with Australia, a body comprising judges for whom Australians by and large and Australian lawyers in particular have high respect. I do think, however, that there is clearly an inconsistency with the remaining right of appeal that has existed until now. The Opposition and, on a personal note, I welcome the fact that this legislation will end the remaining right of appeal to the Privy Council. I think we should record the high respect which Australians have had for the work that the Privy Council has done over many years in providing a final court of appeal on so many matters from Australian courts. By and large, that has contributed to strengthening the ties of Australia with the common law and has helped to nourish the principle of consistency which is such a major feature of the common law. However, Australian judges, Australian lawyers and ultimately the High Court of Australia have an especially strong regard for, and understanding of, the principles of the common law and a strong enough desire to see that that system is maintained throughout not only Australia but also what is known as the common law world. We can be assured that Australian courts, including, ultimately, the High Court, will ensure not only the survival but also the vigour of the common law. The Opposition shares the same interest in and enthusiasm as the Government for this legislation. I have no doubt that this legislation will be passed this afternoon without further delay. I hope that it will also have an early and speedy passage through the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Assurances which I received from United Kingdom Ministers some years ago when I was Attorney-General would indicate their equal enthusiasm for this legislation. I have no doubt that when Senator Gareth Evans was Attorney-General he was given the same assurances and I am sure the present Attorney-General has had them as well. Certainly United Kingdom Ministers will seek to ensure the early passage of this legislation. However, I guess the United Kingdom Parliament is like all other democratic parliaments. It has a mind of its own. Some members of it may take some interest in this subject; but I am sure that reason will prevail there and that they will not delay it to any extent. Fortunately, they have been through this process in respect of Canada. That is behind them. It may have presented difficulties if this legislation had been presented to the United Kingdom at the same time as they were wrestling with what was known as the patriation of the Canadian Constitution. That is now well and truly a matter of historical record and, hopefully, the United Kingdom Parliament will pass this legislation at the request of the Australian Parliament with expedition and, no doubt, with good will. For those reasons, the Opposition welcomes these measures and will give them its wholehearted support. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.31) —I can only endorse Senator Durack's remark that this is historic legislation, and I take the opportunity to enter the debate on that basis. In saying that, I think proper tribute should be paid to Senator Durack, to Senator Gareth Evans, and to Mr Lionel Bowen for bringing the legislation in its present form before this House. The Australia Bill 1986 and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill 1985 give legislative recognition to the movement by Australia and the Australian States from entities markedly colonial in character to ones essentially independent. An illustration of that is clause 11 of the Australia Bill, which Senator Durack has already mentioned, which finally severs the connection between Australia and the Privy Council. That is an illustration of the way in which Australia has obtained maturity and confidence, even in the lifetime of us all here. Looking at the case of Waghorn v. Waghorn, decided in 1942, Mr Justice Dixon, as he then was, had this to say with reference to a Court of Appeal case, not a House of Lords case or a Privy Council case: . . . I think that if this court is convinced that a particular view of the law has been taken in England from which there is unlikely to be any departure, wisdom is one the side of the court's applying that view to Australian conditions, notwithstanding that the court has already decided the question in the opposite sense. The fact that we still believe in the correctness of our own decision, as I do in the present case, is not in itself an adequate ground for refusing to follow this course. That was from perhaps the greatest common law judge for many years. One contrasts that statement with that which His Honour the then Chief Justice made in Parker v. The Queen in 1963, which is interesting. In talking about a case, he said: . . . I think it forces a critical situation in our (Dominion) relation to the judicial authority as precedents of decisions in England. Hitherto I have thought that we ought to follow decisions of the House of Lords, at the expense of our own opinions and cases decided here, but having carefully studied Smith's Case, I think that we cannot adhere to that view or policy. He went on to say: I think Smith's Case should not be used as authority in Australia at all. Then, of course, in the case of Viro v. The King, the court had obtained the position where it said in effect that the law as laid down by the High Court should be followed by all courts in Australia. That is simply an illustration, as I say, of our maturity and confidence as a nation of Australia, and with which the various States have advanced to our present situation. This legislation gives expression to that situation. Senator Durack has said that this does not make this country a republic. That is so. What it illustrates is that Her Majesty the Queen is now Queen of Australia, Queen of the various States, and Queen, as it were, directly of those entities. As Senator Durack Says, it is no longer the situation that the States must go through some official in England to have access to the Queen. So what is illustrated now is that we have the separate States, independent and fully self-governing except insofar as powers are exercisable by the Commonwealth under section 51 of the Constitution. As I say, this is a matter of great advance to the States and to this country. We now take our place more than ever before as a truly independent country, as a people who can decide our own destiny and our own place in the world. Senator Cook —Quite right. Senator COONEY —And quite right, as Senator Cook says. As Senator Durack says, there are questions as to whether we needed to go to the United Kingdom Parliament to obtain that situation; but, nevertheless, any doubt as to whether we should or should not is removed by the fact that we do so, and do so, it seems, with the greatest of concurrence from that body. I reiterate that these are historic Bills, and I feel honoured to have taken part in the debate on them. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.36) —The Australian Democrats support these historic Bills, the Australia Bill 1986 and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill 1985, giving effect to the agreement between the Commonwealth Government and all the State governments to terminate outmoded constitutional links between our country and the United Kingdom. These links, of course, are no longer needed, and they no longer reflect the needs of this country. Hence it is useful that this agreement has been reached between all constituent governments, be they Labor, Liberal or National Party, on this continent, to have these Bills passed and to be able to be sent to the United Kingdom for the concurrence of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Although, of course, some of the functions of the House of Lords will be taken away by this effect, we assume that the House of Lords will acquiesce in a smaller work load. The legislation encompasses a number of new constitutional provisions and procedural arrangements. These include the termination of the powers that will remain with the United Kingdom in terms of making laws that have effect as part of Australian law. The legislative powers of State parliaments will no longer be fettered, except in relation to foreign affairs. The repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, which is no more than a relic of colonial times, will end the subordination of the States to imperial legislation. In some areas-merchant shipping is a fairly good example-this has been particularly anomalous. The continued existence of imperial legislation has been a problem for the States, and the removal of this constraint will avoid the sometimes ludicrous situations that have arisen up to now. Of major significance is that part of the legislation dealing with the termination of all rights of appeal to the Privy Council. While some lawyers may regret the disappearance of trips to London, the arguments that might once have supported that right of appeal are no longer valid. Indeed, the prospect of forum shopping between the High Court of Australia and the Privy Council is quite inappropriate. We do not need to go elsewhere for the purpose of learning our law, and making the High Court of Australia the final court of appeal for all Australian courts is an important and long overdue step. It should be stressed that nothing in the legislation impairs the position of the Queen as Queen of Australia. In fact, now she will be advised directly by State Premiers, instead of being advised on State matters by United Kingdom Ministers. State Governors are to be vested with all of the Queen's existing powers and functions relating to the States, except those concerning the appointment and termination of State Governors themselves. Also, of course, there is the item that Senator Durack has raised in relation to imperial awards. As has been pointed out by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech, arrangements have been made to cater for those States which still wish to award imperial honours. I conclude by referring, as did Senator Cooney, to clause 15, which is to the effect that significant reforms contained in the Australia Bill can be set aside only by a Commonwealth concurrence of all State parliaments. The Australian Democrats continue to hope that the same sort of bipartisanship and good will that has been brought to bear in the formulation of these two Bills can be applied to the outstanding questions that exist in Australia in regard to constitutional reform. The passage of this legislation properly reflects Australia's status as an independent and sovereign nation and is certainly appropriate in terms of the bicentennial celebrations that will be held in three years time. Australia, of course, as much as possible ought to exert itself as a full and independent nation within the world community. We welcome the passage of this legislation. I expect at this stage some tears will be shed for the passing of the empire, although given the debates that have taken place within our community I would expect that that might be slightly premature. Certainly, having regard to the recent public adulation during the visit of Prince Charles and Princess Diana it would be very premature for any tears to be shed for the passing of those parts of our constitutional arrangements which connect Australia to the Crown. Nevertheless, the changes that have taken place recognise our maturity as a nation. They are reflected in the Bills and we hope that when the Parliament assembles in the new year we will have in the not too distant future a message from the United Kingdom Parliament which acknowledges that it has also concurred with the passage of these Bills. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.43) —I share the pleasure of the other speakers in today's debate that this historic legislation is now finally before the Australian Parliament and will be passed by the Parliament today with the active support of all honourable senators in this place. The significance of the measure has been amply stated by other speakers during the debate and by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech. It is not necessary for me to track back over that territory. I simply make the point that, just as was the case with Senator Durack, I have been deeply involved in this legislation, first in my capacity as Attorney- General and subsequently over the last 12 months as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. I yield to no one in my sense of relief that this long, drawn out process has now finally drawn its way to a conclusion. I respond to two matters raised by Senator Durack. The first was his suggestion that some feet dragging had been going on in the matter being brought to fruition after the initial discussion at the Premiers Conference in 1982. Senator Durack —You answered that complaint of mine quite effectively the other day. Senator GARETH EVANS —I make it clear that while it has been 3 1/2 years since the Premiers reached their initial agreement, there is no foundation for any implied suggestion that the Commonwealth Government has been in any way responsible for such a delay as has occurred. For the record I indicate that the initial reason for sending the matter round the track again was a communication from the British Government which pointed out a number of technical difficulties as it perceived them in quarantining, as was the original proposal, the question of honours and the appointment of State governors. That made it necessary for the States and the Commonwealth to address themselves to those vexed and difficult questions which it was, of course, hoped in 1982 could be kept simply on the back burner. The process of everyone addressing those questions and resolving them to their mutual satisfaction, as well as resolving a number of other technical difficulties that reared their heads along the way, has been a process that has been inevitably prolonged. But this is not the occasion to be saying anything else than that the whole exercise has been an example of the kind of co-operation that is possible at the end of the day when governments within this system of ours recognise the reality of a particular policy problem and the necessity to resolve that problem, and that co-operation ultimately has been forthcoming in a very satisfactory manner. The second matter to which I advert is the suggestion by Senator Durack that United Kingdom legislation is not necessary to accomplish the final cessation of the range of imperial links that are involved in this package. That is a view which is shared by the Commonwealth and has been articulated by, I think, probably successive Commonwealth governments. But it is not a view that has been completely shared by the States. Some of them at least have had the view that there may be some lingering doubt about the effectiveness of Commonwealth legislation, even pursuant to the external affairs power, if not implied legislative authority flowing from other sections of the Constitution in the aftermath of the Statute of Westminster. But they have expressed a view that the matter ought to be put beyond doubt by legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament following the request and consent of the Australian Parliament, and that is the course which has been adopted. I mention that it is proposed simultaneously to promulgate the Australian Australia Bill and the United Kingdom Australia Bill after they have been passed by the respective parliaments; such simultaneous promulgation possibly occurring at the time of the Queen's proposed visit to Australia in, I think, late March next year. If a simultaneous promulgation of the two relevant pieces of legislation does occur, of course it will mean that the question as to what would have been the situation at law-whether the Australian Bill would have been effective on its own before the promulgation of the United Kingdom one-will remain a matter of entirely academic interest because it will not be capable of ever being tested. I simply repeat that the passage of this legislation is an historic moment. It is appropriate at last for a proud and independent nation such as ours to finally reach that moment. It is an overdue piece of legislation in many ways, but the fact of its being overdue makes it no less important and its passage today no less significant. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.49) —Clause 7 of the Australia Bill has interesting implications and, in view of the presence of the Solicitor-General as well as a former Attorney-General, I would like to get some legal advice. It seems to me that clause 7 may well be interpreted as entrenching the position of State governors. I applaud that. However, as I understand it, State Constitutions do not entrench the position of State governors any more than-- Senator Macklin —Queensland does. Senator DURACK —It only means that they have to go through a certain manner and form in changing their Constitutions. Clause 6 of this Bill protects the position of State Constitutions by requiring certain manner and form for their alteration. It seems to me that clause 7 is able to be interpreted as an entrenchment of the position of State governors. Is that the view of the Government? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.50) —That may be the effect of clause 7 and I think that is perhaps one of its attractions so far as certain States are concerned. To the extent that the position of governors thus becomes as entrenched in a different way as the position of the Governor-General is entrenched under the Constitution, it would take quite special measures not involving simply an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament to secure its repeal. In the case of this legislation, the amendment mechanism that would be involved to enable that to occur is the mechanism, I guess, set out in section 15 of the principal Act which is subject to a repeal or amendment procedure of a considerably burdensome kind and is the same repeal or amendment procedure as that provided for the Statute of Westminster itself. It would need to be accomplished at the request or with the concurrence of all the relevant parliaments which, for the purposes of the future, means the Commonwealth and the State parliaments. So I guess in this sense it would not be possible to contemplate a particular State going off on some frolic of its own so far as the repeal of the provision establishing the position of governor is concerned. That ought to give considerable comfort to those opposite, although no doubt it will not shut them up, who regard the Australian Labor Party nationally and certainly in some of the States as hell bent on establishing republicanism by any available means. The reality of the matter is that if the demise of governors as we presently know them were to occur, it would only occur as part of some larger constitutional exercise no doubt in the somewhat distant future which would in fact demand quite complex constitutional amendment procedures to bring it about. I think that is the reality of what is secured by this legislation. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1985-86. Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.56) —The States Grants (General Revenue) Bill 1985 is the annual appropriation of moneys by the Federal Government to the States in order to hand back collections of income tax by the Federal Government to the States so that they can carry on their administrative and other duties on behalf of their individual citizens. We have to recognise, in particular, that these tax grants increase in value as time goes by. Indeed, inflation is one of the very real issues, not only as far as the expense side of the Budgets of the State parliaments and governments are concerned, but also in terms of the revenue that is collected by the Commonwealth and redistributed to the States in this fashion. This kind of activity means that a very large swag, altogether, of funds finds it way out of the Federal Government's Budget across to the States. We all know that it is the Federal Government which has to raise those moneys in the first place and then hand them across to the States. Of the total amount of money collected in the financial year which is authorised by this legislation, a sum of $9.76 billion will be handed back to the States for general revenue grants and, for assistance in regard to the health provisions and the running of the health system in the various States, a further amount of some $11.24 billion-all in all, a sum approaching $21 billion. This is a very considerable amount out of the total tax collections of the Commonwealth which finds its way directly back to the States for the States' purposes. Although the Commonwealth gets the odium, if that is the word, for collecting the taxes in the first place, it finds that $21 billion, a very large part of the whole, is distributed immediately back to the States. That matter is of great concern to all Federal members of this Parliament. I believe that it is not generally understood in the community the very great extent to which States benefit from the Commonwealth Government's largesse in this regard. We all know that the Premiers Conferences are the fora where these things are settled. Each year the States bargain with the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to obtain the amounts payable. However, it is wise to recognise that because the States collect some amounts from the Federal Government in this way they are, generally speaking, left with a shortfall which has to be raised by each State through its own taxation. Indeed, the State from which I come-South Australia-has a very significant sum of money to raise-some $300m, I think-on the State Budget, which is a considerable burden on the taxpayers of South Australia. When one considers that since the current South Australian State Government, the Bannon Labor Government, came to power, on 6 November 1982, State taxes and charges have risen by 55.2 per cent, that averages out roughly at about 18 per cent a year. It is a far greater rise than the rise in Federal Government taxes during that period. Quite clearly, the State Government of South Australia is a high taxing Labor government. It has stretched the fortitude and the life-blood of the people of South Australia in such a way as to ensure that they have little left over to invest and to generate opportunities in the South Australian economy in the way that they would otherwise do. We have to recognise that because the Bannon Labor Government is such a high taxing government, other solutions to problems have to be found. One has to consider that the activities of the State Government have been generated on a higher level than might otherwise have been the case because it has got itself involved in a whole lot of areas, such as the State Central Linen Service, which would normally be the responsibility of the private sector of the economy in each State. Government involvement in activities such as the Central Linen Service is indeed dragging down the taxpayers of South Australia because they have to contribute to the losses of that organisation, which is a government-owned and government-run monopoly. One of the ways in which States can relieve themselves of the responsibilities of high taxation is by looking at how some of their activities could be better carried out by the private sector. Indeed, the Central Linen Service of South Australia that I have just mentioned would be ideal for privatisation, if I can use that word. I mean that the private sector could take over and run more efficiently and more effectively a service which is currently being run by the State Government and for which the taxpayer has to pay the bill. I do not mean that in any process by which such a transfer of activity might occur there would be a total disregard for the state and condition of the service to South Australians. It ought to be the prime criterion in any decision by any government to transfer such an activity to the private sector that it be demonstrated quite clearly from the outset that there would be an improvement in both the service and the cost of the service from the consumer's point of view. That should be the basis upon which all decisions are made by government. No decision should be made unless the test laid down is properly satisfied. I am pleased to say that the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, Mr John Olsen, has given firm undertakings that in no case would there be a transfer of government activities until that test was satisfied-until the government found out whether consumers and taxpayers would benefit as a result of the transfer of any activity. It seems to me that if such transfers can be undertaken and can effectively improve services to consumers and thereby, at the same time, reduce the demands on taxpayers caused by the losses of government-run instrumentalities, that would have to be good for the State and ultimately it must be good for the nation. Such a move would mean that our assets would be working more effectively; that we would be generating resources at a faster rate; and that we would be saving money by virtue of being able to provide tax reductions. Surely that is an activity in which all members of parliament, both State and Federal and certainly members of the Liberal and National parties, are interested. Mr Olsen has done the nation a great service by bringing forward a most imaginative proposal in South Australia by which certain State Government activities can be transferred to the private sector. He has proposed the offering to all South Australians of the opportunity to purchase a 49 per cent interest in the oil and gas fields in the north-east of the State. That would raise nearly $200m in capital. The State of South Australia, like all other Labor-run States, has a very high debt owing to various sources. At the moment, in South Australia, the debt is some $3,800m. The charge upon the revenues of the State for interest and servicing of that capital debt runs to a figure well in excess of $300m. Clearly, if through an imaginative proposal such as that which Mr Olsen is putting forward, the State can raise a couple of hundred million dollars and reduce the debt-that in turn would mean that the servicing of the debt would be reduced-there would be a saving for the taxpayers. Therefore, the State of South Australia would be able to offer its taxpayers tax reductions. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia is offering at present. He is saying: `Look, we are going to get rid of that dreadful, hated financial institutions duty in South Australia over a three-year period in a quite responsible way by saving money on interest payments on the debt'. Is that not a commonsense proposal and a very useful one for reducing the charges against the taxpayers of South Australia? Furthermore, the Opposition in that State, led by Mr Olsen, is offering a further gain to the taxpayers by proposing that the amount which is charged by the State Government on the electricity authorities in that State be reduced. This would have the indirect effect of reducing charges to the South Australian electricity consumers. Consequently, they would have cheaper electricity. That proposal is not only good for people who are struggling to own their own homes and to pay the very high electricity charges that have been imposed in that State-- Senator Siddons —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I wonder whether we are debating a States Grants Bill or the South Australian election. I fail to see what privatisation in South Australia has to do with a States Grants Bill. Senator MESSNER —On the point of order-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I do not think that I need any help on the point of order. Quite clearly, the honourable senator was relating his remarks, albeit to the State of South Australia, to the Bill. He is quite entitled to do that. Senator MESSNER —I make the point that the same kinds of considerations as apply to the beaten-down, poor taxpayers of South Australia can be applied to those taxpayers in other Labor States as well. If Senator Siddons wants me to extend my remarks to cover the States of Victoria, Western Australia and New South Wales, I am quite willing to do so, because they are under Labor governments and they are all suffering under the same kinds of policies as have been adopted by the Bannon Labor Government. That is quite an important point to make. I reiterate the major thrust of what I am saying: One can never go broke paying off debt, and that is precisely my point. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) was trying to tell us in this chamber last week that by selling off government assets that could be better held in private hands one is somehow going to put oneself out of business. That is just nonsense. Such a proposal would reduce the debt and therefore improve a State's capacity to provide better and cheaper services to its consumers and taxpayers. Also, more importantly, costs could be saved and, as a result, taxation could be reduced. I believe that to be a most worthwhile proposition and one which all honourable senators, be they Labor, Liberal, National or even Democrat, would support. There is some doubt about the Democrats because not only do they want taxes to go down but also they want expenditure to go down, and that provides some difficulty. Nevertheless, as can be seen, by positive moves we can achieve the kinds of changes which are now being proposed in South Australia by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Olsen. One other aspect which is important to recognise-I hope that Senator Siddons appreciates this-is that if the State Government, which will be led by Mr Olsen after next Saturday's election, sells off the Government linen service, that will mean, as a result of the service being carried out more effectively and efficiently in the hands of the private sector, that there will be a reduction in the cost of running the State hospitals system. As a result, taxpayers in South Australia again will be afforded some assistance in that regard. Clearly that must have its eventual effect by taking a load off the Commonwealth taxpayers as well. As the South Australian Government, under its new leadership of Mr Olsen, will then not be forced to go to the Commonwealth cap in hand to ask for more money to pay for inefficient State-run enterprises, it will demand less from the Commonwealth, so all Commonwealth taxpayers will benefit. That is a most imaginative proposal from Mr Olsen and ranks second only to the next most imaginative proposal he has put forward to assist the taxpayers and consumers of South Australia. Senator Robertson —What is it? Senator MESSNER —As Senator Robertson probably knows full well, there is a very great shortage of rental housing in all States. That is as true of South Australia as any other State. In South Australia this has got gradually worse under the Bannon Labor Government. The number of people on the waiting list for State rental housing in the past three years of Labor Government has risen from 34,000 to 37,000. In other words, the South Australian Government has not met its responsibilities to those who are seeking low rent public housing. What remains to be done is to find ways of raising more money so that public housing can be extended. Mr Olsen's proposal, which I think is very worth while, is to ensure that people who are currently renting houses from the South Australian Housing Trust can buy those houses. They will acquire an asset which will acquire value over time and will become a store of wealth for them. More importantly, because of the way in which they will exercise their purchase, the State will get back the value of the house. It can then put that money back into other public housing projects and, consequently, can provide more rental housing for low income earners in South Australia. I only wish that the Premiers of the other States, particularly the Labor States of New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria, would learn the same lesson, because it is clear that those kinds of imaginative proposals carried out by governments in other States are indeed worth pursuing. Clearly people should be given a store of capital in a home, for which otherwise they would be paying rent. Otherwise they will gradually see it float by them, so that when they come to retirement they will have no asset after having lived in a house for 30 years or so and will have lost all that rent. With this imaginative proposal from Mr Olsen they would be so much better off and would acquire property which they would hold right throughout their lifetime. It is a very worthwhile project which would assist low income earners and must eventually assist the Commonwealth because it would take the load off the Commonwealth in the provision of public housing funds. That flies directly in the face of the approach of this Hawke Labor Government in Canberra, which is trying to destroy private investment in low income housing. It has introduced a capital gains tax which will prevent people from investing in housing and letting it out for low income earners. Secondly, it has introduced a proposal on negative gearing which will disallow expenses for that. I put the proposition to the Senate that the negative gearing proposal will raise a mere $55m, by the Government's own admission, under the Keating review of the Australian taxation system. That means that $55m will be saved from taxation revenue. Let us consider that against a shortage of housing, which is bound to happen, rents will go up for the average person by $5 a week over the next year. Those who are on low incomes, such as pensioners and beneficiaries-there are about 500,000 of them-will have to come to the Commonwealth and ask for more assistance. That $5 a week for the 500,000 people in that category will cost the Government $2.5m extra per week. On an annual basis that is $130m. Yet the Hawke Labor Government has said that it will save $55m through negative gearing, but it will throw out the window some $75m or $80m elsewhere. That thinking is typical of this Government. It has no comprehensive business approach to what it is doing and, consequently, will lead us into terrible trouble in the provision of low income housing in the future. It is clear to me that the Government will cause a shortage in that area, which will be enhanced even more by the very high interest rates that are now being paid for housing loans at all levels right across Australia. As you, Mr Deputy President, would know only too well, that is affecting not only States such as your State of Tasmania, but also the people who are paying off homes in Adelaide-the taxpayers of South Australia-in suburbs such as Tea Tree Gully, Modbury, Brighton, Warradale, Somerton, Merino and Christie Downs, who are having their mortgages pushed through the roof. This is happening as a direct result of this Labor Government's policy. It is admitted in the Senate every day by the Minister for Finance that the Government is forced to keep interest rates high. The reason is simple: The Government has to cover the enormous expanding debt of this country which is growing at the rate of $1,000m per month. We know that this is causing greater and greater problems. Any ordinary household borrows to keep up its standard of living; that is what this nation is doing at the moment. The Government has to keep interest rates high so that there is a capital inflow into the country in order to cover the outgoings that we are losing at present. That is a very big problem for the whole of Australia, and we all know the reason for it. It certainly has not been enhanced by the Government's recent decision to allow a wide-open approach to superannuation right across industry. That is something about which we are very concerned. I notice that the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia and other groups are becoming more and more concerned about that. Obviously that will not assist the perception of people overseas as to our creditworthiness and, consequently, will make it more and more difficult for money to be raised to cover the rising deficit on our overseas balance of payments. It appears to me that this Government has no heart when it comes to interest rates. Those high interest rate policies, of course, over time will force many people into changing their housing arrangements because they simply will not be able to meet the repayments. Let us consider small businesses. The overdraft rates for loans over $100,000-a relatively small amount today when one talks about business-is 19.5 per cent. It is an incredibly high rate. In real terms it is of the order of 11 per cent. Of course, that is the highest real interest rate in 50 years; we have never seen interest rates at such a level. Yet this Hawke Government believes that there is no problem. I can tell Mr Hawke that there are problems for small business, and certainly there are people who are now struggling to meet their obligations as a result of this Government's policies. I would like to mention too another problem being faced by small businesses because of interest rates; that is, they are now not so easily able to arrange their affairs. The reason is that many people in the last 12 months have taken full note of what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in the election campaign last year when he promised lower interest rates in 1985. In fact, in Adelaide in November 1984, just before the election on 1 December, the Prime Minister said that we could expect interest rates to fall in 1985. What has happened since then? Interest rates have really gone up. The people who trusted the Prime Minister then and Mr Keating throughout 1985, believing that they actually knew what they were talking about, have found, to their great cost, having invested money and taken risks on the basis of that promise, that the rug has been pulled from under their feet; and they are mighty angry about it. It is not only small businessmen who are in that category. The home owners, the people who have brought new houses over the last year or so on the promise of falling interest rates, now find to their detriment that interest rates are in fact rising. They will be battling to hold their houses over the next year or so. Quite clearly, it is the Federal Labor Government's policies in regard to the general economic stance of the country that are causing this problem. We have to recognise too that the States are not blameless in this and that the Labor Government in South Australia, led by Mr Bannon, has given its full support to the Hawke Government's policies. Mr Bannon has advertised the fact that he supports the high interest policies of the Labor Government. What is he going to do about interest rates? Mr Bannon will not give a commitment before the end of March that he will not raise interest rates. He is waiting until after the election when he knows that building society interest rates will go up. The same applies to Mr Keating; he knows that he is going to have to lift interest rates on housing as soon as the South Australian election is out of the way. He knows that, and indeed honourable senators opposite know that. There are South Australian senators here who know that. Senator Maguire —Look at the polls. Senator MESSNER —Senator Maguire would not know that because he does not read anything, but the fact is that it is likely to happen. Indeed, the Government is forced to acknowledge that interest rates must rise further. I would like to mention only one other thing. In South Australia we have a very important industry-the car industry. That industry is now under severe threat by virtue of this Federal Government's policies in regard to the fringe benefits tax, and that tax as well has the full support of the Bannon State Labor Government. Mr Bannon at the Tax Summit said: `We acknowledge that the Federal Government has to introduce a fringe benefits tax'. He could not care less about the car industry in South Australia. He supports the Hawke Labor Government. That is the key to his situation. He is tied to the ecomonic policies of the Hawke Labor Government. He is tied to the destruction of the car industry which, it has already been predicted, will produce 50,000 fewer cars this financial year than it did last year and, consequently, cost jobs in South Australia. Indeed, the high interest rate policies of the Hawke Labor Government have the full support of the Bannon Labor Government because it is on record as supporting the high interest policies of the Hawke Government. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(5.25) —We are supposed to be debating the States Grants (General Revenue) Bill. This is a piece of legislation which puts into legislative form the formula the Government is using to pay back to the States their share of income tax. Thanks to your ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President, we have had a boring dissertation from Senator Messner on a full range of issues relating to the South Australian election. We have heard about small business, the car industry, high taxation, the need for tax cuts, privatisation and low rental public housing. We have heard about everything except the formula by which the Government proposes to hand income tax back to the States. Since it apparently is in order to talk about anything under the sun during this debate, I believe I have a responsibility to take on some of the things that Senator Messner alluded to. Let us take his comments about the need for tax reductions-very pertinent at this time. We have heard from the Opposition a very clearly stated policy that the Government's tax package was to be opposed flat footed; there was straight out opposition to all aspects of the Government's tax package. Let me remind the Opposition that that tax package also contains billions of dollars of tax cuts for all Australians. Presumably, as the Opposition is opposed to the tax package, it also opposes the tax cuts that the Government has promised and is under a commitment to grant next year. Senator Peter Baume —Mr Acting Deputy President, is there a standing order that requires the honourable senator to tell the truth? He is misrepresenting the Opposition's position on the tax package quite outrageously. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Senator Peter Baume, I think you have been here long enough to know that you should not impute incorrect motives to another honourable senator. I call Senator Siddons. Senator SIDDONS —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have read with great care the Opposition's statement on the tax package, and every aspect was to be opposed by the Opposition. In clear, cold and stark political terms that meant one thing: The money Bills relating to the tax package were to be opposed by the Opposition. Had that opposition by the Liberal Party succeeded in the Senate it would have been a straight block of the whole tax legislation, which would have had the inevitable effect of forcing a double dissolution; it could have had no other outcome. I ask the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, whether he is fair dinkum when he says that this legislation should be blocked. Is he saying that he wants to face the people of Australia in an election at a double dissolution by blocking the tax legislation? With the present state of disarray of the Liberal Party; is he fair dinkum about this? It is very easy to say that we need lower taxes. It is much more difficult to say where the money is coming from so that those lower taxes can be granted to the people of Australia. It is very easy to say that we need low rental public housing. Where is the money coming from to achieve these things? Time and again I have heard the Opposition ask such questions as: Should not goodwill be considered a legitimate deduction for capital gains purposes? Is it not important for averaging provisions to be in the tax legislation? I have heard question after question along these lines. The Australian Democrats sat down with the Government through a whole week of very intense negotiation, often going into the late hours of the evening, with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and with Mr Keating and managed to negotiate the very things that the Opposition was talking about. Now those opposite turn around and say that these things are unimportant-that it was not very important to have averaging or to include good will as a deduction in the capital gains legislation. The hypocrisy of the Liberal Party on the whole tax question is almost unbelievable. Having said that, I turn very briefly to the legislation before us which, as I have said, is the formula that hands back to the States their share of income tax. When reading through the legislation-which was on my desk a moment ago but now seems to have disappeared-I was very interested that the Government has been successful in negotiating a formula which is set down for a period of two years, this year and the next two years. I would have thought that that was quite an achievement by the Government. The formula is very simple. It is the total amount of money to be paid back, taking into account the consumer price index and the population of the various States. It is a very clear, concise formula which leaves no room for minor silly objections. Certainly it does not give any grounds for raising the sorts of matters Senator Messner raised relating to low interest public housing, the car industry and so forth. The Democrats will support this legislation. We think it is very clear and concise. It is good that we have a formula that will, in effect, last for a period of three years in this highly contentious area. Let me turn briefly to the car industry since Senator Messner raised the matter. Presumably he raised it on the basis that the Government's tax package would adversely affect the car industry, which of course is an important industry in South Australia. One has to look at the fringe benefits part of the tax package in a balanced way. The Democrats do not particularly like the fact that in most cases in the fringe benefits package the responsibility will be put on the employer rather than where it should rightly be placed-on the employee, since it is the employee who will be the beneficiary. Having said that, let us look at the enormous problems that would have occurred in trying to assess the liability of employees who have company cars. It would have caused enormous problems. We assessed the whole legislation as best we could from an objective point of view and we came up with the conclusion that, all in all, the changes to fringe benefits in the tax package that relate to an employee's car were reasonable. There is no doubt that there has been a rort on employee cars. At one time a chief executive was given a company car if he was lucky. I admit that that was many years ago. That benefit was extended to other people such as secretaries of companies. When the secretary of the company got a motor car the assistant accountant said `If the secretary has one, why can't I?' and so it went down the line, until most executives in enterprises expected to get a company car. There is no end to this situation unless somebody is prepared to make a stand. The Government has done that. Perhaps the matter could have been attacked in other ways, but at least, all in all, I believe that that part of the tax package is not unreasonable. We agree with the formulas that relate to the financial arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth. We believe a three-year period is good; it is an achievement. I still wait to hear from the Opposition on how it proposes to raise the money for the billions of dollars that are necessary to make worthwhile tax cuts, if it is not prepared to allow the Government to raise the revenue as it is proposed in the legislation. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.35) —I can only endorse Senator Siddons's final comments in drawing attention to the humbug and hypocrisy of the Opposition, which has decided on what it thinks is the opportunistic course of taking all the goodies in the tax package while rejecting all the nasties, to use Senator Messner's words. In other words, the Opposition is taking the cynical opportunistic approach against the advice that Senator Messner gave on 19 September when the tax policy was announced. I understand that Senator Messner raised the question of privatisation, among other things. I will say a few words about that, although I do not intend to delay the passage of the States Grants (General Revenue) Bill 1985 for any significant time. Privatisation as proposed by the Liberal Party in South Australia amounts to no more than a bit of creative accounting, and illusory accounting at that. The privatisation proposal put forward by the South Australian Liberal Leader is to flog off 49 per cent of public equity in the South Australian Oil and Gas Corporation Pty Ltd. That money, so he says, along with a few other minor disposals of assets, will be used to reduce the public debt and therefore public debt interest payments. The tax cuts he proposes will be funded by the consequential lower payments on public debt interest. The document the South Australian Liberals prepared refers to the dividends that will accrue to the public because of the remaining 51 per cent equity in the South Australian Oil and Gas Corporation. However, it fails to mention the dividends forgone by the sale of the 49 per cent equity in that Corporation, which, according to Mr Olsen, is the basis on which the so-called tax cuts would be funded. Without going into any ideological disputes about the merits or otherwise of public or private ownership, it is quite apparent, regardless of what one's views may be on this question, that the South Australian Opposition Leader is doing a bit of financial conjuring. He is cooking the books and claiming that he can fund tax cuts when, if his proposals are followed through, this cannot be done. The second point which has direct relevance to this Bill-Senator Siddons has pointed this out-is that the legislation provides not only the level of general purpose payments to the States for this financial year but also a 2 per cent real increase in those general purpose payments for each of the next two succeeding years-that amounts to 4 per cent in the second year-adjusted for population movements and a few other factors. Given that the Liberal Party's shadow Treasurer has already said publicly that the Commonwealth should reduce its outlays by cancelling those 2 per cent real increases in general purpose payments to the States-that is, a 2 per cent real increase next year on this year's figure and a further 2 per cent real increase the year after on next year's figure-given that the Liberal Party is already publicly committed, through a statement of its shadow Treasurer, to cancelling that 2 per cent real increase, and given that the Liberal Party would have us believe it is a party of principle which consistently applies a rigorous attitude to economic policies, and particularly to matters of government expenditure, I wonder why the Opposition has not moved a request to this Bill in the Senate that the 2 per cent real increase for the next financial year be cancelled. It is, after all, Opposition policy. Opposition policy, as expounded by Mr Carlton, the shadow Treasurer, is that the 2 per cent real increase in general purpose payments to the States, which will be enacted by this legislation, should be cancelled. Given that it is Opposition policy to cancel that increase, I wonder why-I ask again-Senator Messner has not moved a request of the House of Representatives that the Bill be amended in order to accommodate that 2 per cent reduction in real payments to the States, which is Liberal Party policy. Senator Maguire —Higher taxes in South Australia too. Senator WALSH —Yes. I can only assume, as Senator Maguire reminds me, that the only reason that has not been done is that the Liberal Party knows that if such an amendment were to be successful South Australia, for example, would be denied $25m in the next financial year and to recover that amount of revenue would require an 80 per cent increase in third party insurance payments for vehicle owners. I must say that it would be extraordinary-more than extraordinary; incongruous-for the Opposition Leader, who is going to the election on a policy of lower taxes, to be simultaneously proposing a monstrous 80 per cent increase in third party insurance payments for vehicle owners. I do not propose to say any more on this. The Bill has not been opposed even though it is clearly in conflict with Liberal Party policy, which is to reduce payments to the States. Whereas this legislation provides for a real increase in real payments to the States over the next two financial years, the Liberal Party has not had the courage actually to tack on a request to the Bill and thereby implement its policies, for the cynical reasons that I have already given; that is, the Bill has to be dealt with this week and the Opposition knows that there is a South Australian election on Saturday. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 5 November, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.44) —I wish to speak on a rather important matter that was the subject of a parliamentary select committee inquiry some years ago. I was the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing which recommended the establishment of an appropriations and staffing committee of the Parliament. I will refer fairly briefly to the recommendations made in November 1981 which were endorsed unanimously by the Senate. They were, predominantly, that the Committee: (b) resolves that the Senate should establish a Standing Committee as recommended to consider the Senate's appropriations and staffing; (ba) proposes that the Estimates for the Senate as finally agreed to by such Standing Committee be submitted to the Minister for Finance for inclusion in a separate parliamentary appropriation Bill; (c) calls on the Government to agree that the appropriations for the Parliament be removed from the Bill for the ordinary annual services of the Government and included in a separate Parliamentary Appropriation Bill; (d) agrees that the expenditure administered by the Executive departments on behalf of the Parliament be brought together in a Parliamentary Appropriation Bill and that provision be made for an Advance to the President of the Senate on the same basis as the Advance to the Minister for Finance; (e) directs that the President arrange for discussions to be held with the appropriate Executive departments to review those functions which are currently administered by them, and subsequently to plan the transfer of functions suitable for administration by the Senate; and (f) agrees that section 9 of the Public Service Act 1922 be amended to vest in the Presiding Officers, separately or jointly as the case may be, the power of appointment, promotion, creation, abolition and reclassification of offices, and the determination of rates of pay and conditions of service. The resolution was the virtual culmination of years of effort on the part of a number of senators and clerks. I think that this reflected the interests both of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties at that time. We have seen the development of that to a degree where we now have a Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing which deals with the matters that are of concern to the Parliament. Historically, the need for parliament to be independent of government and of Treasury decisions about the funding of its operations has been recognised by similar parliaments throughout the world. For example, the House of Commons in the United Kingdom has had such financial arrangements operating since 1979, some six years. The Parliament of the United States of America has had a similar committee system working for the benefit of ordinary members of parliament for the past 62 years and Canada has had a similar system for the past 117 years. So in carrying out our initial investigations, the Select Committee of this Senate was made aware of a common source of concern to all parliaments; that is, a growing imbalance in the relationship between the Parliament and the Executive. There is always a tendency in Australia to regard executive government as being paramount and the finance for parliament as being an ordinary annual service of government, which is quite wrong. We hope that all of these matters have now been corrected. The parliamentary budgets of the majority of members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union are not subject to executive modification. Their financial autonomy is, therefore, guaranteed. Governments of all colours are quick to point out the responsibility they have to the electorate for overall budgetary policy and the level of public expenditure, and the responsibility they have for raising the revenue to fund that expenditure. But in the light of the need for parliament to be able to control its own activities, and in the light of the arrangements that obviously have been operating for many years in most democratic countries, as I have said, it is nonsense to suggest that executive government needs to maintain control over the total funds available for expenditure by parliament. I believe, and the Committee believes, that parliament should be in a position to influence that expenditure but not to control it. Up to now successive Ministers-for example, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Mr Dawkins-have been very co-operative with the Appropriations and Staffing Committee with respect to this matter. However, the present Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, seems to have been not quite so co-operative. In fact, on some occasions he seems to me to have been quite antagonistic. I suggest that history should be regarded. I suggest that the present Minister ought to reflect upon the experience of other countries which have run such an arrangement successfully. I have an article which was written by me and Mr Murdoch, the Secretary to the former Select Committee. It is an interesting document and I believe that it ought to be recorded in Hansard for those who have not had an opportunity to read it. I seek leave to have that article from the Parliamentarian of January 1983 incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Senator Donald S. Jessop Chairman of the former Select Committee and Peter N. Murdoch Usher of the Black Rod and Secretary of the former Select Committee AUSTRALIAN SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENT'S APPROPRIATIONS AND STAFFING On 26 November 1981, the Australian Senate endorsed the conclusions and recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing and specifically resolved that: (a) the Senate should establish a Standing Committee to consider the Senate's appropriations and staffing; (b) the estimates for the Senate, as finally agreed to by such standing committee, be submitted to the Minister for Finance for inclusion in a separate Parliamentary Appropriation Bill; (c) the government agree that the appropriations for the Parliament be removed from the Bill for the ordinary annual services of the government and included in the separate Parliamentary Appropriation Bill; (d) the expenditure administered by the executive departments on behalf of the Parliament be brought together in a Parliamentary Appropriation Bill and that provision be made for an advance to the President of the Senate on the same basis as the advance to the Minister for Finance; (e) the President arrange for discussions to be held with the appropriate executive departments to review those functions which are currently administered by them, and subsequently to plan the transfer of functions suitable for administration by the Senate; and (f) section 9 of the Public Service Act 1922 be amended to vest in the Presiding Officers, separately or jointly as the case may be, the power of appointment, promotion, creation, abolition and classification of offices, and the determination of rates of pay and conditions of service. This resolution was the virtual culmination of years of effort on the part of a number of Senators and Clerks. Appropriations history In 1965, the Committee appointed by government Senators on Appropriation Bills and the Ordinary Annual Services of the Government recommended that the appropriations for the Parliament should not be included in the Appropriation Bill for the ordinary annual services of the government. The committee pointed out that it was inconsistent with the concept of separation of powers and the supremacy of Parliament for the Parliament to be treated as an ordinary annual service of the government. These views were reiterated by other Senators and subsequently were supported by the Senate House Committee in 1972 and by Senate Estimates Committee A in 1974. But there was no response from government. The funding of Parliament was again commented on in the 1976 report of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System. It was suggested that the Parliament should not be dependent upon the government or upon Treasury decisions for the funding of its operations. The joint committee pointed to the greater level of financial independence of the committees of the British and Canadian Parliaments and to the inappropriateness of arrangements whereby parliamentary activity, including parliamentary committee activity, can be curtailed by government financial restriction. Still there was no response from government. Again, in 1978, Senate Estimates Committee A reported that it firmly held the view that the appropriation for Parliament was not an ordinary annual service of the government. The committee stated that Parliament was a separate arm of government to which the Executive was accountable, and that it must be master of its own affairs. The committee suggested to the Senate that the time was long overdue for the appropriation for Parliament to be excluded from the non-amendable Appropriation Bill for the ordinary annual services of the government, and included in a Special Appropriation Bill which would be subject to Senate amendment. Still there was no response from government. The point was restated in the Estimates Committee A report of November 1978 and referred to yet again in its October 1979 report as follows: Any Parliament which claims, or aspires to, accountability of an executive government to the Parliament, must make such arrangements for its own resources and facilities as are necessary to achieve this constitutional relationship, in practice as well as in theory. The committee has previously stated . . . that the Senate must assist its President in his (and the Speaker's efforts to achieve greater control over the expenditure and staffing of the Parliament. . . . And still there was no response from government. Staffing history In relation to the staffing of Parliament, the Senate made amendments to the Public Service Bill 1902 to put beyond doubt the principle that all staff servicing the Parliament should be under the control of the Parliament, and not the Public Service Board (the government's personnel management authority). Consultation with the Public Service Board was considered appropriate only to protect the rights of the officers of the Parliament with respect to conditions of service. In no way could, or should, that examination by the Public Service Board of staffing conditions prevailing in the parliamentary departments be construed as either a detraction of the Presiding Officers statutory authority to act in all senses as the equivalent of the Public Service Board for the parliamentary staff, or an abrogation of the rights of the Parliament to determine its own affairs. However, despite these statutory provisions, over the years the Executive imposed upon the Parliament arrangements which have meant that the advice of the Public Service Board had to be sought on matters relating to parliamentary staff, be they position classifications or additional staff requirements. If the Public Service Board concurred with a proposal, it could then be submitted to the Executive Council for approval. More recently, staff numbers in the Australian Public Service became subject to a policy of Executive-determined levels, commonly referred to as staff ceilings, and the Executive extended these to include the parliamentary departments. The Select Committee's investigation It was against this background that, on 23 May 1980, the Senate resolved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on Parliament's control of its own appropriations and staffing, and related matters. Due to the rather specialized nature of the inquiry, the Select Committee did not advertise in the national press for submissions. Instead, it made direct approaches to organisations and individuals having a particular interest in, or involvement with, Parliament's appropriations and staffing. The Select Committee also obtained from the Presiding Officers and staffs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, the Canadian Senate and the House of Commons, and the United States' Senate and House of Representatives, information concerning their practice in funding and staffing their legislatures. The Select Committee's investigation showed that the common source of concern to all Parliaments is the growing imbalance in the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, the rapidly increasing power and influence of the Executive, the need for Parliament to strengthen its oversight and check of Executive activity, and the concurrent need for the Parliament to regain or assert greater independence and autonomy in regard to its own internal arrangements. The Select Committee found that for the majority of members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, parliamentary budgets are not subject to Executive modifications; the financial autonomy of these legislatures is thus guaranteed. The general pattern is that the estimates are drawn up by the directing authority of Parliament, or by a special committee, on the basis of figures prepared by the administrative authorities, and then approved by the Chamber as a whole. As to the involvement of the Executive, typically the Minister of Finance enters the sums required by the Parliament into the national estimates without questioning them or consulting the government about them. In relation to the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, specifically, the concept of each legislative Chamber independently maintaining control of its own staffing and funding is readily accepted in all three countries. The United Kingdom House of Commons has had such an arrangement operating for the last four years; the United States for the last 60 years; and Canada for the last 115 years! Governments, of couse, are quick to point out the responsibilities they have to the electorate for overall budgetary policy and the level of public expenditure, and that they have the responsibility for raising the revenue to fund that expenditure. But, in the light of the arrangements operating in most countries, it is nonsense to suggest that government needs to maintain control over the total amount of funds available for expenditure by the Parliament. It should certainly be in a position to influence, but not to exercise total control. Despite the fact that most other Parliaments and Executives have made arrangements which provide for real autonomy in relation to parliamentary appropriations and staffing, the Select Committee understood the reluctance on the part of the Australian government to agree to an immediate total reform package. In addition, the Select Committee was aware that for its purposes the House of Representatives may find other arrangements more suitable. The Select Committee was therefore mindful of the need for an experimental approach to be adopted in making any new arrangements for appropriations and staffing. This is especially true in a bicameral Parliament and in one in which there is a sharing of certain services such as the Library, the Reporting Staff, and housekeeping functions. For this reason, the Select Committee did not choose to follow the example of the United Kingdom House of Commons as the creation of a Commission would involve legislation which would, of necessity, produce a rigid, structured approach rather than the flexible approach which is required at the moment. Accordingly, the Select Committee recommended that the Senate, and, where appropriate, the government, should agree to a trial of the proposed arrangements. The government response By 25 March 1982, the government had had the benefit of the views of the Select Committee members-the Select Committee having ceased to exist upon the presentation of its report-concerning its proposed response and had also discussed the Select Committee's Report with the Presiding Officers. However, as some nine months had elapsed since the Select Committee presented its report and still the government had not given birth to its response, a motion was agreed in the Senate, without debate, appointing the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. The Standing Committee was charged with the task of inquiring into: (a) proposals for the Annual Estimates and the Additional Estimates for the Senate; (b) proposals to vary the staff organizational structure of the Senate, and staffing and recruitment policies; and (c) such other matters as are referred to it by the Senate. In relation to the Estimates, the Standing Committee: (i) determines the amounts for inclusion in the Parliamentary Appropriation Bills for the Annual Estimates and the Additional Estimates; and (ii) reports to the Senate upon its determinations prior to the consideration by the Senate of the related Parliamentary Appropriation Bill. In relation to staffing, the Standing Committee: (i) makes such recommendations to the President as it sees fit; and (ii) reports to the Senate on any matter it considers necessary. Finally, the Resolution establishing the Standing Committee provided for the committee to make an annual report to the Senate on the operations of the Senate's appropriations and staffing, and related matters. The government's response to the Select Committee's report was brought down in the Senate immediately after the Senate had agreed to establish the Standing Committee. The government clung to the position that it needed to maintain control over the total amount of funds available to the Parliament because of its constitutional responsibility for budgetary policy and for the level of public expenditure. This attitude, of course, continues to ignore the arrangements of other Parliaments and their Executives. But more importantly, it overlooks the constitutional responsibility that the Parliament has. This responsibility is reflected in the maxim: government proposes; Parliament disposes. The outcome of the situation where the Senate has empowered one of its committees to determine its appropriations and where the government continues to insist that it must have overriding control will be left for the future to determine. However, for those who believe in the sovereignty of Parliament, and the accountability of the Executive to Parliament, it is a fight worth winning. The government, however, did concede that detailed control over individual expenditure items was not necessary and proposed an overall figure for each House, and the service departments of the Parliament, broken down into capital and recurrent items. The government agreed to the Select Committee's other proposals concerning a separate Bill for the Appropriations for the Parliament and discussions are now under way concerning the transfer to Senate and House of Representatives administration of those functions currently administered by government departments. And finally, the government agreed to the committee's recommendation that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives-separately in the case of the Senate Department and House of Representatives Department and jointly in relation to the Parliamentary Library, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint House Department-be vested with the statutory power of appointment, promotion, creation, abolition, and classification of offices, and the determination of rates of pay and conditions of service. The government also withdrew its imposition of staff ceilings on the Parliament and handed over the responsibility for staff numbers to the Presiding Officers. In doing this, the government quite properly made the point that the ``. . . decisions of the Parliament in these areas should be subject to the same types of scrutiny, inside and outside the Parliament, as those of the government. It is up to the Parliament to prove its managerial ability in the same fashion as the government.'' These views, of course, accord with those expressed by the Select Committee in recommending that the proposed Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing make an annual report to the Senate on its operations. The government's response has asked that the annual report include reference to the numbers, classification, and disposition of staff, as well as any variation in terms and conditions of employment. Summary Overall, the government is to be commended for its response even though it was a slow, painful process akin to extracting teeth. The nature of the government response no doubt owes a lot to the behind-the-scenes efforts of the leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator the Hon. Sir John Carrick) and the Minister for Finance (Senator the Hon. Dame Margaret Guilfoyle). As mentioned earlier, what has been achieved represents years of effort on the part of a number of the Senators and Clerks. Their foresight and perseverance now enables the Australian Senate to embark upon an experiment which we hope will achieve the proper constitutional relationship with the Executive, in practice as well as in theory. The success of the venture depends upon common sense; on the part of the Senate as well as the government. Senator JESSOP —I thank the Senate. Also, just for the record, I have a letter which was written on 25 February 1982 to the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Sir John Carrick, in response to the report of the Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing Committee. This letter was signed by the members of the Committee, including the now President who was Deputy Chairman of that Committee, Senator Missen, Senator Robertson and Senator Mason. I think it is an interesting document which ought to be incorporated. I spoke to Senator Robertson and others about it. I seek leave to have that letter incorporated in Hansard as well. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- AUSTRALIAN SENATE CANBERRA, A.C.T. 25 February 1982 Senator the Hon. Sir John Carrick, Leader of the Government in the Senate, Parliament House, CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator, Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing Report-Proposed Response As requested in your letter of 24 November 1981, the members of the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing have now had an opportunity to consider the Government's proposed response. The Senate Committee was very much aware that the Reference before it was one which required a cautious, reasoned, responsible approach. Testimony to the fact that the Report of the Committee achieved this objective is given by the very wide acceptance of its recommendations by Senators and Members from all parties and by Senator Harradine. By contrast, the Government's proposed response is an insult to the Senate and the House of Representatives. Whilst it purports to indicate a willingness to give the Parliament greater autonomy, it proposes tighter controls. In fact, the response suggests that Executive wishes to make sure that the Parliament only has sufficient funds and staff to do what the Government thinks is appropriate. This effectively places the Executive firmly in control of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Committee system, the Library Resource Centre, etc. No one would deny that the Government has responsibilities to the electorate for overall budgetary policy and the level of public expenditure and that it has responsibility for raising the revenue to fund that expenditure. But, in the light of overseas experience, it is incorrect to suggest that the Government needs to maintain control over the total amount of funds available for expenditure by the Parliament. It should certainly be in a position to influence debate on this issue but not to exercise total control. The Government's position cannot be sustained in the light of the Report of the Senate Committee. Governments in the U.K., U.S.A. and Canada have the same responsibility to their electorates as applies in Australia. Yet, the U.K. Parliament has had a similar arrangement to that proposed by the Senate Committee operating for the last four years; the U.S. for 60 years; and Canada for 114 years! Appendix 3 of the Senate Committee's Report shows that the vast majority of parliaments in other countries have control over their own budgets. These examples make nonsense of the Government's claim that it needs to maintain control. The Government's suggestion that it is prepared to approve a single global figure for expenditure by the Parliamentary departments would, in our view, result in increased Government control over the Parliament. It would constitute a direct attack on the independance of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Section 1 of the Constitution provides for two Houses of Parliament. Each House should have total control over its own appropriations and staffing and be allowed to determine its own priorities in these matters. A global figure for the Parliamentary departments would facilitate an unpopular and unwarranted form of Executive domination. The result would be that, instead of the Government negotiating with the separate components of Parliament for appropriate levels of funding, the separate areas of Parliament would negotiate between themselves for allocation of funds. It is inevitable that the two Houses would have different priorities and it is unlikely that agreement could be reached between them. Consequently the Government could take the opportunity to adjudicate, thereby denying effective control of a House over its finances. A single-line administrative vote was not recommended by the Senate Committee for the simple reason that, once Parliament has its own Appropriation Bill, a single-line appropriation is unnecessary. In addition, the Senate Committee did not wish to apply one set of accounting practices for the Parliament, when the Senate, and the Government, is on record as objecting to one-line appropriations for the Public Service generally. The single-line figure would not meet the need for an Advance to the Presiding Officers. There must be a facility for urgent and unforeseen expenditure. The question of what is, and what is not, an `ordinary annual service' is not justiciable. The High Court long ago (1911) decided that it is a matter for decision between the two Houses. This is why we have such agreements as the `1965 Compact'. The Government can take the view that Parliament is an ordinary annual service of the Government, but it is only a view. The important point is, as advised to the Committee during its hearings by the Attorney-General's Department, that the matter is one for determination by each House. However, the Senate Committee was firmly of the opinion that to describe Parliament as `an ordinary annual service of the Government' is ridiculous. The same arguments against the Government's proposals in relation to appropriations are applicable to the Government's staffing proposals. And, in addition, the recommendations of the Senate Committee are based on the Report of the Royal Commission on Government Administration and, with one variation, on the evidence given to the Committee by the Public Service Board. To suggest that what the Senate Committee proposes would result in `leap-frogging' in terms and conditions is incorrect. For instance, has the special allowance of some $6,000 p.a. for Ministerial and Opposition staff resulted in `leap-frogging'? Of course not! Parliament only has different terms and conditions where the circumstances warrant, e.g. long, irregular and inflexible hours of duty. Once again, the Government wants control where it should only have influence, an attitude which totally ignores overseas experience. Whilst we welcome the Government's agreement that appropriate amendments will be made to the Public Service Act to vest in the Presiding Officers the power to create, abolish, or reclassify positions and make appointments below the level of Permanent Head, we believe this should also apply to the position of Permanent Head. These appointments should not be Government appointments and thereby open to the possibility of political patronage. Parliament must make its own appointments and the higher the appointment, the more necessary it is for this practice to apply. The Government's suggestion of a Joint Committee, if adopted, would ensure that any new arrangements would fail. Its response on the proposed `Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills' referred to, and implied acceptance of, the 1976 Report of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System. This Report indicated that there was a general view that Joint Committees were undesirable and unlikely to function satisfactorily. The suggestion strikes at the very roots of the autonomy and independence of the two Houses. The rejection of the proposal for Ministers to be members of the Senate and House of Representatives Committees on the grounds that a Minister's position on any recommendation would be subject to Government policy cannot be supported. It is for the very reason of acquainting the proposed Administration Committees of the Houses with Government policy and influencing the Committees as and when necessary that they should be members of the Committees. And once again, the arrangement works perfectly well for the U.K., Canada and other countries. In summary, it is a matter of regret that the Government's proposed response does not reflect the reasoned, responsible approach adopted by the Senate Committee and that it does not display the same sensitivity to the Parliament's position as the Committee displayed towards the Executive's position. In the interests of effective parliamentary democracy, it is imperative that the Houses of Parliament control their own appropriations and staffing. Yours sincerely, D. S. JESSOP...D. MCCLELLAND E. A. ROBERTSON...A. J. MISSEN C. V. J. MASON Senator JESSOP —I thank the Senate. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(5.51) —I will speak only briefly on this matter. I think Senator Jessop has covered the ground very well. I happened to be in the Senate some years ago when the question of a measure of financial independence for the Senate was debated at great length. As Senator Jessop pointed out, all parties in the Senate unanimously agreed that there should be a measure of financial independence in the Australian Senate. I am amazed and I hope that the Government addresses the question as to why this Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill has not sought to implement that principle. This is a very important matter. The Senate cannot fulfil its constitutional responsibility properly if it does not have the necessary measure of independence. As things stand now, the Government can-in fact, it has from time to time recently-attempt to put the financial squeeze on the Senate so that it cannot establish the committees and get the staffing that are necessary to assess carefully, accurately and independently some of the legislation that comes into this chamber. I simply endorse the comments Senator Jessop has made. I hope that the Government has a reasonable explanation as to why the legislation before us is in its present form. I hope that the Government will give the Senate an assurance that it will address this very important problem of financial independence and that we can look forward next year-certainly in the life of this Parliament-to achieving that very important goal. If this Bill is still being debated after the suspension of the sitting for dinner, my colleague Senator Mason will be adding to my comments. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.53) —I also support the general viewpoint that has been expressed by Senator Jessop and supported by Senator Siddons. I thought that there would be cross-party support for some measure which would influence the Government to recognise the fact that parliamentary democracy in Australia would best be served if there were more independence in respect of funding and decisions on funding for the Parliament. I believe that we will receive a report which was tabled in the other House last week concerning the use of this Parliament as, I think, a museum. Some people might say that it is already a museum. But there is a suggestion that this building will be used as a museum. That decision presumably has been made by the Executive Government. It may not yet have been made, but there was some suggestion that it was to be made. It was clear that whatever suggestion was adopted, the matter would be determined by the Executive Government. The current suggestion is a result of an interdepartmental committee set up to consider the question. Of course, this building does not belong to the Parliament. The soup spoons on the tables in the dining room do not even belong to the Parliament; they belong to the Executive Government. So far as I know, this Parliament owns nothing. That would not worry us, of course, if the Executive Government did not attempt to influence decisions in this Parliament by the use of economic blackmail, for want of a better word. I will refer to an example which, to be fair to the Government as a whole, perhaps is a very isolated example. I refer to the example of the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in this chamber on 17 October when he was urging persons to vote against the establishment of a Senate select committee to examine and report on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill. As it so happened, I desired to have that measure considered, debated and voted upon at that stage. But most honourable senators, considering the important nature of that measure and the need for further information, proposed that a select committee should be established. On page 1425 of Senate Hansard Senator Walsh is recorded as saying: To the extent that this- the proposal that a committee be established- adds to the demands for funds for the Senate and for Senate committees, I certainly give no guarantee that that demand will be met. Senator Walsh had earlier stated in his speech: I do not accept the proposition, which was accepted by the previous Government, that the amount of money appropriated for Parliament is a matter for the Parliament to determine. It is a matter for the Executive to determine. Senator Jessop —And he voted for the establishment of our own Committee, didn't he? Senator HARRADINE —Yes. Senator Jessop has outlined the history very clearly to the Senate this afternoon. One wonders whether Senator Walsh was truly speaking for the Cabinet and the Executive Government on this matter. Senator Peter Baume —How could one make any other assumption, Senator? Senator HARRADINE —I am just wondering; I do not know. Senator Peter Baume —A Minister cannot speak privately. Senator HARRADINE —I suspect that he was not, but we will have to hear the answer to that. Is it the position of the Government that, despite a decision of the Senate to establish a select committee, that committee will be established only if the Minister for Finance approves of it? Senator Tate —It has been established. Senator HARRADINE —I know that what Senator Tate says is true. In fact, we had the first meeting today and Senator Tate was elected as Chairman. The Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill has been constituted and there is staff. But the Minister for Finance, before the vote was taken, said to those people who were considering whether to vote on the establishment of the Committee that he gave no guarantee that demands for funds would be met. That clear statement has been made by the Minister for Finance. He said: I do not accept the proposition, which was accepted by the previous Government, that the amount of money appropriated for Parliament is a matter for the Parliament to determine. It is a matter for the Executive to determine. Is that the position of the Government? Unless Senator Walsh's statement is denied and refuted in the Parliament, the potential exists for a conflict of historical proportions between the Executive Government and one of the Houses of Parliament. After all-I take Senator Peter Baume's point-it was the Minister for Finance who made the statement. Either we accept what he says in this respect as being the voice of the Government or we believe that he is not espousing Government policies and that he does not know what he is talking about. Senator Jessop —But the President has an advance to him to deal with matters anyway. What business is it of the Minister for Finance? Senator HARRADINE —I take Senator Jessop's point. I believe this is a matter which goes to the very heart of parliamentary democracy-the division of the Executive powers from the legislative powers. The powers of the legislature must be sustained by the rights of members of parliament to perform their expressive function and their representative function without threat, economic or otherwise, by the Executive Government, otherwise we as members of parliament are betraying the people who put us here. Senator Jessop —The Executive Government, as a representative of the people, has a responsibility to the Parliament. Senator HARRADINE —I take Senator Jessop's point that it is we who are elected by the electors. Of course, it is Government members who form the majority in the House of Representatives and it is those Government members in the House of Representatives and in the Senate who, in the current Government, choose the Ministry, which in turn forms the Executive Government. I reiterate that this is a matter of great concern and importance to the future of parliamentary democracy in this country. I believe it behoves the Government to correct the statement that the Minister for Finance made so that we do not have any concerns now or in the future about that. Finally, I believe that it is important for this Senate to adopt a motion. I have been handed a motion relating to the determination of the Senate's estimates arising from the report of Estimates Committee A of October 1985. I do not know whether that has been moved. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It has not been moved and it will not be moved until the appropriate time in Committee. Senator HARRADINE —I do not know whether it is going to be moved or not, but I suppose that it will be at that time that any further comments ought to be made. I defer to Senator Richardson. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.03) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. I suggest we proceed to the Committee stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: (1) That leave be given to Senators to move motions expressing opinions or making recommendations based on the Report of Estimates Committee A. (2) That where more than one motion is proposed, the motions may be debated together, but in all cases a motion or motions shall be disposed of before the Question is put on the Vote before the Chair. (3) That any Resolutions be reported when the Chairman makes his report to the President at the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole. The Bill. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(6.05) —I wish to move a motion in relation to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86. It arises out of the report of Estimates Committee A. I move: That the committee, having considered the report of Estimates Committee A, recommends: (1) the provisions of the Resolution of the Senate dated 25 March 1982, relating to the responsibilities of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing with respect to the Estimates for the Senate, are re-affirmed; (2) the estimates of expenditure for the Senate to be included in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill shall continue to be those determined by the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing; (3) if before the introduction of the Bill the Minister for Finance should, for any reason, wish to vary the details of the estimates determined by the Committee he should consult with the President of the Senate with a view to obtaining the agreement of the Committee to any variation; (4) in the event of agreement not being reached between the President and the Minister, then the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as a member of the Appropriations and Staffing Committee, be consulted; (5) the Senate acknowledges that in considering any request from the Minister for Finance the Committee and the Senate would take into consideration the relevant expenditure and staffing policies of the Government of the day; (6) in turn the Senate expects the Government of the day to take into consideration the role and responsibilities of the Senate which are not of the Executive Government and which may at times involve conflict with the Executive Government. In doing so, I would like to refer to some of the history of this matter which led Estimates Committee A along a long path of discussion. In fact, at its earlier meetings the Committee passed a resolution which largely is contained in paragraph (2) of the motion, and it was printed on page 9 of the report of Estimates Committee A. The President of the Senate, Senator McClelland, who I am sure will endorse the remarks that I make, did come before the Committee and present a fairly lengthy and detailed submission on why he felt some action was necessary on the estimates for the Parliament. Essentially, I believe that the need for this came about and is best summed up by an article by Geoff Kitney which appeared in the National Times on 25 October 1985. Like many other articles in the National Times, it is not striking for its accuracy. It is, however, indicative of the misinformation which has been bandied around on this question for a long time. The article is headed `Walsh refires the rage in Senate finance debate'. It contains a couple of quotes that I would like to read: In 1982-83 total funding for the Parliament rose by more than 13 per cent to nearly $29m, the next year by 15.2 per cent to $33.3m and last year by 24.1 per cent to $41.3m. These represented real increases of nearly 2 per cent in the first year, nearly 7 per cent in the second and 16.6 per cent last year. It goes on to say that Cabinet agreed that there should be a curb put on this spending growth and that in future Parliament would be subjected to the same budgetary process as all government departments. As Senator McClelland pointed out to Estimates Committee A, the facts, as outlined in that article, while they are true on the surface, are made a mockery of in terms of the general claim when the underlying facts are examined. It is true that expenditure in 1983-84 was approximately $34m, which was an increase of 14 per cent, and it is true that expenditure for the parliamentary departments in 1984-85 was approximately $42m, which was an increase of 23 per cent. They are very big increases and people are entitled to ask why they have happened. However, the reality is that the great bulk of those increases-almost all of them-was taken up by decisions that this Parliament made. I, along with some senators and members of the House of Representatives, was a member of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. That Committee recommended an expansion of the Parliament-a recommendation subsequently adopted by the Parliament and put into effect. That meant there were an additional 23 members in the House of Representatives and an additional 12 senators. That required, among other things, the building of an annex next to the House of Representatives. It required fittings and furniture to fill that annex and also to fill the other extra offices created within the Parliament for those new members and senators. Additional staff had to be employed throughout the Parliament, whether they were in the cafeteria, whether they were cleaners, whether they were employed in the Library or whether they were employed in Hansard, and they all had to be paid. It obviously necessitated a large increase in the votes for salaries in all of those places. It also resulted, naturally enough, in additional printing and the Government was kind enough at the time to see that there was an additional charge for the additional printing. All in all, the Parliament and the Presiding Officers were faced with a pretty difficult situation. That does not even take into account the fact that the Government also agreed to increase by one the staff of every member and senator. The great bulk of those two increases, far from reflecting profligate spending by anyone in the Parliament, merely reflected the fact that the Presiding Officers-the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives-had to make sure that the decisions of the Parliament were properly implemented, and that, of course, they did. This financial year the increase is down to only 8 per cent, and in real terms that is a pretty small increase. Those increases, and the increases in the size of the Parliament as well as the arrangements that had to be made for them, were made during the last two financial years and are now over. That is the reason why parliamentary expenditure has gone up. To suggest, in articles of the kind that I have just referred to, that in any way it is as a result of parliamentary spending getting out of hand, is nonsense and ought to be rejected by honourable senators on both sides of this chamber. In trying to grapple with this problem we were informed by the President of the Senate of yet another problem. The article to which I have just referred said that the Parliament had to be treated in the same way as all other executive departments. In many respects the President and the Speaker would wish that it had been, because when the anomalies case and the new award were handed down, unlike practically every other executive department, the Parliament was told that it would have to absorb the cost. That was an intolerable burden for the Parliament and one that made life ridiculously difficult for those involved. It was not the sort of decision that had been experienced before. As Senator Jessop has said, it was something new and something that we had to find a way around. When we get to the point of trying to balance the power of the Executive against the power of the Parliament it will always be difficult. In 1982, as Senator Jessop has already suggested, a committee of the Senate came down with a recommendation which established that the estimates for the Senate should be set by the Senate and that, in effect, that was the end of the matter. Practical experience, at least over the last year, suggests that when the crunch comes it is not the end of the matter and that the Government, with a majority in another place, can in fact do something about it, and in this case it did. Therefore Estimates Committee A spent a great deal of time, hours in fact, searching for a way around that impasse, searching for some method by which the Parliament in future might be able to get around that problem. To do so it reaffirmed that earlier decision, the decision that Estimates Committee A had made in its original deliberations, that the estimates of expenditure for the Senate included in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill continue to be those determined by the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. That is referred to in paragraph (2) of my motion. I do not think that anyone seriously disputes that that is the way things ought to be done. However, when problems arise, as they did on this occasion, we will need to try to find a way by which they might be settled. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) did send some correspondence to members of the Appropriations and Staffing Committee in which he talked about these matters being settled by the Minister for Finance and the Presiding Officers. In fact that is referred to in paragraph (3) of the motion before honourable senators, which states: if before the introduction of the Bill the Minister for Finance should, for any reason, wish to vary the details of the Estimates determined by the Committee he should consult with the President of the Senate with a view to obtaining the agreement of the Committee . . . I am sure that Senator Walsh and the Presiding Officers will follow that. In fact, they did so this year. There were numerous meetings-it was just that in the end they did not ever settle the matter, the matter remained unresolved and was resolved in the end only by Government action. So Estimates Committee A, as a result of not only discussions among its members but also discussions by many honourable senators from both sides of the House, went a little further. Paragraph (4) suggests that: in the event of agreement not being reached between the President and the Minister, then the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as a member of the Appropriations and Staffing Committee, be consulted; We hope that will be the crux of the matter. That is where we hope the sage image often portrayed by Senator Button will be brought into play and these matters will be resolved. But whoever is the Leader of the Government of the day would then have the right to sit in on the discussions and to make sure that when decisions were being made at Cabinet level yet another Minister had had some involvement in trying to resolve the conflict. The motion in paragraph (5) states: the Senate acknowledges that in considering any request from the Minister for Finance the Committee and the Senate would take into consideration the relevant expenditure and staffing policies of the Government of the day; I do not believe that on this occasion, or indeed on any other of which I am aware, that has been seriously in dispute. On this occasion, when the Estimates were set, the Committee did just that. It was expected that the Parliament would abide by the normal constraints placed upon it which were to be placed upon all the other executive departments, spread across the length and breadth of ever-expanding governments. So far as I am aware, it did so. There was considered to be a need to keep costs down and in fact, as a result of some discussions with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), the President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives did go back and prune their costs as far as possible. So again there was no dispute. In paragraph (6) I think we come to the heart of the matter, to the real question that occupies the minds of all those who sit in parliaments-the parliament's power as balanced against the Executive. Paragraph (6) states: in turn the Senate expects the Government of the day to take into consideration the role and responsibilities of the Senate which are not of the Executive Government and which may at times involve conflict with the Executive Government. I think it will be a fact of life that for the foreseeable future none of the major parties will have a majority in this chamber, so it is quite likely that conflict between the Senate and the government of the day will remain. It is not always the case, however, that that conflict is a bad thing. After all, we are a democracy. We are elected and we are responsible to our electorates and if it is the case that the Senate is to take what it regards as important decisions, in the end the Government will have to take some consideration of that. It is disappointing to all of us that a motion of this kind needed to be moved at all. It would have been in the interests of the Parliament, the Government and the Opposition if it had never had to happen. Unfortunately though, when faced with a conflict we must look for a way to resolve it. I do not believe that futile resolutions passed in the Senate, which demand that whatever it says must be obeyed, will be taken much more notice of than Rumpole ever did of she who must be obeyed. The reality is that we, when looking at government, must realise that the numbers in another place do matter. The numbers in another place determine whether we live or die, most of the time. I can think of one occasion in recent history when that may not have been the case. But the reality is that if they are to be decided, in the end we in the Senate must use our best endeavours by way of persuasion to make sure that we get what we consider to be the right decision, by involving the Leader of the Government in those discussions and in making sure that at Cabinet level not only the views of the Minister for Finance but also the Leader of the Government can be put. I am sure we will go a long way towards doing that. I hope this is the only time in my time in the Senate that we have to have this sort of debate. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.18) —I rise briefly to support the motion moved by Senator Richardson. It seems to me that the issue has often been clouded in the question of constitutional form about the way in which appropriations are handled and are introduced into the Parliament, and in particular, the requirement of section 56 of the Constitution which states that appropriations are made only upon receipt of a message from the Governor-General. The question therefore arises as to how the Governor-General is to form the sorts of views which he must form before sending a message to the Parliament. It is largely put on the basis that he can do so only on the advice of the Executive Government. That is a point I want to contest and explore for a few moments. One of the recent publications on the Constitution by Professor Zines Commentaries on the Australian Constitution makes the particular point that the Governor-General is referred to in the Constitution either as the Governor-General in Council or as the Governor-General. He indicates that certain sections of the Constitution-namely, sections 5, 21, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70 and 126-refer to the Governor-General alone. It is my contention that where the Constitution does not refer to the Governor-General in Council but refers to the Governor-General alone, there is an implication which I think can be sustained as an argument that the Governor-General has the right to consider advice which he receives from other than the Executive Council or his Ministers. This, of course, raises the whole question of the reserve powers of the Crown which were explored by Dr Evatt in his book The King and his Dominion Governors and much before that by the authoritative writer Todd in his book Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies. I believe that the point is made that from time to time a Governor-General may act on advice he receives other than from his Executive Council or, indeed, his Ministers. Both sides of the parliamentary process have, I believe, accepted that principle. I know it is unfortunate to refer back to the events of 1975. However, I want to do so to draw an historical example and parallel. We on this side of politics accepted as part of what happened in 1975 that there was nothing improper in Mr Ellicott seeking to give advice unsolicited to the Governor-General. We accepted that there was nothing improper in the Governor-General seeking advice from the Chief Justice. Indeed, there is a great deal of constitutional authority for Governors and Governors-General in Australia and other former colonies seeking advice from Chief Justices and other figures. All sides have accepted that it was proper for the Governor-General to accept advice from a person who had lost the confidence of the House of Representatives and to grant that person a double dissolution. In fact, it was not just in 1975 that that occurred but on previous occasions Prime Ministers had lost the confidence of the House, gone to the Governor-General and been granted dissolutions of the Parliament. It is interesting that, on the Labor side, one of the events of 1975 of importance was the belief that the Governor-General ought to receive the Speaker of the House of Representatives and take certain advice from him. Indeed, one of the principal criticisms made of the then Governor-General by Mr Whitlam at page 115 of his book, The Truth of the Matter, was that the Speaker, acting not as a member of the Executive but as a member of the legislative arm of government, was entitled to an audience from the Governor-General and the Governor-General was properly obliged to receive the representative of the Parliament, not of the Executive government, and accept certain advice from him. That may well be, and I believe is, a proper construction. After all, the role of the Speaker has been to be the representative of the Parliament and the people to the Crown, to speak to the Crown and to provide advice to the Crown-a role established as far back as the fourteenth century. One of the constitutional hang-ups which might be implicit in Senator Richardson's motion is the way in which a message for appropriation should be handled other than exclusively by Executive Council advice to the Governor-General and by Governor-General's message to the Parliament. I maintain the argument that the Governor-General is entitled to receive advice from the Presiding Officers of the Parliament and to exercise his personal discretion as to the way in which he deals with that advice and the message which he might send to the Parliament recommending an appropriation flowing from the advice which he has received. I believe that that is a sustainable construction of the powers of the Crown in relation to the appropriation of moneys in terms of the formulas required by the Australian Constitution. Be that as it may, the need for Senator Richardson's excellent motion arose because of an attempt by Senator Walsh to deny that process. Senator Walsh is recorded in the Hansard of 17 October 1985 as having said: Parliament does not have the responsibility for public expenditure; the Executive Government does. He also said: I do not accept the proposition, which was accepted by the previous Government, that the amount of money appropriated for Parliament is a matter for the Parliament to determine. It is a matter for the Executive to determine. The same matter was raised by Senator Tate in a debate on the Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill 1985 on 7 November 1985 when he talked about the relationship between the Executive Government and the Parliament on the issue of treaties. Senator Tate said: I believe the Government should bring legislation into this place which affirms the Parliament's adherence to the very obligations- He was referring to various international obligations. He said that he believed that the Government `should recognise fully and not begrudgingly acknowledge the proper role of the Parliament' in that matter. He concluded by saying: That partnership should be forged between the Parliament and the Executive and should be apparent in legislative form. I think Senator Richardson's motion goes essentially to that-the attempt to get an agreement between the Executive and the Parliament as to the way in which Parliament's appropriations are to be handled. I believe that at this stage it can be no more than a statement of principle. I think it is important that that statement of principle be on the record. Similarly, I think there needs to be an essential affirmation which the Executive ought to accept, whether it likes the formula or not. If the Executive at any stage wishes to argue that the Parliament itself cannot behave responsibly in respect of its own funding and appropriations, it is hard to believe that any executive can maintain that any democratic institution can function responsibly in that regard. I think the point is an important one. I think it is one which touches on the nature of parliamentary government; I think it is one which has been well encapsulated in the terms of Senator Richardson's motion. It is not quite the same formula as was set out in the original recommendation of Senate Estimates Committee A. I understand that the formula was arrived at after consultation and without the rancour which might otherwise have occurred. Hopefully all honourable senators, or at least the overwhelming majority of them, will be able to agree upon this decision. I believe that Senator Richardson and Estimates Committee A are to be commended for bringing forward a motion of this type. I hope that the motion will be passed by the Committee. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.00) —The Committee is considering a motion which has been offered by Senator Richardson on behalf of Estimates Committee A. It is my understanding that, this being a matter affecting the Parliament and its workings, it will not attract a party whip on this side; honourable senators will vote in the Committee according to their views. The whole issue has been precipitated by words uttered by the Minister for Finance, Senator Peter Walsh, speaking as a Minister and therefore on behalf of the Government, on 17 October, when in relation to the establishment of a new Senate committee he said-the words have been used before but I will repeat them: I do not accept the proposition, which was accepted by the previous Government, that the amount of money appropriated for Parliament is a matter for the Parliament to determine. It is a matter for the Executive to determine. In relation to the proposed select committee, Senator Peter Walsh made his threat more explicit by saying: to the extent that this adds to the demands for funds for the Senate and for Senate committees, I certainly give no guarantee that the demand will be met. That statement in the Senate on 17 October raised clearly the issue of the funding of Parliament by the Executive in Australia. It raised for examination a delicate relationship that has existed for 85 years between the Executive, representing the Crown, and the Parliament elected by the people-a relationship in fact complicated by the fact that members of the Executive are also mumbers of the Parliament. So it is really a quite complex relationship. The problem focuses attention on the Parliament's need to be strengthened against attack by the Executive. Professor Gordon Reid, then Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Professor of Politics at the University of Western Australia, and now Governor of Western Australia, observed in a submission to the Jessop Senate Select Committee on Appropriations and Staffing in 1981: In the context of the vast scale of government we now practise in Australia, with the extensive accumulation of enacted legislation and the widespread delegation of legislative authority to officials, the elected Senate needs to maintain, even strengthen, its procedures for scrutiny and enquiry into the affairs of the Executive Government. This is becoming increasingly important to the people of Australia. Those were the words of Professor Reid at that time. This issue takes us back to the basis on which the relationship between Parliament and the Executive was determined. The relationship between the Crown and the Parliament was settled after the turbulent years of the Stuart rule and formalised in the settlement reached after the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688. This settlement established that the Crown had to come to the Parliament for its moneys. No ruler and no government since then in a Westminster system has been able to depart from that practice. In fact, Trevelyan, in his A Shortened History of England said: It was the Revolution of 1688 that gave to Great Britain freedom and efficiency together, because it tipped the balance of power permanently on the side of Parliament. Those were the words of Trevelyan. What is less clear are the arrangements which were agreed upon for the financial support of the Parliament itself. The question has assumed more importance as the cost of legislatures has risen and the roles of legislators have increased. Senator Richardson set out some of the cost increases and some of the reasons for them. I am far from convinced that this Parliament is operated as efficiently as I would like to see it operated, or that there is not great scope still for cost efficiencies which we have so far not exercised. I come back to the issue of who is responsible for funding the Parliament in a Westminster system. What emerged in the seventeenth century as the sole power of the legislature to authorise supply for the Crown has been eroded gradually as disciplined parties have emerged and as the Executive, drawn from within the Parliament, has come to dominate the legislature. In a sense, the Executive has replaced the seventeenth century Crown in its domination of the Parliament. Further, although the Parliament did win important controls over the Crown's resources, it failed in 1689 to distinguish its own resources from those of the Crown and it allowed its requirements to be met by the Treasury. That is the problem and we have failed to resolve it. There is at least-I emphasise the words `at least'-a creative tension between Parliament and the Executive, and clearly any move to starve a parliament would precipitate a major constitutional crisis. The Senate recognised this problem several years ago. As a result of the landmark committee report which was referred to earlier, the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing, chaired by Senator Jessop, an agreement was reached between the Senate and the Fraser Government so that the appropriations for the Parliament would be presented in a separate appropriation Bill. The size of that appropriation was to be reached after negotiation between the Parliament and the Executive. Two extreme positions could be envisaged. These are what worry people. On the one hand a reckless and spendthrift parliament could indulge itself unreasonably and could demand that the Executive fund and bear responsibility for those indulgences. That is one extreme if people say the Parliament should have what it asks for. Such a course could scarcely accord with notions of accountability and reasonableness. On the other hand, a situation could arise where an Executive, in pursuit of total dominance of the politial institutions of the nation and determined to starve a parliament into submissive obedience, could withdraw from it the funds it requires to discharge its democratic functions and duties. These are the two extreme positions. That is why parliamentarians are so sensitive to this issue. In between are a whole series of more reasonable positions-not one extreme, not the other extreme, but a series of more reasonable positions which could be negotiated between the Executive and the Parliament to ensure that the legislature did receive adequate funding for its task within spending guidelines which were acceptable to the Executive. I think that is what we have to try to find. Between parties of good will and good sense a middle course will always be found. What could be dangerous and difficult is the possibility of a confrontation should views such as those of Senator Peter Walsh be pushed to their extreme, or should the views of people such as Senator Peter Walsh be allowed to prevail. The Committee has before it a very reasonable proposition. It is one of those middle positions which recognises, on the one hand, the legitimate role of the Executive and, on the other, the reasonable requirements of the Parliament. The difficulty is that if one looks to find some constitutional principle or convention which requires that the legislature control its own finances, one is in great difficulty. I cannot find such a principle. In Australia the Executive domination is reinforced, as Senator Puplick has said, by section 56 of the Constitution. As Senator Puplick said, that provides that before any appropriation can be raised by the Parliament it has to be authorised by a message from the Governor-General as to the purpose and amount of that appropriation. Since it is widely accepted-although Senator Puplick has, in fact, challenged this in his comments-that the Governor-General will act upon the advice of Ministers, no message authorising expenditure can come to the Parliament even for moneys to authorise the Parliament's own expenses except with the concurrence of the Executive. That is the difficulty. Senator Cook —Is that a correct interpretation? Senator PETER BAUME —That is as I understand it, but I am interested in my colleague's alternative view, because I suspect that it has never been tested. Anyhow, I am looking for a reasonable view. Further, it seems that the Parliament itself cannot even increase the amount of an appropriation even if a Governor-General's message has been received. So we have the ludicrous situation where even in the House of Representatives, not subject to section 53 of the Constitution as we are, it may not be possible for that House to increase even the appropriation for its own expenditure if it found itself in that extreme position of an Executive trying to starve it into submission. As I say, those extreme positions are drawn only for the purpose of argument; I hope they will never happen. If, in fact, we referred this matter to the courts for adjudication, I know what would happen, and I think we all know what would happen. The High Court would send it straight back to the Parliament, saying: `On a matter like this, the Parliament itself will determine what that section of the Constitution means'. So back we come to 17 October and Senator Walsh. Just in case his point was missed I will quote some further words which the honourable senator said in finishing his speech. He said: Finally, I explicitly do not accept the proposition that the Parliament determines how much money the Parliament will get. The Executive Government has the financial responsibility, and in the end the Executive Government will determine the question. That was said by Senator Walsh when finishing his speech on 17 October. Senator Puplick —The finish of the part that is recorded, anyway. Senator PETER BAUME —I am interested in my colleague's comment. It seems to me, in summary, that there is no constitutional provision which deals adequately with the problem before us. On the one hand, there is no laid down procedure for the funding of the Parliament, and it comes back to a resolution based on the common sense and good will of the parties. If Senator Walsh's view is the view of the Hawke Government, or the view of any other Westminster-type government, and if that view were to be pressed, one thing is clear: We would be in for a major constitutional confrontation. It would, in one sense, be 1688 all over again. Meanwhile, it is reason and good sense, and not any constitutional safeguards, that preserve the position of the Parliament and avoid such a crisis. I am grateful to Senator Richardson and to members of Estimates Committee A for what they have done and what they have presented to the Parliament. I, as one individual senator, will have pleasure in supporting the motion. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.13) —I am interested to have heard honourable senators speak in this debate which I feel, although it may not appear to the public to be so, is one of the more important debates in which we can engage here. Although it may seem somewhat incestuous in that we are talking about the funding of this Parliament-in other words, our own affairs-it extends much further than that. It extends to the rights, privileges and powers of the community itself, and to the entire Australian electorate, their right to say that certain things will be carried out by their vote, and the assertion by Senator Walsh that that should be circumvented by the Executive Government. So the matter becomes one no less serious than that. I enter this debate because I feel that those who have spoken so far for the Government and the Opposition, wide ranging though they have been, have not extended this debate far enough and they have not really isolated the issues which I think are of such basic importance. It may well be that speakers on the Opposition side feel that at some stage they will again become the government, and therefore it is in their interests to see that there is not a situation in which the Senate has the powers which the Australian people by their vote have indicated quite clearly they want it to have, and powers which upper houses in other parts of the world have and properly have in terms of their constitutions. Although we talk a lot about the Westminster system in this Parliament, it is a fact that if one goes back to the intention of the founding fathers one will see that the bicameral political system of this nation was founded largely on the American Constitution. This Senate is nothing like the House of Lords. It is bizarre to say that we have a Westminster system. There have been attempts to force our system into that unnatural mould. In fact, the powers of this Senate should more nearly approximate those of the United States Senate. I am well enough aware-- Senator Siddons —The Constitution is based on the Constitution of the United States. Senator MASON —Indeed it is. There are important exceptions, such as the advise and consent clause and matters concerning money Bills, where this Senate does differ from the United States Senate. But, granted that that is so, this Senate ought to have independent powers of its own. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill concerns money. It concerns the appropriations of the Parliament. Nothing functions, least of all this place, without money. The easiest way to cut it back to size, the easiest way to censor it or to muzzle it, is to reduce its amount of funding. That is what this is all about. That is what Senator Walsh's comments were intended to do. We all know that full well. The point is this: Senator Walsh made the statement that the funding of the Parliament ought to be decided by the Executive, but he has been able to bring forward no clear reasoning for that. He has been able to bring forward no justification whatsoever for that point of view, because there is none. All he is saying is that there is a situation in which the Senate might be-- Senator Grimes —Senator Peter Baume gave you an example. What happens if the Parliament goes berserk? Senator MASON —Senator Grimes has raised a very interesting point. He asked: What would happen if the Parliament went totally berserk? I take that as a very strange comment in regard to members of this chamber. We have managed to debate ordinary legislation from time to time and to carry out our responsibilities. We operate without going berserk. We operate responsibly. Why should he consider that we might not operate responsibly when it comes to funding? We will not immediately give ourselves gold-plated watches or spend huge sums of money; of course we will not do that. The Executive knows full well that that is the case. I would like to discuss this point more closely. I have attempted to establish that the Executive is trying to muzzle the Parliament. There is no doubt about it whatsoever. There is no other reason; its reasons are political. The Opposition, to the extent that it goes soft on this issue, is looking to its future. I am not saying that all honourable senators have done so. Some very good speeches have been made today. But I am not aware that the Opposition is totally united on this matter. In fact, I have good reason to believe that it is not. Senator Peter Baume —We have a free vote. Don't you understand what that means? There is no whip; no caucus. Senator MASON —I understand what the rights of the Senate are. This is not a matter on which any point of view other than one should be espoused. Anybody who espouses a view other than to support this motion, to my mind, is simply saying: `We will forget that one million people voted to give this chamber some independence'. Those people will be dealt with by the Executive in the only way in which they can be dealt with, the only way in which the Senate can be muzzled or cut back to size-by limiting its amount of money. Because of that, paragraph (6) of the motion of Estimates Committee A is of great importance. I will read it, because it is worth reading again: . . . the Senate expects the Government of the day to take into consideration the role and responsibilities of the Senate which are not of the Executive Government and which may at times involve conflict with the Executive Government. When we look over the last five years, during which time no government has had control of the Senate, we find that on many occasions there have necessarily been references of legislation to committees. The Executive Government of the time always kicked and screamed against it; it did not want it. Senator Grimes —Not so. Senator MASON —I take Senator Grimes's point. It is not so and he is right. I admit freely that I have overstated the situation. There have been occasions when the Government has supported it. But there have been other significant occasions, probably the majority, when the Government has not wanted those matters referred to committees. Yet when they have been referred to committees, there has been a fundamental change in the legislation. At times legislation has actually been abandoned. I look back to the last Government, the Fraser Government, when some industrial legislation, which Senator Grimes may well remember, came forward when Mr Viner, I think, was Minister. That legislation was referred by the Senate, by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats voting together, to a committee. That committee, when it took the view of the unions and employers of this country, as I recall, came to a completely uniform decision. Senator Siddons —Without those committee reports we would never have had the accord. Senator MASON —That is right. Because of that the Government did not go ahead with the legislation. If it had gone ahead with the legislation, we would have had a most confrontative situation. We would have had an appalling situation in this country. It is one of a number of cases, as Senator Grimes knows full well. The committee system is the heart of the Senate's power. That is why I want to address that point in particular at this stage. Senator Harradine —I will wear it like a badge. Senator MASON —I am glad to see that this topic is exciting interest and enthusiasm among honourable senators. Senator Harradine is laughing. I have not seen him laugh for quite a long time. As long as he is not laughing at me; I will not have that. I will deal with him later if that is the situation. There have been other matters which the Senate has referred to committees. I refer to the notable present committee on animal welfare-the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare-the first serious investigation by this Parliament, or of any serious organisation in this country, on that subject. It has awakened a tremendous amount of interest from the public, and rightly so. Enormous numbers of submissions have come to it. The Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes similarly has broken new ground. The right and power of the Senate to establish those committees and to see that they function satisfactorily and are satisfactorily funded are absolutely basic and fundamental to the responsibility of this chamber to the electorate which has dictated this present constitution, and which it has the right to dictate by its vote. Those are the people who decide what should happen here. Therefore, it is necessary at all times-paragraph (6) of this motion can be read that way-that the Government should concede to the Senate what it believes it needs to carry out its work properly. I suggest to honourable senators through you, Madam Temporary Chairman, that anything less than that is unacceptable and should properly and reasonably be unacceptable because we have a duty to carry out what we feel we should be doing, and it cannot be done without money. I pointed out when speaking on this subject during the second reading debate on this Bill-it is worth saying again-that compared with the enormous costs of royal commissions, Senate inquiries are very economical. The organisation is here. I am not saying that a Senate committee can always replace a royal commission; of course it cannot. But there are many occasions when a Senate committee can carry out a task which clarifies matters very clearly and which, as in the case I mentioned earlier, induces the Executive to change its ways. The first important point about the committee system is that it embraces all parties. When a committee reports-it may produce minority reports; that happens frequently enough-by and large there is a great degree of unanimity between members of different political parties in this place in the workings of the committee. That is a very good and useful thing. However there is a second role of our committee work which is even more important and crucial. It is this: The committees take what the Executive does in the case of legislation or what the Executive proposes before the people. A Senate committee is a public hearing. It is open to the public and the media. Any person who wishes to put a submission into it can do so. That is a very important element in Australian democracy. The Executive does not like it. I often think that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has many of the attributes which would make him a fine dictator. He believes that he is right most of the time and he tends to deride the views of others. That is all very well-it is nice to have good positive thinking in the Parliament-provided he can guarantee that he is right all the time and that the Government is right all the time. That, of course, cannot be guaranteed. It is necessary that the natural desire of the Executive to want to do what it wants ought not to be allowed. If there is a degree of frustration involved for Ministers and for the Executive, then so be it. That is what this chamber is about. Therefore, I say in conclusion that the Australian Democrats take this matter very seriously. We certainly support this motion. There is no doubt about that. We will not in other ways seek any amendments to the parliamentary appropriations this year. I have said there may be a strong disinclination by the Government over the next few months to refer legislation to committees. We know that very important legislation is coming up which, I suggest, without in any way prejudging those debates, will need to go to committees. Those matters, after all, concern the rights of all Australians, and Australians may want to have some input. That would be a very good thing. Therefore, there are a few months ahead of us when we will be wanting to do some committee work and when the committees of the Senate will be of such importance that they will need adequate funding and research staff. We may have to go to the Government and see whether we can get some more money for the Senate for that purpose. If, at that stage, the Government proves intransigent, I suggest to honourable senators, through you, Madam Temporary Chairman, that when it comes to next year's Estimates we take a rather stronger position. I say that we should do that not only as a matter of choice but also as a matter of duty. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(8.25) —I speak as a member of Estimates Committee A who has turned a hand and attention, as have the other members of that Committee, to helping to draft and formulate the motion that Senator Richardson moved in the Committee of the Whole this evening. Senator Richardson is right about the motion. It has been broadly cast to provide a mechanism to settle disputes between the procedure of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing and the Executive. Perhaps I should say that a lot has been said in this debate in this chamber about Senator Walsh, but, ultimately, it is not Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, or whosoever may happen to be that Minister but rather it is the Cabinet that raises these appropriation Bills and authorises them to proceed. It is at that level that the responsibility rests. I found the exposition of Senator Peter Baume earlier tonight, in many respects, to be a quite excellent exposition between the two alternatives. A dispute-settling procedure has been proposed by Senator Richardson. From all sides of the chamber, we have had heated agreement that such a procedure is necessary. Once that proposal was announced, honourable senators then proceeded to put their own interpretation on the meaning of the proposed procedure or to emphasise their points of view on how the procedures could be biased. In my contribution to this debate, I want to put some points which are contrary to the general thrust of what has been put by a number of honourable senators. Intruded into the debate this afternoon and tonight have been references to what has been said in the newspapers and, from time to time, to events that were alleged to have occurred. That has been the theme of a number of speakers. I want to say of those comments that each of us has a view of the significance and importance of those events and all versions of those events, whatever they happen to be, are contested. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be helpful in this debate further to contest or argue those views; in the end, it is what is carried in this motion that is important. I do not want to look, therefore, at the particulars but rather at the general proposition to see whether it will stand up after the current controversy is over. Therefore, first of all, it is important to put into context the circumstances in which this Estimates Committee motion has been brought forward. In doing that, I have to disagree strongly with remarks made earlier this afternoon by Senator Puplick. He put what I consider to be a quite outrageous proposition that the Presiding Officers could act independently to the Governor-General and the Governor-General could act over ministerial advice to send to this Parliament money Bills-that is, appropriation Bills. That seems to me to be a quite outrageous proposition. It seems to be a proposition that has been central to constitutional debate, at least for the last decade, in this country, and the main tide of that debate was certainly against the proposition put by Senator Puplick. The first point I want to make is that the motion that Senator Richardson has moved does not state what Senator Puplick argued. The motion merely proposes that there be a procedure for resolving argument, but in the ultimate, if there can be no resolution of argument, it is the Executive wing of government that has the ultimate responsibility. The motion imputes to the Executive wing a responsibility in listening to the voice of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, but it does not arrogate the responsibilities to make the final decision and to advise the Governor-General accordingly. The second point that should be made about the remarks of Senator Puplick is that the logical extension of his proposition is that the House of Representatives or the Senate should then take responsibility for raising taxes to provide the finances needed to run the establishment. Ultimately, what has been canvassed is the view that the Executive or the Government of the day take responsibility for raising taxes but that the Parliament take responsibility for arrogating to itself whatever amount of those taxes it so deemed appropriate to spend on its own administration. I think there is an immoral centre to that proposition. The immoral centre is that if the Parliament does not raise a tax for parliamentary functions, it ought not take the responsibility for justifying the spending of those funds. Senator Peter Baume —Does not the Parliament in fact raise the taxes on the advice of the Executive? Senator COOK —Yes, but there is no question that it is the Government that introduces those Bills and ultimately it is the Government that carries those Bills. The exception, of course, in this chamber is that it does not always do so. That leads me to the point I was dwelling on in terms of the moral centre of this argument. It seems to me that if the parliamentary process allows for the rejection of tax measures by this chamber, it is passing strange that it should then want to take from what remains its own appropriations. It ought to have the ability-as a logical extension of the Puplick argument-to venture into the field of raising its own taxes to justify its functions. The constitutional position has been muddied by this debate. In order to clarify it, one has to go back to the basis of the Constitution, section 56, which is the historical basis of the principle that the Government should have the right to control the introduction of legislation authorising the expenditure of public moneys. Hence section 56 envisages that the Governor-General will act on the advice of the responsible Minister or Ministers. According to that section, the advice need not be from the Minister meeting in Executive Council, since section 56 does not refer to the Governor-General in Council. The proposition that the representative of the crown should in all circumstances in this regard act on the advice of a responsible Minister or Ministers appears to have been accepted without question at the Australian Constitutional Convention debates in 1898. I am not aware of any criticisms by writers on constitutional law or practice of the exclusive role of the government in providing advice to the Governor-General for the purposes of section 56, including advice on moneys for the Parliament's own needs. Indeed, in 1977 the then Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott, as he then was, and the Solicitor-General considered this matter. They reached the conclusion, with which the present Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) agrees, that the provision of advice to the Governor-General for the purposes of section 56 otherwise than by a Minister or Ministers would be inconsistent with basic constitutional principle and long established practice. Based on that, I do not believe that there can be any contest as to where the final constitutional authority rests. With those remarks, I turn to the motion before us. The motion has been broadly cast and, because of that, in my view it was necessary to try to pin down the precise meanings of some sections of the motion, were there to be any dispute about them in the event of a wider dispute between the Executive and the Presiding Officers. If one consults the minutes of Estimates Committee A on Thursday, 14 November, one sees that those minutes read: Senator Cook asked the Chairman to rule on the effect of the words in paragraph (4): `, then the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as a member of the Appropriations and Staffing Committee, be consulted', given that the Leader was bound, by virtue of his oath of office, to be responsible to the Cabinet. The Chairman replied that it is obviously true that the Government Leader is bound by decisions of the Government's Executive, but the words had been included in order to provide a form of mediation in the event of disagreement. My purpose in entering this debate was to draw the attention of the Senate to that view taken within the Committee, because it does inform a reading of the text of the motion. Should there at any time in the future be an argument that the carriage of this motion somehow or other clothed the Appropriations and Staffing Committee with a responsibility to direct the Leader of the Government, it will be seen that that is quite clearly not the case. The Leader of the Government is bound obviously and in the end and at all times to carry out the role of the Executive wing of government. The critical part is that part, because that is the part upon which the mediation provisions in fact operate if in fact there is a dispute. Therefore, the critical part in the event of a dispute is that which contains the procedures to resolve the dispute. In the end this motion means, in my view, that in the event of a dispute we should call upon the good will and policital acumen of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to try to resolve that dispute. But if it remains unresolved in the circumstances of the exercise of that acumen and good will, ultimately it is the Executive wing that prevails. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.35) —I intervene briefly in this Committee debate to support Senator Richardson's motion. As did Senator Cook, I do that as a member of Estimates Committee A which debated and considered this issue for a considerable time. As I suppose do other senators around the chamber, I find myself in the strange position of being in agreement with a wide range of honourable senators, many of whom I would not normally be in agreement with. It is a very important debate, as has been said earlier, and I congratulate Senator Richardson not only on the motion he has moved which, as I have indicated, has been very carefully thought through, negotiated and discussed but also on the way in which he presented the motion to the Committee; I think he did it extremely well. It is a vital issue because what we are talking about is the role of the Parliament relative to the role of the Executive Government. We would all, I guess, have different views on those respective roles and how they have developed over recent years, but I personally believe that for far too long in Australia, as in most other Western nations, there has been a disturbing imbalance between the power of the Executive and the power of the Parliament in favour of the Executive. Senator Mason —Hear, hear! Senator SHORT —And Parliament has come very close to being no more than a rubber stamp for the government of the day. I think that is bad for efficient and responsible government. I think it is damaging to democracy and debilitating to the nation. Obviously in a bicameral parliament, as ours is, it is in the Senate that that better balance between the Executive and the Parliament can be achieved. I welcome the moves over recent years to get what I believe is a better balance, although I would have to say, before Senator Mason applauds me further, that I would prefer that that better balance not result from the existence of minority parties holding legislative power out of all proportion to their support in the electorate. Senator Mason —I was just going to send you some membership papers! Senator SHORT —I might have a vote for the deputy leadership! I think what I have said is very important: In the upper House of this Parliament the balance of power is held by a group which is not representative of the broad community. That is a fact and is something that I regret. I think that there is an imbalance. I welcome the move towards a greater balance in terms of a greater role for the Parliament relative to the Executive Government, because surely that is what parliamentary democracy is all about. The Parliament is elected by the people, as is the government of the day, but I find an extraordinary proposition for anyone to put that the Executive Government in a parliamentary democracy such as ours is senior to the parliament of the day. That to me is a complete controversion of what I understand as a parliamentary democracy. Not being a lawyer, I am afraid that I cannot go back to 1688 et al. I say very simply that we would not have had a Constitution or a federation in Australia if there had been anything other than understanding on the part of the founding fathers of the fundamental importance of the Senate and its power relative to Executive government. I think that is axiomatic to the whole of the Australian parliamentary system. Reference to the Westminster system, on which so much of our Parliament is based, is relevant but so also, as has been said by others, is the United States of America. When our founding fathers were looking for a model for the second chamber in this Parliament they looked not to the British House of Lords but to the United States Senate for a variety of reasons-because the United States was a federation like us and because the United States Senate was, as in Australia, an elected, not an hereditary house. For all those sorts of reasons the experience and practice of the United States situation is, so far as our Senate is concerned, in my understanding, at least as important as the Westminster system. For those reasons I also believe that it is axiomatic that Parliament must be responsible ultimately for its financing and the determination of its appropriations. I well understand the concerns that are voiced by those who argue the other way: How does one keep a control on the excesses of parliament? I think that is a very valid point, just as is: How does one keep a control on the excesses of Executive government? Senator Grimes —That is what the motion is all about. Senator SHORT —Yes, that is right. In the end, though, the control on excesses by either Executive government or parliament is in the ballot box-in the hands of the people of this country. So the argument in that sense seems to me not to be significant as between Executive government and parliament. I believe that the motion that has been presented before the Senate today, on my interpretation-here I think I am at odds with my colleague from the Estimates committee, Senator Cook-reaffirms that if at the end of the day there is a difference of view between the Parliament and the Executive on the estimates for the Parliament, as paragraph (2) of the motion firmly states: `The estimates of expenditure . . . shall continue to be those determined by the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing'; I interpret that as meaning the Parliament and not the Executive. I agree with those who have said before me in the debate, in particular, Senator Peter Baume, that at the end of the day hopefully the matter will be-it certainly should be-resolved by common sense and good will. If we had a situation where there was a complete stand-off between the Executive government of the day, regardless of which party was in government, and the Parliament on an issue such as this, we would have a very serious problem for our democratic processes in Australia. I would like to believe that common sense and good will would prevail along the lines that they are encouraged to prevail in the motion before the chamber so that such a situation would not arise. I have very considerable pleasure in supporting the motion. Before I conclude, I refer to another matter which has not been referred to in the debate so far today but which does relate to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86 and to an important element of the report of Senate Estimates Committee A-the question of Senate information systems. I refer honourable senators to pages 10 to 12 of the October report of Estimates Committee A. The point I make is that a problem appears to have arisen between the Government and the Parliament in relation to the provision of information systems to senators in the sense that the Government, as I understand it, has not agreed to the extension of responsibility by the parliamentary departments to the provision of information systems to senators outside the Senate building. We have the situation where, on a very professional basis and, I think, on a well researched and well monitored basis, computer systems are being introduced into the activities of senators. However, this appears to be occurring in such a way as to be highly restrictive of the most important and relevant use to which senators can put the systems. That problem arises because at the moment we are only allowed to have the first of our computer systems-in other words, information systems-installed in Parliament House rather than in our own State electorate offices. Quite frankly, I think that is crazy because it means for the two long parliamentary recesses, plus the other breaks we have when the Senate is not sitting, unless we have staff permanently positioned in Canberra we are unable to take advantage of the facilities that are very welcomely being provided to us. I hope that situation can be looked at again. I understand it is a problem that has exercised a considerable amount of attention by various parts of the Government and the Parliament, including the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, which in its latest report tabled in September, said: Discussions then took place with the Government on the specific issues of the Department of the Senate assuming responsibility for the provision and maintenance of information systems equipment in Senators' electorate offices, to ensure compatibility with equipment being installed by the Department in Senators' Parliament House offices. This proposal has not yet been agreed to by the Government but will be pursued by the Committee. I understand that the Government has now refused that. I do not understand the reasons for that because that is going to lead to a proliferation of various types of possibly incompatible information systems being installed individually by senators around the nation at a time when we are trying to get a greater compatibility in the lead-up to the move to the new Parliament House in 1988. I urge the Government, as did Estimates Committee A, to look very closely at this because I think the Government's decision will lead to wasteful expenditure and to incompatibility in systems, neither of which should prevail if a little common sense is shown on both sides. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(8.49) —I rise to agree generally with what has been said in this debate tonight, with the exception of some of the things Senator Puplick said about 1975. Perhaps that is a subject for another debate or perhaps for conversation around a table somewhere. The second thing I want to do is come to the defence in some way of the statements made by Senator Walsh. It appears from the discussions here tonight that we have, as a process of government in this country, the conventional separation of powers into the Executive, the legislature and the judicature. Issues are resolved in terms of the resolution of tensions that may exist within those three bodies. Of course Senator Walsh will come in here and put the argument for the Executive as strongly and robustly as he can. That will result in an argument being put by those of us who repesent the legislature in a strong and robust way, and that has been done here tonight. But just as it would be wrong for the Executive to deny the money needed to enable the judicature to carry out its proper functions-there must be an implied right in the judicature to get enough money to carry out its proper functions-so it would be wrong for the Executive, if it has that power, to deny this Parliament the proper appropriations for it to carry out its functions. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the way things are done is through resolving this tension set up between these bodies. When I use the word `tension' I do not mean it in terms of anything hostile, but simply in terms of different conflicting interests. This motion is a very good one because it sets out a process of resolution. The motion is typical of the way that conventions, laws or principles are set up. Certain facts come before a particular group and it is in the resolution of those facts that theory and principle are made, and it does not go the other way; that is, we do not establish principle, theories and laws which will exercise in the context we are talking about now which will determine how facts are resolved. The facts come first and then the resolutions are made. I think that is important in this sense, because we can get ourselves in a difficult situation by trying to set down theories or a series of laws or principles and argue about those in a vacuum, because that would perhaps lead to all sorts of arguments and debates which really are not as fruitful as they might be. What ought to happen is what has happened here: When a problem arises people get around it by debating it and reaching a resolution. That is the beauty of this motion. It shows the finely tuned realism of Senator Richardson, which results from the robust canvassing of the Executive's point of view by Senator Walsh. So that happy tension as it were, between Senator Richardson and Senator Walsh, has resolved this difficulty. Senator Siddons —`Pragmatism' is the word. Senator COONEY —Pragmatism, but the trouble with that word is that it has overtones. In the kindest sense of the word Senator Siddons is a very pragmatic and practical man. He has produced great industries and contributed mightily to this House, and he could quite properly be described as pragmatic in the same way as Senator Richardson. Perhaps he and Senator Richardson are kindred spirits. On the other hand we have the more reflective, the more, as it were, theoretical mind of Senator Puplick over there, who went into the question of 1975, but as I say this is perhaps not the appropriate time to enter into that debate. That is my contribution. The general agreement is that this is an excellent motion and it will be passed accordingly. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(8.54) —I want to contribute briefly to the debate this evening as I do not want to prolong the sitting of the Senate. I think we have had a very timely debate on the motion that has come forward from Senate Estimates Committee A. I felt I should speak because it seems to be Estimates revisited as far as I am concerned, because I was in the position Senator Walsh is in at the moment, when we had the resolution of the Senate of 25 March 1982. As the then Minister for Finance I had to go through the steps of dealing with the separate appropriation for the Parliament. It is passing strange to me that everyone seems to be talking about some new dispute settling measures, as they were referred to by Senator Cook. They were described in a number of other ways. These are precisely the steps that were taken to deal with the appropriations of the Parliament when I was Minister for Finance. I must hasten to say that at that time the Senate was sweet reason itself in dealing with these matters which were able to be negotiated with some sort of amicable persuasion and understanding of the position of the then Government and the Senate. However, there were difficulties with the House of Representatives. On that occasion we had to resort to a procedure such as that set out in part (4) of the motion being considered by the Committee, which states: In the event of agreement not being reached between the President and the Minister, then the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as a member of the Appropriations and Staffing Committee, be consulted; I must hasten to say that there was never any resolution between the then Speaker and the Minister for Finance. I do not know that it was a matter of agreement not being reached; it was just a matter of there being no agreement that there should even be consultation with the Minister. The Speaker at that time insisted on consulting with the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Sir John Carrick, who apparently had some attributes that a Minister for Finance did not have. So that year the matter was dealt with in precisely the steps that have been outlined in the motion now before us. I think that parts (5) and (6) of the motion put the positions that need to be recognised as the polar opposites that were referred to by Senator Peter Baume-that is, that the Senate must acknowledge any request from the Minister for Finance and that the Senate would take into account whatever the Government of the day put forward as its objectives. In turn, the Senate would expect the Government of the day to take into account the role that the Senate wished to take in the execution of its work as part of the Parliament. The reason I have no hesitation in supporting the motion is that it really does not resolve anything. Senator Walsh has addressed himself to part (6) of the amendment and said that, after all of this consultation has taken place and each party has understood and considered the views that have been put, someone then has to introduce some Bills. My learned colleagues who have talked all night about our Constitution and others and early history have ignored the fact that Bills in the Australian Parliament have to pass both Houses before they become law. So even if we were to ignore the part of the Constitution that does not permit us to originate money Bills in the Senate, the legislation would still have to be passed by the House of Representatives where the Government of the day had the majority. So I think we have set out a procedure to be followed. We have addressed ourselves to the need to talk to the Executive Government and to put before it the needs of the Parliament. I hope that the Executive government recognises what Senator Cooney referred to as the requirements and funds that are needed for the separation of power. It is a matter of negotiation. It is a matter of understanding the way in which Appropriation Bills originate, the way in which they pass through the Parliament and the ultimate message that they contain. I think we just simply ignore the constitutional realities if we pretend that any other point of view could prevail. I was interested in something that was said by Senator Mason who, it seemed to me, was ready to tear up some of the statutory declarations that the Australian Democrats have signed in regard to not withholding Supply. He said that if we do not get the money that the Senate might want for its committees, the next time the Appropriation Bills come around the Democrats will not pass them. He also credited the Senate with the accord. I think to introduce matters of that kind in a debate of this sort is to express something quite irrelevant to the subject before us which I think is of some importance. I believe it is a very timely debate. I can accept all of these steps-I have worked through that procedure-and ultimately I accept also that the Minister for Finance or the appropriate Minister, wherever the Bill originates, will have to introduce the Bill on behalf of the Government. After all, the Government is required to raise the finances that are required to be spent by the Parliament or any of its other administrative bodies. For a Senate to pass a motion here, believing that in some way it has given itself some power to originate Bills and pass them without their passing the other House of the Parliament, or any of the other practical procedures, seems to me to ignore the realities. In brief, I want to say that this motion is timely. The debate in the Estimates Committee is a useful one. If we understand the Constitution and its requirements and use these steps as a matter of resolving the creative tension between the Executive and the Parliament, we will all probably have a fairly satisfactory result. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —Madam Temporary Chairman, I claim to have been misrepresented by the previous speaker and I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MASON —Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle is very good. She has seven-league boots and she really jumps over logical arguments at great speed. What I did say, as I recall it, was that if there was a dispute over the appropriations the Australian Democrats would consider amendments to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. Supply, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle as an ex-Finance Minister should understand, is covered by Appropriation Bill (No. 1), which is a different Bill from the one we are debating at this time. I just wanted to make the point quite clearly. She seems to have her Bills a little mixed up. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.02) —I cannot help but defend my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle in response to that personal explanation. I hope I do not ruin her reputation, but I would be amazed if anyone else listening to Senator Mason's contribution tonight did not believe that what he said was that the Senate should decide what it spends and that, if it does not have the power to decide, it should amend something. I ask Senator Mason: If the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill is not passed, what will we all live on? What will we exist on? It might not be a question of refusing Supply in general, but it is certainly refusing Supply as far as this place is concerned. I just wish to speak briefly, unlike many people in this debate. It seems to me that the length of debate in this place is always in inverse proportion to the amount of money involved in the legislation. As the amount involved is about $10m as far as the Senate is concerned, the debate has been inordinately long. Senator Peter Baume pointed out quite reasonably that what we have here-- Senator Mason —What was that reference to somebody who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing? Senator GRIMES —We all listened in silence to Senator Mason; we suffered him in silence. What we have here in this debate, as I think Senator Baume pointed out, are two extremes and a number of people in the middle. On the one extreme we have those people who believe-I think there are probably people on both sides like this but not many on either side-that the Senate should decide exactly what it should spend and that is it. They believe that, if the Senate so decides-there are certainly people who work for the Senate who believe this-the governent of the day, the Governor-General of the day and everyone else should say: `Right, okay, we will pay that over'. If that was not the gist of what Senator Mason said, I apologise. I will go back and read his speech but that certainly was the gist of Senator Siddons's interjections. There are other people who take the extreme view that the Executive, without talking to the Senate or the Houses of Parliament or anyone else, can say: `This is what you get. Go away and this is how you spend it'. They are two extreme views. Senator Mason —That is Senator Walsh. Senator GRIMES —That is not Senator Walsh's view, as it happens. What this motion does is to recognise-- Senator Georges —You could have fooled me. Senator GRIMES —Well, perhaps Senator Georges takes the other view. As Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle in her very sensible contribution to this debate pointed out, this motion does not reinvent the wheel. This dispute has been going on since Federation. The last big dispute between the Executive and the Houses of Parliament was not between the Executive and the Senate but was in fact between the Executive and the House of Representatives. We all remember it and remember it well. In fact, the House of Representatives is represented by the Speaker. Paragraph (5) of the motion moved tonight states: the Senate acknowledges that in considering any request from the Minister for Finance the Committee and the Senate would take into consideration the relevant expenditure and staffing policies of the Government of the day. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, but not the proposition put by those people who say `We are elected representatives of the people to do our duty. We should decide how much we expend', or `We should decide in an irresponsible way that we can have 49 committees and we can have badges costing $500 instead of $50', and all this sort of stuff. That is not what reasonable people decide. Senator Aulich —That is not what the Committee said. Senator GRIMES —Of course it is not what the Committee said. The Committee has put forward a reasonable motion. Paragraph (6) states: in turn the Senate expects the Government of the day to take into consideration the role and responsibilities of the Senate which are not of the Executive Government and which may at times involve conflict with the Executive Government. That is the whole crux of the matter. So what happens and what should happen is that reasonable people, acting in a reasonable and sensible way, should decide between themselves on what that appropriation should be. As Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has pointed out, there is nothing new about this motion; it is something that has been decided upon by this House and this Parliament in the past. I think we should find some way of resolving this. I suggest that the only way we will resolve it is Senator Peter Baume's way of resolving it; that is, that reasonable people will get together and come up with some reasonable proposition because there is no reasonable proposition in the two extremes. The one extreme is that the Senate shall decide without any consideration of the Government's position despite fiscal difficulties and financial responsibilities. The other extreme is that the Executive should decide without consulting the Houses of Parliament. I do not think anyone will lose any sleep over this motion. I do not think anyone will lose any sleep over the fact that there will, at times, be robust debate, as Senator Cooney said, between the Executive and the legislature because it is that creative tension which is important in our democracy and I think it will continue to be so. Senator Gareth Evans —It is statesman-like stuff. Senator GRIMES —Of course it is statesman-like stuff. I am always like this at this time of night. I see no reason why we should not take into account the philosophical contributions to this debate by Senator Cooney and Senator Puplick, the practical contributions of Senator Cook, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Peter Baume and the practical, but rather eccentric, contribution of Senator Short. I will not go into his contribution. He says that the Senate should not be governed by a group which is not representative of the broad view of the community. If ever we get into the situation where we have one party in power on that side of the House after a recent election and another party in power on this side, we will see whether he accepts that the party in power over here does not represent the broad view in the community and, therefore, should not dominate the legislature. But we will remind him of that at another time because it was really a red herring in this debate. I think we have had our philosophical debate and we have had our breast beating. Senator Georges —You haven't heard me yet. Senator GRIMES —Except for Senator Georges, who obviously will have something to say because I have provoked him in some way. I think it is about time we passed these appropriations and got on to some practical legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment, but with a resolution; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. 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 all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. First Readings Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.13) —The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 is an omnibus Bill which amends a number of different areas of the health field. The Bill amends the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act. The Bill separately makes provisions for the Health Insurance Commission to undertake planning for the development of an identification card for Australia. Again, the Bill provides for reforms to provisions related to fraud within the health insurance activities of the Government. The Bill separately provides for amendments to the Health Insurance Act providing for what are known as 3B certificates in relation to long-stay patients in hospitals, enabling the certificates to be issued retrospectively. The Bill sets out to make changes to the requirements relating to the information provided by a practitioner or his staff for the payment of Medicare benefits. The Bill contains some provisions for reciprocal arrangements for hospital and medical care between Australia and various countries. It is, therefore, a very extensive piece of legislation. I will discuss the Opposition's view on these different sections seriatim. In relation to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Bill makes a number of changes. There are a number of fairly minor amendments relating to the constitution of the Commission, particularly extending the period of appointment of the commissioners. There are changes to the conflict of interest provisions within the CSL Act. There are provisions which enable the Commission rather than the Governor-General to appoint the Managing Director and there are some other minor changes. The Opposition will not oppose these; indeed, I will not discuss them further. The more significant changes to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act are the changes proposed to the functions and powers of the Commission. It is proposed that the functions of the Commission should be extended to allow the Commission to use its facilities to their full capacity where this does not interfere with the performance of other functions of the Commission-that is, government directed undertakings. The powers of the Commission, on the other hand, are to be extended by allowing the Commission to form companies, to buy or sell shares in any company, to enter into partnership or arrangements for the sharing of profits; in other words, to allow CSL to undertake a full range of commercial activities. The only restriction on the Commission is to be the requirement to obtain ministerial approval if, as a result of its enhanced powers, the Commission would obtain effective control of the operations of the body corporate or partnership of some body with which it entered into arrangements. By way of background, the commercial revenue earned by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is 90 per cent of its total revenue, the other being revenue arising from its ministerially determined activities. So CSL is already a commercially active organisation. In its 1983-84 report, CSL explained that under its current powers it was able to make an offer for a private laboratory called David Bull Laboratories. Although the offer was not finally accepted, the report stated: . . . the Commission continues to maintain interests in opportunities for expansion as they arise. So CSL under its existing powers is able to make bids to take over pharmaceutical companies. Indeed, as its report indicated, it sought to do so just a year or so ago. Senator Peter Rae —It does not pay proper rates or proper rent. Senator PETER BAUME —I will refer in a moment to the fact that CSL enjoys some advantages which are not available to the rest of the industry. There is no doubt that CSL does have some unused capacity, partly due to the seasonal nature of some of its activities. I remind honourable senators of the one major role of the Laboratories, which is to produce influenza vaccine each year for use in this country. That is obviously a seasonal activity in which CSL is heavily involved, and that does provide it with some unused capacity. It could look to extra commercial activities in view of this fact. The Opposition does not support the extension of the powers of the Commission. We do not oppose the rest of the amendments. But those amendments proposed in clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill which seek to extend the powers and the function of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will be opposed by us in the Committee stage and we will seek to delete them. While CSL is required to pay government taxes and charges, it nevertheless has advantages in the market-place which are not shared by other pharmaceutical manufacturers. For a start, it does not have the same imperative need to earn a profit that keeps other pharmaceutical manufacturers alive. They simply do not remain viable if they do not make a profit. In the end CSL has the Government as a lender of last resort. The CSL enjoys loan raising advantages not necessarily available to its commercial competitors. It does this through Commonwealth Government backing. In addition, we want to know why CSL wants this extra capacity. By way of history, I might say that long before I was involved with the Ministry of Health in a ministerial capacity, during the time the Fraser Government first came to office, constant recommendations came from within CSL that it be given extra powers and functions to get into commercial activities rather more than it had done. We have resisted those recommendations throughout and we intend to resist them again now. We will oppose clauses 10 and 11. As I have said earlier, CSL already has the capacity to make bids for certain pharmaceutical companies. It has done so recently, but was unsuccessful for other reasons. We have not had explained to us any compelling reason why the extra provisions in clauses 10 and 11 are necessary. The arguments we hear again and again, couched in the same language, that CSL and the Government want some kind of window in the industry may be reasonable. CSL can obtain that window now under the present legislation. It is not necessary to get an extension. It does not help the rest of the competitive pharmaceutical industries, especially when one considers the monopsonistic position of the Government in relation to pharmaceutical supplies in Australia. The second matter of concern within this omnibus legislation relates to the provision for the Australia Card. The identification card debate which has been raging in this country has arisen because of the provisions contained in this legislation and because of the appropriation which is provided to allow the Department of Health to proceed to do certain things. Senator Grimes has been kind enough to provide me with a copy of the House of Representatives Hansard of 17 October. We have already referred earlier tonight to the Senate Hansard of 17 October. In the House of Representatives that day where this legislation was debated the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) announced certain changes in the Government's approach to its handling of the ID card issue. Those changes were based upon the intention that the legislation should pass in its present form. Subsequently the Government has agreed to the establishment of a joint select committee of the Parliament-established by a resolution which, I think, went through this place just a day or so ago-to examine certain matters in relation to the provision of ID cards, matters which we regard as central to the threshold question of whether or not we wish to have this kind of ID card in Australia. I emphasise that the Opposition has not taken a definitive view position against an ID card. It certainly has not taken a definitive position in favour of it. Three questions need to be answered in relation to the Australia Card, ID card, or whatever you want to call it, before the Opposition will accept the proposition. The first is whether the card will be effective in carrying out the purposes for which it has been promoted. Will it be effective in the area for which it was promoted? I refer to the prevention of fraud, not only in the medical area but also social security fraud and other kinds of fraud. Senator Peter Rae —Taxation, and it won't. Senator PETER BAUME —My colleague says that it will not. We know that certain countries which have ID cards have a thriving business in black market ID cards. So there are some very real questions as to whether ID cards will be effective and how long it will be before the counterfeiting of ID cards becomes a thriving backyard industry. Secondly, we want to know what the cost benefit analysis of such a system of cards is to be. We do not take a view on that matter at the moment except to say that the issues are more complex than the Government has led us to believe. We do not know whether the exercise will be cost-effective. I will mention the civil liberties aspects as my third concern. We do not wish to go down the road unless we know that there is a real advantage in cost benefit terms. The final matter that has to be addressed from the Opposition's point of view is whether or not the privacy and civil liberties of the individual will be protected. We come from a philosophical tradition which was instrumental in the last 100 years in extending and preserving individual liberty. We do not wish to pre-empt a view on the ID card. However, we want the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card to answer the very real concerns that have been raised about civil liberties, privacy and the rights of individuals before we consider this matter. Senator Peter Rae —By significant numbers of people in all parties. Senator PETER BAUME —Again, Senator Peter Rae, by interjection, reminds me that the concerns that have been expressed have been expressed across the political spectrum by significant numbers of persons in all political parties. Indeed, there have been a lot of concerned representations from people whom I regard as responsible that there would be real threats to civil liberties. Again, we want the matter examined by the Joint Select Committee. In our minds, it is not appropriate for the Government to proceed, as it is so doing. Senator Crowley —Are all parties equally opposed to the problems of tax evasion and tax avoidance? Senator PETER BAUME —I say to the honourable senator that that is irrelevant. We are not prepared to endorse the Government's proposal to proceed with the introduction of Australia Card, virtually making its introduction a fait accompli because it wishes to spend more money in the development of the card, until we know that those threshold questions have been answered. Goodness me, it is not so unreasonable to ask that the Government answer those simple questions and tell us whether it will work. It may be very good public relations for the Government to say: `We will go in and we will introduce an ID card'. I remind honourable senators that the Australian Labor Party has not always been in government. When we were in government we examined exactly the same matters. We were concerned about exactly the same issues and about what one could do to overcome the very real problems facing a government. We considered whether the introduction of an equivalent to the Australia Card was desirable. We did not go down that road. We could not satisfy ourselves that those three threshold questions could be answered adequately. We do not believe that this Government has answered them adequately and we do not intend to support the introduction of Australia Card. We oppose this legislation. We will await the outcome of the report of the Joint Select Committee. We will examine that report in good faith and if, in fact, it can resolve the issues which I have laid before the Senate in the last few moments, the Opposition will come back and examine the matter again. Clauses 57 to 66-Part IV of this legislation-are the clauses which relate to Australia Card. The Opposition will oppose Part IV in toto for the reasons which I have outlined. The third part of this omnibus legislation is the reform of the so-called medifraud provisions of the Health Insurance Act. It is necessary for me to make some comments. The more evidence that emerges, the more apparent it becomes that the main problem we have with Medicare lies more with overservicing as an issue than with fraud. The real abuse of Medicare comes from those practitioners who operate unethically but within the law and who use overservicing as one of their main tools. While the Government concentrates upon the fraud aspects of the use of the system by practitioners, it is missing the point. The big haemorrhage is occurring in overservicing. It is occurring as a result of myriads of small expenditure decisions, some of them made deliberately by certain practitioners. I remind honourable senators of a speech given in this place just a week or two ago by Senator Puplick, my colleague from New South Wales, when he introduced a number of documents including one from an entrepreneurial practitioner in which that doctor was berating the members of his practice for not generating enough return visits and not maintaining the volume of services. In other words, overservicing was the issue there. Concentrating on fraud alone, while it is necessary, is not sufficient to resolve the problems which concern the Government, the Opposition and the community. The proposals by the Government seek to repeal the existing disqualification provisions and to replace them with new ones. I thought that the disqualification provisions were an excellent idea. It has proved very difficult to get police evidence to document instances of medifraud. Even if a practitioner carried out hundreds of improper activities, the police may have to struggle to get evidence on four or five of them. It was therefore necessary for the Fraser Government to introduce legislation to disqualify any doctor convicted of medifraud from having access to rebates for services given, and to disqualify his patients from being able to claim rebates. It did this to provide a major sanction upon those doctors. By making the trigger for such disqualification even a couple of convictions, it brought us back to the world of practicalities. By the time the police had gathered material for a couple of convictions they were often dealing with a person about whom they had information relating to a hundred more activities but for which the gathering of evidence was much more difficult. The new provision provides for a new statutory summary offence for making a false or misleading statement that is capable of being used for a claim for Medicare benefits and carries with it a penalty of a monetary fine not exceeding $2,000. It provides for a new statutory defence to be offered where a person did not know, or could not reasonably be expected to know, that a statement was false or misleading or capable of being used in connection with a claim for benefits. Secondly, the Government has introduced a new indictable offence for intentionally making a false statement in connection with a claim for benefits. The onus of proving intent rests with the prosecution. For this new offence there is a fine not exceeding $10,000 or five years imprisonment, or both. I am not certain why these new provisions are being promoted to replace the existing disqualification provisions. I must say that I think the disqualification provisions should be as severe as possible. I say that as a member of the medical profession, and I imagine that Senator Crowley, as another medical practitioner, would endorse that view. Senator Crowley —Allow me to say that for myself. Senator PETER BAUME —That is charming. The disqualification provisions for those convicted of medifraud, to my mind, should be severe and capable of being easily operated. The Government has gone further by proposing the establishment of a Medicare participation review committee. That committee will be established where an offence under the Act, or a relevant offence under the Crimes Act, has been found proven in court of law against a practitioner. The committee then will consider what action, if any, should be taken. The Bill sets out a number of possibilities from no action being taken all the way through to full disqualification for up to five years. I would like to see that we are not replacing existing provisions with something less effective. As I say, the Opposition will not be opposing these provisions. The new provisions provide further for the recovery of overpayment of Medicare benefits. That may be a rather more nominal provision than it seems, because it would apply only in those cases where overpayment had been proved. As I have pointed out already, it may be difficult to prove more that a few of the overpayments, even if one suspects that many have occurred. Finally, it provides for statutory privilege to be accorded to counselling sessions between the counsellors of the Health Insurance Commission and medical practitioners. I digress to say that the counsellors working for the Health Insurance Commission do a very important job. It happens that some practitioners are offending against the Health Insurance Act unintentionally and some of them respond immediately and permanently to counselling when it is offered from within the Health Insurance Commission. Surely if the objective is to have the system working well, such counselling must be offered to the fullest extent. I know some of the counsellors, I know the extent to which they think their work is effective, and I am glad to see this privilege accorded to them. Senator Georges —That works for the individual doctors, but it is much more difficult when you are dealing with a corporation or corporate structure. Senator PETER BAUME —Nevertheless, it works for individual doctors and, because of that, let us not oppose it, let us see whether we can put it to good use. The next group of amendments are to the Health Insurance Act and relate to so-called section 3B certificates. Normally after 35 days a patient in hospital becomes a nursing home patient and becomes ineligible for certain benefits and eligible for certain lower rates of benefits unless a certificate has been signed certifying that the person is in need of acute care. What the Government is proposing here is a relatively simple amendment to make it possible for practitioners to give such certificates, so-called 3B certificates, retrospectively. Sometimes they were not given due to oversight and, although they could then be written, there was often an interregnum, maybe only a few days or maybe a week, during which a patient was ineligible for certain benefits. This provision will overcome that anomaly. The Opposition supports the provision because it is a sensible provision. Next, the Bill establishes a specialist recognition advisory committee to make recommendations on the recognition of medical practitioners as specialists. The fundamental change being made here is that the committee is required now primarily to have regard to the practitioner's qualifications and, in addition, to consider the practitioner's experience and standing in the profession and practice. Putting the primary consideration upon the qualifications may indicate to the committee that it is to approve certain people even if it has some concerns about their experience and standing. For example, I can imagine that someone with very high qualifications may have been in the Senate for 25 years and may seek again to be recognised as a specialist. I suspect that it would be easier under these new provisions. Next, the Bill provides certain minor changes to the information required to be provided by medical practitioners before a Medicare benefit can be paid. The Opposition is not going to oppose those. Finally, the Bill extends certain reciprocal health care arrangements to a number of countries with which Australia has close ties-I use those words from the Minister's second reading speech. There seems to be no more logical reason in the choice of countries than that. Nevertheless, the Opposition is going to support the proposals. This is a very extensive omnibus Bill. I come back to the two provisions which we are going to oppose. We strongly support the role which the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories plays in this country. It has played a major role in the development of certain antivenenes. It has played a major and leading role in the preparation of certain blood products and certain other biological products used in this country. It plays, I think, the sole role in the provision each year of flu vaccines and certain other vaccines which are required. It is quite central to the operation of health care in this country. What is being proposed is a movement from those areas into the commercial areas of prescription drug producing. As we say, that is possible under the existing permit of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and we do not wish to support that change. In the same way, we do not wish to support the provision of the Australia Card at present. In relation to the 3B certificate, I would like to ask Senator Evans through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, whether he will be doing the Committee stage. Senator Gareth Evans —I hope not. Senator PETER BAUME —In that case, I might wait until the Committee stage to see whether I can get an answer to a specific query that has been raised. I indicate that the Opposition will not be opposing the second reading of this Bill, but we will make known our opposition to other parts during the Committee stage. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(9.39) —I guess that Senator Peter Baume has just taken us through one of those classical Liberal Opposition speeches. For the record, Senator Baume seemed to be distressed when I indicated that I preferred to speak on my own behalf and on behalf of the Government. I hasten to add that because one of the points on which he wanted me to agree with him was that medical fraud was different from how the Government assesses it. I will stand with my assessment and the Government's assessment, not his. There are only three points in this Bill that I wish to address. Descriptions of it have been adequately spelt out by Senator Baume, so I will not go through them again. I wish to take up only three points and in only a short time. First, I want to commend the proposed changes to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I have to be a little amazed at the Opposition opposing this one. The Opposition believes in supporting private enterprise and giving people optimal and maximum opportunities, except when it does not suit it. All I could ascertain on this from Senator Baume's speech is that he is here to support the private pharmaceutical companies and to oppose any steps to allow the CSL to become even partly competitive with them. He said that CSL is competitive already. If it is competitive already, why does he oppose its further competition? Senator Baume said that CSL is advantaged in some ways and then listed the disadvantages. I think the requirements and contraints on CSL are quite unnecessary. This legislation amends those. It proposes to make the CSL less fettered by those constraints under which it has had to labour in the past. Senator Baume also suggested in his closing remarks that CSL would wander out of where it is supposed to be busy-that is, in providing us with vaccines, penicillins and so on-and get into pharmaceuticals. I think that is mischievous. The CSL has given no evidence that it intends to forgo its traditional, expected and excellently maintained, to this point, standard provisions of services and materials for this community; indeed, it has not. As Senator Baume pointed out, there are times when some of its work is seasonal. So when those facilites are lying unused this legislation allows CSL to extend the use of those facilities and the provision of that capital investment and make better use of them. I would have thought that the Opposition with its constant support for optimal use, efficiency and so on, would have been only high in its praise for these proposed changes. Senator Baume suggested that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) did not account properly for why the Government is doing this. Senator Baume gave no evidence at all about why he is opposing the legislation, except that for some reason or another it seems to be bad. The only evidence I can ascertain from what Senator Baume said is that it will provide competition to other pharmaceutical industries. Is that not what his Opposition and his Party are all about? Finally, I simply recall the comments made by Minister Blewett, as recorded in the House of Representatives Hansard on page 2299, when he said: The so-called open-ended powers that we propose to give to CSL are similar, in fact, to those of other statutory authorities engaged in commercial enterprises, such as Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. I do not think there is anything ominous-no portents of evil or disaster-in this measure at all. Really this Government has only taken those steps to allow CSL to range a little wider, to extend its capacities and to use more optimally the capital investment and facilities it has. I too would like to place on record some of the excellent achievements of CSL. I cannot see why something as good as this is being opposed by the Opposition because it seems to be moving in on other areas and extending its capacities. CSL was established in 1916 and in 1923 played a very important part in the large scale production of insulin. Again, in 1943 it was involved in the production of penicillin. I think it is a matter of great satisfaction and pride that we can know that because of that CSL involvement this country was the first to have penicillin available to the civilian population. Again, in the 1950s the CSL was very important in the mass immunisation programs we experienced then. Indeed, it continues to contribute, as Senator Baume said, to the ongoing vaccination work in this country. CSL is also involved in molecular biology, an area which our Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), along with many others, appreciates will provide major prospects for new initiatives and advantage to this country for scientific investment and development. Why would we want to put any constraints on the prospect of CSL being involved in that new and exciting area? So I am not persuaded at all by the Opposition's complaints about this area of the legislation. I will make very few comments, but simply add my words of support for the amendments to the part of the Act which deals with section 3B certificates. Complaints have been made in the past that because of failure, usually by doctors, to amend those forms in time, there have been prospects of financial hardship for some patients as they change from being acute care patients to long term nursing care patients. I think it is commendable that the Government has provided flexibility in amending the legislation to allow for retrospective provisions in this area. Again, I think the amendments in this omnibus Bill do stand as a commendation of the Government in that it is able to amend legislation when it is quite clear that existing procedures and legislation are providing problems for those people operating under the constraints of the legislation. I might add that it is not the patients' responsibility to amend those forms; it has been the medical practitioners'. However, from time to time there are reasonable reasons why those forms have not been filled in or sent in on time. As well as that the legislation looks at creating classes of patients who would be exempt from the requirements of those certificates-perhaps long term psychiatric patients and patients with terminal cancers. The principal benefit of this change would be to reduce the amount of administration required to process those forms. Finally, I would like to make some comments on the area of medical fraud. Here I do take exception to the claims made by Senator Peter Baume. It is a matter of great importance that we acknowledge how serious medical fraud is. It is not a matter of small numbers. If it was such a minor matter, how can Senator Baume commend legislation that allows for automatic disqualification-legislation introduced by the Fraser Government. It is pretty formidable legislation but it did not allow for the fact that people might have misinterpreted it or inadvertently or unintentionally misled the Government or the Health Insurance Commission. The amendments proposed by the Government do allow for distinctions. The Government is quite serious in acknowledging that medifraud is a problem. It is quite seriously addressing ways to deal with this problem. The proposed changes, I might say, have the full support of the Australian Medical Association. I am surprised that the Opposition wants to disagree in this area when the body that speaks for the profession is so clearly in support of it. Senator Peter Baume —We are not opposing it. Senator CROWLEY —I beg your pardon, Senator. I must have been muddled about what you were for and what you were against at a certain stage. The proposals here do try to address the difficulties that the medical profession has had. The majority of medical practitioners are not into medical fraud and are not into overservicing. To take up one point that Senator Baume raised, he said that Senator Puplick had claimed in here that doctors were urging their comrades to get into more and more of what he called overservicing. I would have thought an explicit urging to overservice very closely approaches what could be called fraud or an intention to defraud. As Senator Baume rightly says, counselling services might be of benefit to doctors as many doctors who have been approached by counsellors immediately see the difficulties or the errors under which they have been labouring and have been very prepared to change their behaviour. Under the current legislation those prospects are minimal. Under the proposed amendments, the ability of counsellors to talk to doctors to sort out difficulties is considerably enhanced and, as well, the concern of the profession that anything said in the course of a counselling session could be held against those doctors has been directly attended to. Such conversations and such evidence as might emerge during a counselling session cannot be used in that way. The setting up of a Medicare Participation Review Committee will be of great benefit to the profession. The suggestion of automatic disqualification, as proposed and supported by Senator Baume, is unnecessarily harsh. There are examples where the option of automatic disqualification has proved to be less than optimal and less than satisfactory. There are times when doctors have not intended to fraud but have made quite genuine errors. This legislation addresses the difference between those two categories of medifraud, which is what I think it should be called. The Medicare Participation Review Committee-an independent committee-will be able to review complaints against those doctors who have had action brought against them because of offences under the Health Insurance Act. It will be able to make those decisions. Again I think it is a matter of record that the medical profession is very satisfied with these proposed changes, and I certainly want to add my voice of support to them. I think that more than enough will be said about this legislation. I do not intend to take up the points of the identity card except that I think it is quite curious to be clear that one opposes something about which one is not yet committed. Perhaps that is a clear statement of non-committal, but I find the Opposition's position on the ID cards curious. I would be interested to see how, when and if it ever learned to change its mind on it. If it has examined all those issues and still not found the answers to be satisfactory, either under its term of government or under this one, I am not at all sure there is any evidence that it will ever come to understand or to be wise. Perhaps the committee that will inquire into the ID cards and the proposals in that area will give the Opposition yet another opportunity, and we can only hope that this time it does acquaint itself with the evidence and make a decision. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(9.51) —As has already been pointed out tonight the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, which is before us, amends or repeals some five other pieces of legislation. It amends the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961, the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973. It repeals the Mental Health and Related Services Assistance Act 1973 and makes some what are termed tidying up amendments to the National Health Act 1953. The amendments to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961 aroused some fervour in Senator Peter Baume, whose main concern seems to have been that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was to be placed in a position of being able to compete unfairly against private pharmaceutical manufacturers. The private sector is never backward in coming forward when it feels threatened and its lobbying techniques as far as members of parliament are concerned are very well organised. I recall having received no complaints from private pharmaceutical manufacturers about this amendment, so I can only assume that there is no concern, not even a hint of paranoia, with regard to the amendments to the CSL Act contained in this legislation. For that reason the Australian Democrats will certainly not be joining the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia in opposing that section of this Bill. As far as the amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 are concerned, as Senator Crowley has already pointed out, the Australian Medical Association is quite happy with the amendments that the Government has introduced to those sections relating to fraud and overservicing and the disciplinary action of medical professionals who are involved in those fields. The changes to the issue of section 3B certificates to allow for some retrospective element is, I suspect, somewhat overdue. The area which is our main concern is that relating to Part IV of the amending Bill, that is the amendment of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973. Senator Peter Baume says that the Opposition will be opposing this particular part of the Bill before us tonight, and I am a little puzzled why. If the Opposition has not yet formed an opinion on whether an identity card-whether it is called an Australia Card or anything else-is necessary in this country for a variety of reasons, it should not-- Senator Peter Baume —It may be necessary, but we do not know whether it will work. Senator HAINES —If that is the way the honourable senator feels, I am surprised that he is contemplating opposing a section of the legislation which in fact gives the Health Insurance Commission the legal right to collect the information that the newly formed Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card will need if it can ever work out whether an identity card system will appropriately and adequately cope with the sorts of problems that we are facing in this country with regard to organised criminal activities, tax and social security fraud. I would not have thought that there was any doubt at all that the community generally, right across the political spectrum, is concerned about the things that I just mentioned-that it is concerned that governments, both State and Federal I would have thought, act wherever necessary to combat things like tax fraud, organised crime and social security fraud. However, our concern was not on that matter but whether the information that we had been given on the proposed Australia Card was sufficient for anybody to determine whether that card was going to be useful at all in this fight. People who argue in favour of identity cards of some sort claim that there will be a significant cutdown in tax evasion and avoidance, the underground economy and other areas. Eric Risstrom, for example, suggests that the recovery of some $3 billion out of the estimated $5 billion lost at present would be possible if an identity card system were introduced. The White Paper, however, estimates the recovery of $8m three years after implementation of an ID card system. I seem to recall that that figure has been revised since the White Paper was brought down. Proponents of ID cards also argue that they would assist in crime fighting. They suggest that they would be an easy way of implementing some of Frank Costigan's recommendations concerned with the laundering of money by organised crime figures. They also argue that social security cheating with regard to welfare and unemployment benefits would vanish overnight and that the locating of illegal migrants would be facilitated if people were issued with identity cards. Supporters of ID cards generally argue that we carry numerous pieces of identification already and that ID cards are no different from things like drivers licences, credit cards, Medicards and so on. They claim that only those who have something to hide would object to the introduction of ID cards, that the benefits to the community outweigh any disadvantages and the civil liberties concerns can be dealt with by legislation-for example, by restricting the number of occasions on which proof of identity through the use of an ID card can be demanded. I understand that a Minister in the Queensland State Government has even suggested that ID cards would be a deterrent for rape. I am not quite sure how, except that maybe in the exchange of information he forgot what the original intention was. Anyway, I guess this is a useful suggestion to bear in mind if all else fails. The arguments against the introduction of an ID card are generally based on two ideas: Firstly, that the claimed benefits have not been demonstrated adequately; and, secondly, that in fact the identity card threatens civil liberties not through the possession of the card or the need to carry yet another piece of plastic but through the centralised collection and collation of information. The data base has to be centralised if it is to be of any value at all, and therein lies the threat. Opponents point out that there is no indication that the system which operates in some European countries achieves any of the objectives claimed for it. For example, northern Italy has a thriving underground economy. Sweden has a similarly thriving black market. Given that the cash economy by definition avoids any record of transaction, it seems fairly clear that identity cards would make no difference at all in this area. It is argued too that no system is completely foolproof and that it is probable that those who cheat the tax system now, that is, in the main the rich and the powerful, would also have the means to get around ID cards. That is certainly true if the basis of the card is to be production of a birth certificate. At the moment one of the flaws in our passport system is simply that it is based on the production of a birth certificate, and birth certificates are remarkably easy for people other than those for whom they were originally issued to obtain. Cemetery searches, running an eye down the death column, and so on are all fairly reasonable ways of finding out who has recently died. The presentation of a cheque for $8, or whatever it is in the various States, is then sufficient to get hold of those birth certificates. The civil libertarian argument against ID cards has more to do with the potential for abuse of the card than the Government's well-meaning intentions in introducing those cards. For example, from America we have increasing reports of the manner in which hackers can get into practically any computer system, including I understand that of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which means that the security of the sort of information that is supplied, collected and collated for the purposes of the issue of an ID card would be suspect indeed. Even the supporters of the card acknowledge that for them to achieve their objectives they must facilitate access to a wide range of personal data and links with banking and computer systems. As I have said, it is precisely this that gives rise to the likelihood of serious violations of personal privacy. Universal identification systems simplify and expedite the surveillance of individuals, and that is another problem. Their movements, their activities, their finances, the organisations to which they do and do not belong, are all readily accessible and I suggest are geared more to the promotion of government bureaucracies than they are to the protection of the rights of individuals. They certainly would facilitate the control over our lives by any state which was so minded, either now or in the future. We have only to look at the way in which pass cards in South Africa and the internal passports in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are used to be instantly aware of the way in which these sorts of things can be abused. It is worth noting also that the submission to Cabinet of the Government's own Department of Social Security apparently expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of ID cards in combating social security fraud. Both Stewart J. and Kirby J. for the last couple of years have warned against the dangers of such a system and three recent North American studies have concluded against any system of universal identification. The United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare drew attention to the expanded use of the United States social security number for identification purposes, notwithstanding the fact that that use is specifically proscribed in United States legislation. The United States Justice Department's federal advisory committee on false identification stated that counterfeiting would and could defeat the system. The Canadian privacy commissioner's report to the Canadian Parliament revealed that Canada's social insurance number was now being used for numerous other purposes. Australia's only permanent privacy committee in New South Wales is also strongly opposed to the introduction of the card. In any move to introduce a system with the potential to invade people's privacy and intrude upon their civil liberties there is a very heavy onus indeed on its supporters to demonstrate an overriding benefit and the inclusion of adequate safeguards. That has not been done and was the reason why we negotiated with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for the establishment of a joint all-party parliamentary select committee on the issue. The terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card include things such as looking at the costs involved in introducing and operating ID cards. Over the last few months those costs have varied considerably, both in the estimates of what it will cost to produce the card and what gains there will be if it comes into operation. The terms of reference would include things such as looking at the effectiveness of identity cards in combating those things that its supporters claim it would combat; namely, tax fraud, social security fraud and organised criminal activities. They would include determining what means of identification should appear on the identity card to ensure its effectiveness and the appropriate method of establishing the original identity of the holder of the card for the purpose of issuing the card. As I have already said, the proposal to use birth certificates leaves something to be desired. The terms of reference would also include investigating the experience of other countries, some of which I have already mentioned this evening, in using ID cards or similar cards such as social security cards and so on; the inclusion of adequate protection against abuses of civil liberties and invasion of privacy which could arise from the use of the card; the comparable cost effectiveness of alternative proposals to combat tax evasion and social security fraud; whether the card should be universal, compulsory or voluntary and, if so, who gets what choices; and what limits should be placed on the requirement for individuals to produce the card. I suggest that anybody who knows someone who lived in one of the European countries which was invaded by the Germans during World War II should ask that person just exactly what problems occured there because of their centralised information systems which were much less efficient, perhaps, than anything that could come under modern computer technology systems. For example, the French having experienced what they did during the war, made their identification card carrying system voluntary and people such as the Dutch are very wary indeed at the thought of implementing something in Australia which facilitated the problems that they had during the war when access to information about people was made so much simpler because of the centralised system that was maintained in that country. Therefore, I think it behoves all parties in this chamber to support that section of the legislation which allows the Health Insurance Commission to be put in the position of collecting and collating information that can then be passed on to the Committee so that that Committee can ultimately make a decision with regard to the terms of reference that are before it and come up with recommendations with regard to whether or not there should be some form of identification system operating in this country; if an identification system is in operation, what it should be and how effective it is likely to be in combating what sort of crime; and so on. The Australian Democrats will not oppose any sections of this legislation. We will not oppose the section on the Health Insurance Commission Act and certainly not those sections which have the approval of the Australian Medical Association with regard to section 3B certificates, fraud, over-servicing and so on; nor are we particularly fussed over the extension of the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, for the reason that I set out earlier. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(10.08) —This evening we have heard Senator Crowley's non-event speech about nothing that was, yet again, scintillating, but all Senator Crowley did was abuse and accuse Senator Peter Baume on his speech. She could prove absolutely nothing about the merits of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) that is before us this evening. More is the concern about the elements of this Bill when a Government senator can stand up and use about 12 minutes of the time allotted and say absolutely nothing, including about the ID card. We have just had Senator Haines giving a typical two bob each way Australian Democrats speech on a number of the areas of the Bill, but no one would have a clue where the Democrats stand. Obviously we are still operating with the Democrats on a `We don't know where we stand, but we'll try to make it sound good' philosophy. I think it is a bit sad that we have to endure all of that. I must admit that I rise this evening specifically to express my concern about part IV of the Bill, which amends the Health Insurance Commission Act, in clause 59, to enable the Commission to include in its function planning for the establishment of a national identification system involving the issue of the Australia Card. This whole question involves both the principle of individual freedom and the practical difficulties of using such a system to eliminate taxation and welfare fraud. I do not think that there would be anyone in Australia who would not condone a system that would do exactly that. But the Government itself appears to be at a loss to be able to explain in any specific detail how it will work, whether in fact it will work, how the information will be accumulated, how the information will be recorded other than simply saying that it will be on a computer, whether the register will or will not be cross-linked with data from other government sources-such as Medicare, the Australian Taxation Office, and the Department of Social Security, to name just a few-how it is going to stop illegal immigrants, how it is going to prevent social security fraud, how it is going to prevent tax evasion, and a range of other wild and rather irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims. As a Liberal who believes that Australia should enjoy-- Senator Puplick —And how much it is going to cost? Senator KNOWLES —How much it is going to cost; precisely. As a Liberal who believes that Australians should enjoy the greatest possible independence from government and bureaucracy in their everyday lives, I would be concerned by the implications of any centralised national identification system until those questions that I have already raised have been answered adequately. In addition, I believe that the Parliament and the people of Australia are entitled to know whether it may be compulsory to carry the Australia Card, whether it will contain a photograph, and whether there will be penalties for failing to use it. It certainly does concern me in sifting through the mish-mash of reports and statements as to the intentions of the Hawke socialist Government and the likely shape of the ID card proposal, the greater the intrusiveness of this card, involving photographs or penalties for non-use, the greater are the proposed savings to revenue. The better the ID card might work, the less free we will all become. The overseas record of those 53 countries where ID cards or documents are legally required at all times is simply not inspiring. Thirteen of these countries just happen to be communist dictatorships, and let us not forget it. Twenty-nine are less than liberal democracies to the extent of being one-party states. Of the remaining 11 Western democracies, only six are free from internal security problems. While looking at overseas examples, it should be of interest that Sweden, with a comprehensive national identification system, on one estimate still happens to lose 20 per cent of its current tax revenues in the black economy. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) will have to do better in reassuring us than merely asserting, as he did in Adelaide on 31 October, that: There are no historical examples of police states being established through national ID systems. Senator Puplick —Rubbish! Senator KNOWLES —Precisely, Senator Puplick; rubbish. It states the obvious that ID systems and computers have not been around long enough for such developments to be measured. Rather, the question of ID cards, whether compulsorily carried or not, was foreseen over a hundred years ago by Alexis de Tocqueville in describing how liberty can be taken away by gradual means. He warned: The will of man is not shattered but softened, bent, and guided . . . till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid industrious animals of which government is the shepherd. Very relevant to the present context of this Bill is his further comment that such quiet servitude can be combined `with some of the outward forms of freedom and that it might even establish itself under the wing of sovereignty of the people'. It is not a matter of having to prove that the Australia Card will of itself overturn civil liberties on a massive scale. There is, however, a real danger that the increasing use of ID cards and numbers, without all the necessary safeguards-and I repeat, without all the necessary safeguards-will make Australians that much more accustomed to subjecting themselves to government control. The Minister is now telling us that a central data bank is not envisaged, but the fact remains that the proposed national ID system cannot fail to make such a development easier. This is simply the thin edge of the wedge. Clearly, there is a school of thought within the Government and bureauracy that a national register could save duplication of government agencies and could be extended to provide medical information. This begs the question as to how such information is to be placed on the register. Senator Crichton-Browne —You can't trust the socialists. Senator KNOWLES —The honourable senator is dead right; we cannot trust the socialists. We are, of course, entitled to be suspicious as to how any agency under the control of the Minister for Health, Dr-non-medical-Blewett, can be relied on to maintain confidentiality of information, given the leakage of Medicare information regarding doctors' incomes which we saw earlier this year. He did not bat an eyelid over that, so why would he bat an eyelid over the disclosing of information on any one of us? This already dubious track record of government-controlled data weakens the assurance of the Minister on 31 October that computer matching through Australia Card numbers will be confined to a very limited number of officials. What is more significant is the fact that computer matching can take place. Again, we are entitled to be suspicious of the intentions of this Government when, on 9 August, a report in the Australian newspaper stated that an interdepartmental committee was recommending that all Australians be issued at birth with a national identification number to be used in all business transactions. Senator Puplick —Shameful. Senator KNOWLES —Shame! Senator Sheil —Tattoos on the arms. Senator KNOWLES —A tattoo on the arm is probably the next step. It would probably solve all the problems for them. Proposals of this kind, together with the original plan that we all had to front up to our nearest Medicare office to be photographed, may have been dropped from sight at the moment, but it is relevant to recall that they were being seriously advocated by this Administration. There are said to be 49.7 million names in five massive computer banks in Australia: Medicare, the Australian Electoral Commission, Social Security, Australian Taxation Office and passport and citizenship records. The fact remains that the Australia Card could be, according to Professor Johnston of the Wollongong University: A final locking pin to provide a potential for linking information in a way that is potentially very dangerous. The argument that ID cards and credit cards are one and the same is absolute rot. Out of all the credit cards that I, along with other people, have, not one carries the information proposed to be included on the ID card. Neither is a credit card's extremely limited information accessible to thousands of people. In fact, it is available only to that particular organisation. Senator Sheil —And they are voluntary. Senator KNOWLES —It is voluntary, totally voluntary. No one has to carry a credit card unless he wishes to. What is being proposed here is that one would have it whether one likes it or not. Senator Peter Baume —And whether it works or not. Senator KNOWLES —And whether it works or not. Dr-non-medical-Blewett has admitted that there can be no 100 per cent guarantee of security with the ID card. What an admission from the Minister to say that he cannot guarantee 100 per cent security with the ID card! For once he is quite right, because with access by at least seven government departments the risk of abuse can be increased. We are simply saying that we can have an ID card as long as we have the proof that the thing will work and that it will provide the measures of security that are essential to every Australian citizen. The Liberal Party has most serious reservations as to the effectiveness of an ID card in recouping massive amounts of money obtained by taxation and welfare fraud. If it is to be effective, now is the time for the Government to explain how it is to be effective. The Government needs to come clean. From the time when the Australia Card was first floated in June, official estimates as to cost savings and costs have been distinctly rubbery. We are simply saying: `Let us prove that it will work, then we might consider it'. We do not have any proof from the Government at all that it will work. Until such time as we have some proof, how can we, as responsible members of this Parliament, authorise any introduction of such a nature? From the time this jolly Australia Card idea was first floated, all the facts have been distinctly rubbery. The establishment costs of the ID card were touted as being $38m in the first interdepartmental committee report in June and as $297m in the September statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The figure has gone from $38m to $297m in a matter of months. Operating costs have done a back flip and doubled from $49m to $100m over the same period. What are we expected to believe? How are we expected to vote on a proposal to introduce an ID card when we have facts and figures such as these? No one in his right mind could do so. Supposed gains to revenue, originally placed without substantiation at nearly $1 billion, were down to $540m in the tax package. We have another slip there. Equally vague is the estimated size of the target of the Australia Card-the black economy. Estimates of the figure vary between 5 per cent and 15 per cent of gross domestic product, or between $7.5 billion and $22.5 billion in 1981-82 figures. I repeat: This Parliament and the people of Australia are entitled to be more precisely informed as to the benefits of any ID card in saving the tax dollar before we proceed any further. Senator Chipp —That is why we are sending it to a committee. Senator KNOWLES —Precisely, but we have to be sure. The only time we can be sure is if the committee is looking at the matter in an effective manner. We must make sure that the recommendations that come out of the committee satisfy not only the Parliament but also the people of Australia. Ultimately, if an ID card is to dent the black economy it will be effective only if backed by penalties for failing to use it in certain transactions. We are back to the essential theme, that is, the new system works best as our liberties are diminished. The Minister for Health has admitted that in some cases, such as the opening of a trading bank account, there would have to be a penalty for failure to use the ID card rather than an economic sanction such as a withholding tax. It is not surprising that there has been no official response to the report mentioned in Federal Parliament on 17 October that a Government memorandum proposed a fine of $10,000 or 12 months' gaol for a first offence in failing to produce the ID card and $25,000 in fines and five years, gaol for subsequent offences. Senator Walters —That is appalling. Senator KNOWLES —Precisely, it is appalling. Why has there been no official response to the memorandum of 17 October? Senator Tate —It may not be a correct memorandum. Senator KNOWLES —If it is not correct, why not deny it? It has not been denied, so why not do so? Moreover, the Opposition is very sceptical and uncertain that the Australia Card will be proof against forgery or other manipulation. If we think logically, it follows that the people with the most to gain from forging ID cards are the major criminals who will be best able to marshal the expertise to do so. I am never impressed by any statements that a system will be foolproof against forgery. After all, bank-notes have water marks and metal threads to prevent duplication, and we all know what happens to them, along with passports and so forth. In recent months several distinguished Australians have expressed strong reservations as to the desirability and practicality of the ID card. Mr Frank Costigan, QC, hardly apathetic in his concern about organised crime, rejected the concept of a national ID card when appearing before the National Crime Authority on 7 August. Mr Justice Stewart of the National Crime Authority was quoted as saying in June that a system of compulsory identification `would be repugnant to many Australians as resembling too much the apparatus of a dictatorship'. Mr Justice Kirby has warned us: What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society, and the power and authority of the state in relation to the individual. No less a person than the Auditor-General, Mr Monaghan, told the Australian Labor Party Caucus legal committee that a national ID system would not be effective in cutting tax evasion. Senator Crichton-Browne —Did he say that? Senator KNOWLES —He sure did. He said that what was required was to give the Australian Taxation Office greater resources and have it tighten procedure. Senator Crichton-Browne —The Left leaked it. Senator KNOWLES —The left right out leaked it too. In truth, the Australia Card proposal the Minister is now outlining has a lot in common with the Keating capital gains tax. Both are touted as harmless and both will raise far less revenue than was originally suggested. Therefore, we are left wondering why they are being introduced, if they are not to prepare the ground for greater changes. I hope that we will not hear the cliche that the only people who should worry about the Australia Card are those with something to hide. Privacy and liberty must be safeguarded at all costs. We are entitled to know how and whether this proposal will work. It is very shallow thinking indeed to suggest that we do not have to worry about Big Brother because he is fairly benevolent. I rather think that Big Brother should never be trusted. Senator Chipp —What about big sister? Senator KNOWLES —Big Brother or Big Sister-whatever makes Senator Chipp happy. A proposal for a national ID card should be shelved until such time as assurances can be given which will protect the rights of the individual and prove to everyone that it will do what it is designed to do. The recommendation to refer this matter to a parliamentary select committee can only be beneficial, because if this proposal ultimately does what it is designed to do, I think that we should all support it. At the moment, I cannot support it because nothing has been put to us in concrete terms that will prove in any way, shape or form that it will stop tax or welfare fraud. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.27) —Mr Deputy President, I have just 2 1/2 minutes tonight on which to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. It seems to me that by the time I have opened my remarks on this Bill, it will be time to stop. However, I will start my remarks. The health legislation presently being debated by the Senate relates to several aspects of health care such as the 3B certificates, the considerable changes proposed to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act, reform of the medifraud provisions and the identity card proposal that has been so eloquently spoken about tonight by Senator Knowles. Those are the four major areas that this Bill covers. As I would like to start off my speech tomorrow in a sensible fashion to do justice to it, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being nearly 10.30 p.m., in accordance with sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.29) —In three days-Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, and today-69 reports from government authorities were presented to the Senate. From memory, we have had the opportunity of spending 1 1/2 hours in dealing with those 69 reports. At the most, six speakers are allowed to speak in that half-hour period each day. So 18 opportunities for comment on 69 reports from honourable senators on both sides of the chamber have been afforded to the Senate. This, of course, is unreasonable and unfair and is of particular significance when time is not made available for General Business so that they can be dealt with in that time. The reason I raise this is that many of these reports come from authorities that in the past have been subjected to quite proper criticism by the Senate for the nature of their reports. I seems to me to be totally inappropriate that the opportunities that should be available to the Senate are no longer available, particularly in this situation. It would seem to me that the Senate be given an opportunity to deal with the reports in a far better way. It is totally inadequate that 18 opportunities for comment are presented. I understand that specific objections have been made to this device that has been used by the Government to submerge very important statements among reports. This device has been discussed with the Government, and I must say that it has concerned me. Having made that objection and complaint about the lack of opportunity to discuss these matters, I must say, Mr Deputy President, that the opportunity you kindly gave to honourable senators at least to get these reports put on to the Notice Paper keeps them alive and before the Senate, but it does not provide any opportunity to discuss them once they are on the Notice Paper. To that extent my complaint stands. Senator Peter Baume —How many reports do you think we will get in the next two or three days? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. As my cousin points out, how many more reports are still to come and what opportunities will we have to discuss them, on top of the 69 reports we already have? There are some matters that many honourable senators want to raise, not simply to congratulate or condemn the authorities-whatever is appropriate-for the nature of their reports. For example, on the Australian Bicentennial Authority there is one matter I want to raise briefly. The Senate will remember that in the House of Representatives on 8 October the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said at page 1601 of the Hansard of the other place-- Senator Peter Baume —That other place. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That other place, indeed. In relation to the reasons why Mr Hawke asked Mr Reid to resign as Chairman of the Bicentennial Authority, the Prime Minister said: . . . related to the fact that Mr Reid misled me over this whole period about the nature of the ABA's contractual obligations to Dr Armstrong and about the reasons for the composition of the settlement. On 26 September, when I saw Dr Armstrong's letter of appointment for the first time, it was evident that his services could be terminated with four months' notice and that there were no other overriding clauses. There was no contractual commitment for a further six years, as I had been told on 19 August. In the circumstances, I had no option but to seek Mr Reid's resignation. I remind the Senate of that, for one reason. We now know that Mr Reid had every reason to understand that Mr Hawke had the very terms of that contract. Mr Reid had every right to expect that Mr Hawke, the Minister allegedly responsible, had the copy of Dr Armstrong's letter of appointment and that Mr Hawke, if he were a competent Minister, would have apprised himself of those terms at that time. It is totally improper for Mr Hawke now, because of his own incompetence-having had to admit that he did not have that letter-to blame Mr Reid. All I am seeking is that the Prime Minister should at last apologise to Mr Reid, a gesture he has not had the decency to make. Senator Puplick —He has not had the manliness. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Indeed, as my friend Senator Puplick says, he has not had the manliness to make it. Senator Ryan —The what? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Manliness, Minister, is something that is quite useful in males who claim to have courage and determination. This Prime Minister-and I will use another phrase-has not had the guts to admit that he made an error, that he improperly criticised Mr Reid and that in fact Mr Reid had every right to expect the Prime Minister to know what he was talking about when Mr Reid was discussing the matter with the Prime Minister on the telephone. Mr Reid, who is an expert and experienced businessman, would not have thought it possible that the Prime Minister could have been so incompetent as not to have the details of Dr Armstrong's terms of appointment in front of him. For Mr Hawke to pretend that he was misled is totally disgraceful. I do not mind whether Mr Hawke is clearly shown to be incompetent. We all know that he is described as such; we all know the facts of this matter. We know that the Prime Minister behaved in an incompetent way and then blamed everyone else. All I think the Senate has a right to require the Prime Minister to do is to apologise to Mr Reid and admit that the major reason for his forcing Mr Reid's resignation was false. The Prime Minister should have the guts to apologise. I hope that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is in the chamber tonight, will not let this session of the Parliament end without encouraging the Prime Minister to clean his particularly dirty slate on this matter. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.37) —I wish to speak tonight about one aspect only of the privatisation program of those who would hold themselves out to be an alternative government for the people of Australia. I refer to that privatisation program which would sell off organisations belonging to and serving the Australian people, transferring their ownership into the hands of those few who have the capacity or the inclination to buy shares on the stock market. I will not deal in generalities or mere speculation. I am going to deal with the breathtaking audacity of this Opposition which wishes to dismantle and dismember the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, all in the name of its obsession with privatisation. Let there be no mistake: I am not going to be misled by the toing and froing of Mr Carlton and a few others on the benches of the Liberal Party in this place or in the other place. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) launched this ideological crusade and added his distinctive voice to Australia's political scene as calling for this program and, as I say, definitely in relation to the Commonwealth Bank. I hope that this distinctive voice, of course, remains a voice in the wilderness, but in case it is not I feel obliged to my Tasmanian constituents to inform them of what is in store should John Howard have his way. Let us listen to what John Howard said to the National Press Club on 28 August. For example, he said that he was asking `for a privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank'. He went on to say: I also wouldn't take fright at the possibility of some foreign ownership, although I think that on the basis that one should hasten slowly in these matters, I don't know that I'd open it up immediately for majority overseas ownership. But I think in time a certain component would not be undesirable at all. . . . If you dump them all on the domestic markets and don't allow any foreign capital in, you'll push interest rates through the roof. That is how he speaks of disposing of the Commonwealth Bank, the bank owned by all Australians. He talks about dumping it on the domestic markets and, if they would be strained by such a dumping, he will consider majority overseas ownership-not just yet, but eventually, because, of course, he knows that the Australian people could not stomach such a sale immediately to overseas investors. The point is that he is prepared to sell off this organisation, this wonderful asset, which was started with a mere #10,000 in 1912, contributed of course by a Labor government. The bank had an injection of some $15m in 1983. That is all the capital the Australian people have been asked to put into the Commonwealth Bank in some 73 years of operation. But Mr Howard apparently is prepared to sell off this wonderful asset to which the Australian people have made that modest contribution of capital and he has proposed even to sell it off to overseas investors. Are we speaking of an institution which has failed the Australian people and deserves some such fate? I strongly submit that all the available evidence and the general respect-even affection-with which Australians hold this institution, points decisively the other way. I know that Senator Peter Baume is in some agreement on that point. Let us take performance as a measure of the affection in which it is held. Let us take performance, as measured by efficiency. That is not the sole criterion, but it is an important one. What do we find? Firstly, we find that this Bank has a prestigious triple A rating, as given by Moody's and Standard and Poor's. It is the only Australian bank to have that triple A rating and one of the few commercial banks worldwide to have that rating. Secondly its combined profits are also worth noting. The combined profits, as detailed in the latest annual report of 1985, come to $250.5m. Income tax from that was $102.9m. The profit allocated to the Commonwealth of Australia-that is, to Commonwealth taxpayers-was $22.7m. To various State authorities $34.7m was allocated, leaving retained profits in the oganisation of $163.1m. I think that is a very healthy sign. Senator Michael Baume —Its own management complains about its lack of profitability because its capital is not big enough. Senator TATE —I will come to what we are trying to do by way of expanding the possibilities for the Commonwealth Bank. But to do that, of course, might be out of order in that a Bill on the Commonwealth Development Bank is about to be debated in the Senate. A little later I may touch on that matter within the parameters of the Standing Orders. Thirdly, we know that the Commonwealth Bank is in a reasonably good position in the Australian banking line-up, on a world basis. The world line-up is well-known from the Euromoney magazine, which is the authoritative source quoted in Australian Business of August 1985. Looking at the Australian banking line-up on a world basis, whereas Citicorp is the first bank measured in terms of return on shareholders' funds and return on assets, the No. 43 bank is the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd; the No. 44 bank is the Westpac Banking Corporation; and No. 47 is the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. So they are all in that general area. No. 65 is the National Australia Bank Ltd. Of course, many of the State banks are well below that. For example No. 251 is the ranking of the State Bank of New South Wales; the State Bank of Victoria is No. 283; and so on. Senator Michael Baume —Privatise it. Senator TATE —I would have thought that one privatised only if one had evidence of gross inefficiencies and that has not been demonstrated as yet. It would be wrong, although quite adequate in the defence of the Commonwealth Bank, to dwell on its efficiency as measured by these various indicators. The staff are the backbone of any operation. The staff must be acknowledged as being of very high quality within the Commonwealth Bank. In fact, the Australian Financial Review made a very interesting comment on 9 August 1985 in an article in which it reviewed the interflow of talent between the public and private sectors. In relation to the financial sector, the following observations were made: It is worth noting that many of the current high fliers in the merchant banking industry and finance sector generally were trained in the Commonwealth Bank. It is interesting to note that the merchant banks and other financial organisations tend to staff their new operations with Commonwealth Bank employees rather than the other trading banks. One of the main reasons for this is the emphasis on staff training and many of those who have been through the Commonwealth system say that its selection process and its capacity for encouraging bright young people account for this excellent record in training. This trend would seem to bury the old furphy that employees of the public sector are, by definition, less competent and motivated than their counterparts in the private sector. That is a very important point to make. Speaking as a Tasmanian senator, I am well aware of the well regarded service provided by hundreds of members of the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association in Tasmania. I am very concerned about their employment prospects should there be any moves to sell off the bank to other banking institutions because they would be the main purchasers of shares on the market. There would be unemployment. I noticed in Jim Carlton's manifesto `A Liberal Australia', which he presented to the Thredbo conference on 6 May 1984 that he made it very clear that there would be transitional unemployment as the privatisation scheme got under way. This is one of the political factors which would have to be counted. In Tasmania, these employees of the Commonwealth Bank and the various offices of it provide some 167 different services at the latest count. There are two city branches in Hobart and six urban areas are covered in Hobart. There are four branches in Launceston and branches in Burnie, Devonport, New Norfolk, Scottsdale, Smithton, Ulverstone, Queenstown, Georgetown and Cygnet. Of course, there are many agencies at post offices and various service centres that I could go into. The post office agencies are not to be excluded as I admire the scope of coverage of my island State portrayed in that outline. In the light of all this, the so-called study by a Melbourne University graduate group which got much publicity some weeks ago and which purported to find the Commonwealth Bank to be inefficient must be condemned as blind to the facts and partial in every sense of the word. I will leave it to the Melbourne University to determine whether academic objectivity was scrupulously observed. I hope that the university takes into account the fact that the study group leader was revealed in one Press article to be Mr Paul Coglin, who worked-wait for it-for Mr John Howard when he was Treasurer. I have emphasised the efficiency aspect as one measure of the Commonwealth Bank's contribution to Australia in accordance with its charter obligations. It serves and contributes to Australians in a way that no other bank does in the building up of resources of all kinds. I will outline a few instances. One finds, for example, on page 10 of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation's annual report for 1985 the fact that during the year under review: The Bank continued its market thrust in financing small businesses and the middle range of companies. In addition, through a group of highly skilled specialists centred in Sydney and the major capital offices, the Bank has built an enviable record in packaging finance arrangements for some of the major projects being undertaken within the country. Some of the more notable arrangements are mentioned, including the management of the multi-option finance facility to cover the cost of the construction, launch and insurance of Australia's Aussat Pty Ltd satellites and related earth stations and equipment. Of course, it is well known that as Australia's largest lender to local councils and other semi-government organisations, the bank finances most essential public services, including water, sewerage and electricity. I also noted the very interesting fact that in the scope of its undertakings in 1984 the Corporation was involved in the largest single bank loan agreement in Australian history, involving a $550m bill acceptance financing facility for an accelerated capital works program by the Government of New South Wales. It is probably well known that, as lead manager, the Commonwealth Bank was involved with a group of major international banks in providing a facility of $US785m to assist BHP to buy back the farm by purchasing the Australian assets of Utah. In reading this very interesting and well presented annual report of 1985 I also note the fact that despite subdued conditions for deposit gathering, the Commonwealth Savings Bank, as Australia's largest home lender, continued to meet the needs of borrowers, thereby contributing to the consolidation of high levels of activity in the dwelling construction industry. In financing the erection and purchase of almost 50,000 dwellings in 1984-85 the Commonwealth Savings Bank approved home loans totalling $1,925m, an increase of 15 per cent on the previous year's record. At 30 June 1985 the total amount of Commonwealth Savings Bank loans outstanding reached a new peak of $6,433m. That is the aspect which is perhaps best known to most Australians. I appeal to all those who have ever taken out a home loan with the Commonwealth Bank to protest strongly at the prospect of the next generation of home loan borrowers having to approach an overseas owned so-called Commonwealth Bank. What a misleading title that would be. Mr Howard must not be allowed to have his way. I turn to the Commonwealth Development Bank, of which I am a great admirer. Of course, I will keep within Standing Orders and not mention the Bill which the Opposition opposed in the other place and which will expand the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank. For example, it is well known that even in this past year the Commonwealth Development Bank completed 25 years of operation and total assets passed the notable milestone of $1 billion. An after tax profit of $10.5m reflected the Government's decision to remove the CDB's exemption from payment of income tax as from 1 July 1984. During 1984-85 the CDB approved loans totalling $278m, compared with $270m in 1983-84. Approvals for the primary production sector were $160m, down slightly from the previous year when unprecedented demand developed following the breaking of the prolonged drought. Loan approvals for the small business sector totalled $118m, an increase of 31 per cent. In both sectors acquisition of property and debt reconstruction were the most common purposes for which loans were approved. Most rural property purchases financed were in the nature of enlargement of existing holdings to achieve greater economies of scale in the face of lower returns and increasing operating costs. As at 30 June 1985 outstanding loan balances were $872m, comprising $632m for primary producers and $240m to small and medium businesses. Tens of thousands of primary producers and business enterprises throughout Australia have benefited from this service unobtainable from the other banks operating in Australia. Honourable senators will be well aware that the bank is a lender of last recourse. When other banks and financial institutions will not assist a farmer, fisherman or a small business the Development Bank looks to the future prospect of that enterprise and not so much at the immediate security; it takes a punt on behalf of the borrower and thereby on behalf of all Australians. If ever there was a fulfilment of the spirit of its charter by the Commonwealth Bank, it is here. I am proud to supplement that observation with the recognition of the considerable help its officers give to similar development banks in the Asian and Pacific regions. I do not intend to stand idly by and watch the dismantling and sale of this great institution owned by all Australians. I believe that the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association, with wide support from the recent Australian Council of Trade Unions congress, will mount a vigorous campaing of resistance. I can assure it of the full support of my colleagues on this side of the chamber. I am heartened in the belief that we have the support of the vast majority of the Australian people. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.53) —Senator Michael Baume raised the lack of opportunity to discuss Senate committee reports and he also made some criticisms of the Government's approach to the reorganisation of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. I will refer both of those matters to the appropriate Government sources. Senator Tate made some very detailed and incisive comments about the proposals from the other side of the chamber to privatise a number of our institutions, but in particular the Commonwealth Bank. I am sure that Senator Tate's constituents will be very gratified that he has made the points that he has, and made them so lucidly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.53 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence and Statement relating to extension of specified period for presentation of the National Library of Australia Annual Report 1984-85. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 624) Senator Lewis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 October 1985: (1) What are the estimated annual savings/increased costs involved in the new structure for the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority announced on 30 September 1985 by the Minister for Health. (2) How many administrative positions and how many medical positions (including nurses) have been created or abolished in the following salary ranges as a result of the new structure: (a) under $18,000 per annum; (b) from $18,000 to $22,000 per annum; (c) from $22,000 to $26,000 per annum; (d) from $26,000 to $30,000 per annum; and (e) in excess of $30,000 per annum. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The proposed top management structure of the new Authority which includes Senior Executive Service (SES) officers and senior health professionals in management positions, produces salary and on-costs savings of about $88,000 per annum. The costs of payments to part time Authority and Board members (about $40,000 per annum) will be deducted from these savings. Below this top management structure the organisation has not been defined in detail, so savings estimates are not available as requested in part (2) of the question. Appointment of the Deputy General Managers to support the Authority, the Hospital Services Board and the Community Health Services Board will be completed before the organisation is finalised in order to permit these executives to have an input into the final structure. Total staff costs will be met within the Authority's normal budget appropriations. The Hospital Services Board will bring together a diverse range of hospital services into one co-ordinated administration. A similar approach will apply with the creation of the Community Health Services Board. These common administrations will permit significant savings in later years through rationalisation of such functions as finance, personnel and supply. (2) The answer to this part of the question is not available at this time for the reasons outlined in part (1). (Question No. 628) Senator Foreman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 15 October 1985. (1) What number of international travellers departed from Adelaide International Airport as a weekly average during the first 9 months of 1985. (2) What increase, if any, do these figures represent over average weekly departures for the same period in 1984 and 1983. (3) What number of international travellers arrived from overseas points of embarkation directly at Adelaide International Airport as a weekly average during the first 9 months of 1985. (4) What increase, if any, do these figures represent over average weekly arrivals for the same period in 1984 and 1983. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: The following table provides the information sought in respect of questions (1) and (2) and a qualified response to questions (3) and (4). INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER MOVEMENTS-ADELAIDE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT First 9 months of- 1983 weekly average 1984 weekly average 1985 weekly average % change 1985 over 1983 % change 1985 over 1984 Departures... 739 952 1031 39.5 8.3 Arrivals... 702 922 1029 46.6 11.6 The figures cover: (i) revenue passengers (i.e. those paying 25% or more of the standard air fare, as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organisation) (ii) scheduled international airline services; statistics on non-scheduled services are not available (iii) embarkations and disembarkations (i.e. transit passengers are excluded) Statisitics are not kept on direct arrivals at international airports from overseas points of embarkation. Therefore the above arrivals statistics relate to total international arrivals at Adelaide International Airport i.e. they include international arrivals via other Australian Airports. (Question No. 634) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: Has the Department of Science undertaken any functions, investigations, or other duties for the Australian Bicentennial Authority or have there been any negotiation or discussions with a view to such activities; if so, what was or is involved; what was or is the cost; how many (if any) staff were or are involved. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. (a) a committee of eight was established in 1983 to advise the Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA) on options for a National Science Centre. In September 1984 a small project team of three was established to further develop the proposal for a National Science Centre. Cost $128,000 in 1984-85. (b) In response to an approach by the ABA in August 1985, the Commission for the Future developed a proposal for a futures project which aims to engage children throughout Australia in a project that will help them become involved in futures thinking. This project involves co-operation with Australian museums, schools, parent organisations, local government and the media. Cost is nil (to date). One staff member is involved for a small proportion of time. (c) In 1982-83, the Patent Office discussed with ABA the production of an historical publication, estimated to cost $45,000, based on the development of the Australian patent, trade marks and designs system since 1788. On 5 April 1983, the Minister for Science approved the project, which ABA supported. The Patent Office was advised in May 1983 that the Department of Finance was not prepared to approve funds for the project in 1983-84, and deferred it to 1984-85, suggesting that the Patent Office should approach ABA. ABA indicated that its funds were fully committed. No funds have since been made available from any source, and the project has lapsed. A few senior staff members were involved for a limited amount of time. (d) The ABA has made applications to the Patent Office for registration of trade marks. As with all other applications, the Office has examined and reported on them to ABA in the usual way. Staff involved in those matters included administrative support groups, examiners of trade marks and assistant registrars of trade marks. ABA has paid the Patent Office the standard fees for its applications for registration of trade marks. (e) CSIRO is constructing a radio telescope array consisting of new antennas at Culgoora and Siding Spring, and the Existing 64-m radio telescope at Parkes. Known as the Australian Telescope, this project was finally approved in the 1982-83 Federal Budget and then in November 1983 by the Federal Parliament. In March 1984, the Australian Telescope was officially endorsed as an Australian Bicentennial Activity by the ABA. Cost is expected to be $25m. There are 33.5 members of staff involved full-time. (Question No. 635) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: What proportion of farms in Australia rely on off-farm incomes in greater or lesser extent to supplement their operations. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The following table contains the most recent data available from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics concerning off-farm income. The data is collected during the regular farm survey undertaken by the Bureau and relates to off-farm income earned by the operator. Agricultural and grazing industry survey-Australia 1982-83 Percentage distribution of responding farms by total off-farm income accruing to operator Off-farm Income Percentage of Farms ($) (%) Cumulative Nil... 13.0 13.0 Less than 500... 17.2 30.2 500-1,000... 8.6 38.8 1,000-4,000... 29.6 68.4 4,000-8,000... 12.6 81.0 8,000-10,000... 3.7 84.7 10,000-15,000... 5.8 90.5 15,000-20,000... 3.3 93.8 20,000-30,000... 4.0 97.8 30,000-50,000... 1.6 99.4 50,000-100,000... 0.5 99.9 Over 100,000... 0.1 100.0