Friday, 6 December 1985 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hamer) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in 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 experiements involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators MacGibbon (from 241 citizens), Macklin (from 567 citizens) and Sheil (from 467 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 472 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Government did not honour its promise to consult with veterans before introducing the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should- Oppose any sections of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill which would have the effect of reducing veterans' benefits and particularly that section which seeks to change the onus of proof. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 184 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Every citizen should have- 1. A constitutional guarantee of the right to vote and 2. A constitutional guarantee of the equality of votes. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should-Support the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) 1985 Bill And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Senator Macklin (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth express our concern at the possible relocation of the Telopea Park School Introductory English Centre, presently located at the corner of New South Wales Cresent and Manuka Circle in Barton, A.C.T. Such a move could only have detrimental educational and social consequences for the non-English speaking secondary students of the A.C.T. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will consider this petition. by Senator Reid (from 217 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate will accept this petition to reverse the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs the Honourable Chris Hurford to not permit a change of status to sheikh Tajeddine Al-Hilaly and to: (a) Note the concern of us your petitioners that the Commonwealth Government chooses to decide who may be a fit and proper person to occupy the position of Imam of Lakemba Mosque by requiring that the sheikh depart by 30 September 1985 so that the position of Imam at the Mosque be left vacant to be filled by another person; (b) Note your petitioners concern that this is a fundamental attack on the basic liberties of Australians being the right to believe and practice religious worship without interference and the right of our Imam to speak out against interference in religious worship by goverments (local or foreign) whenever he perceives it; (c) Note that your petitioners request that permanent residence be granted to sheikh Tajeddine Al-Hilaly; (d) Note that the discrimination thus perceived against sheikh Al-Hilaly be discontinued and that he be accorded respect and assistance given to all other religious leaders in Australia who have come from abroad. We the undersigned petitioners state unreservedly our support for sheikh Al-Hilaly and our admiration for the manner in which he has performed his duties as Imam at a time when the Lebanese community has been strained by the tragic events in Lebanon. Furthermore his fraternal association with other religious leaders both christians and muslims has helped to prevent the disputes and divisions which presently exist in Lebanon from arising in Australia. by Senator Button (from 7,429 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. We the undersigned express our concern over the sale of the Belconnen Mall due to the likely detrimental effect on the provision of community facilities presently existing in the Belconnen Mall. 1. In particular we seek guarantees that the present Child Care Centre and Community Facilities be retained by incorporating the same into the conditions of sale of the Belconnen Mall and that the services will receive the same real level of funding and support currently provided by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. 2. That a financial commitment to the building of Stage 4 of the Belconnen Mall listed under Section 14C in the Ordinance of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority be undertaken. Stage 4 to consist of Community Facilities such as Community Hall, large glassed enclosed community park, exhibition space, health and fitness club, ice rink, amusement centre and office accommodation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this petition be considered. by Senator Vigor (from 46 citizens). Petitions received. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that new funding rules for schools will mean that, for the first time in a decade, some Australian school children will attract no Federal support for their education; (b) notes that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has shown political partisanship by funding one school in a marginal Labor electorate after it was given a low priority under the new funding guidelines, and not funding other children in other schools similarly classified; and (c) views that such action is: (i) not fair to children and parents in those schools in the same priority group for whom funds were not provided, and (ii) not in keeping with proper standards of administration or with the proper standards of behaviour expected of a Minister of the Crown. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate considers that both Houses of the Parliament should meet, in accordance with their current sessional orders relating to the days and times of meetings, from mid-February until the end of July and from mid-August until mid-December 1986. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I withdraw General Business Notice of Motion No. 81 standing in my name. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the plight of the frail aged residents of Allambee and Jindalee nursing homes and the plight of those needing hospital care; and (b) calls on the Royal Australian Nurses' Federation (RANF) executive to abide by a return to work; (c) condemns the Government for its failure to prepare and make known contingency plans to provide adequate hospital services for the 250,000 residents of the Australian Capital Territory; and (d) condemns the Government for its failure to settle the dispute with the RANF which has left ACT citizens without adequate hospital services. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) having regard for the actions of the Western Australian Government in supporting: (i) the Federal Labor Government at the time of the Economic Summit, (ii) Labor's Federal policy on consensus which is in effect a pseudonym for capitulation to union power, (iii) the Federal Government's tax package, the effects of which include increasing costs to the Western Australian iron ore industry in the order of $25 million in addition to an estimated $15 million burden on the private service industries operating in the North West, and (iv) the concept of the Economic Trilogy without itself adhering to the principles which it entailed, thereby creating the impression that the only Trilogy which the Labor Government in Western Australia has supported has been the Hawke/Keating/Burke Trilogy; (b) condemns the Western Australian Labor Government for the support it has demonstrated for the overall economic policies of the Commonwealth Government which have resulted in record interest rates which are crippling the rural sector, small business and home buyers alike; spiralling public indebtedness; and uncontrolled levels of Government expenditure and taxation; and (c) commends the actions of the Liberal candidate for the Pilbara, Mr John Van Uden in opposing the taxation policies of the Federal Government and in supporting the Leader of the State Opposition, Mr Bill Hassell, in challenging the policies of high levels of taxation and real growth in Government expenditure supported by the Labor Government in Western Australa. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) is of the opinion that uranium mining in South Australia should be allowed to proceed, within the safeguards established by the Australian Government, according to the judgment of mining companies who have been willing to provide risk capital and to establish overseas markets, thereby encouraging job creation and a desperately needed increase in export income; (b) is concerned that deprivation of adequate uranium supplies to the growing world market will cause an acceleration in the development and installation of fast breeder reactors which produce many times the plutonium produced by nuclear fission; and (c) notes that the plutonium produced in reactors used to provide electric power is unsuitable for nuclear weapons because it contains the containments, plutonium isotopes 240, 241 and 242 and that such plutonium cannot be converted into weapons grade plutonium 239 without grossly expensive and thus uneconomic refinement. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the Senate authoritises the broadcasting and re-broadcasting by Australian radio and television stations of sound recordings of excerpts of its proceedings during 1986, subject to the conditions determined for the purpose by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Motion (by Senator Colston) agreed to: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the New Zealand cricket team on winning the 3 Test series against Australia; (b) extends its congratulations to Australia's Captain, Mr Alan Border, and those Australians who played in the 3 tests for their dedication to the game of cricket for their sportsmanship; and (c) wishes Mr Border and the Australian team well in forthcoming matches throughout the summer. Motion (by Senator Childs) agreed to: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade has completed its 3rd Report on the Development of Closer Economic Relations between Australia and New Zealand, the Committee may send the Report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the Report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Report is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Report; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the Report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have received a message from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate of the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives on 29 November 1985: That this House authorises the broadcasting and re-broadcasting on Australian radio and television stations of a sound record of excerpts of its proceedings during 1986, subject to the conditions determined for the purpose by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr Deputy President, yesterday in the Senate, after you had called to order the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, for making a remark that you described as quite improper, Senator Grimes responded: I am indignant for the large number of people who are poverty stricken and on pensions in this country as a result of his activities. He was referring to me. That is totally false. Senator Grimes knows it to be false. I challenge him-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Baume, in making a personal explanation you may explain the facts. You should not use the opportunity to criticise another honourable senator. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I know of no people who are poverty stricken and on pensions in this country as a result of my activities. I ask the Minister: If he knows of any, would he draw them to my attention? In the absence of that, would he apologise? Further, after this had occurred, I asked that that remark be withdrawn. In the subsequent toing and froing it was not withdrawn and I ask for it to be withdrawn now. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That is not in order. An objection has to be taken at the time. It is up to Senator Grimes. If he wishes to withdraw it he may; I cannot order him to do so. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to order I present the report of the Senate Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(9.13) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- On behalf of the members of the Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes, I table the Committee's report on the health and social consequences of volatile substance abuse in Australia. The Committee was established in May 1984 at the initiative of Senator Bernie Kilgariff, and I believe we are indebted to Senator Kilgariff for bringing the Senate's attention to the need for this inquiry. It is certainly one of great concern to many people in Australia and, in particular, to many people in remote Aboriginal communities. The Committee's terms of reference required it to consider two aspects of the phenomenon of volatile substance abuse: the intoxicating inhalation of a wide range of volatile substances by the cosmopolitan youth of urban areas (glue or solvent `sniffing'); and the use of petrol as an intoxicant by the youth of remote Aboriginal communities (`petrol sniffing'). In the second half of last year the Committee advertised its inquiry and sought information from people throughout Australia. Just over 100 submissions were received and, following a brief interruption due to the election at the end of last year, the Committee conducted an extensive program of public hearings, inspections and visits to remote Aboriginal communities. The Committee held 10 public hearings, covering all States except Tasmania, and visited Aboriginal communities in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The Committee collected a large amount of information, hitherto unassembled, and the length of the Committee's report reflects the fact that it is the first comprehensive report on the subject to be made in Australia. In its report, the Committee concludes that concern about volatile substance abuse is justified, both in urban areas and in remote Aboriginal communities. The first reason for concern is that the practice of `sniffing' involves young people, generally between the ages of about 12 and 15, and in some instances, children younger than 10 are involved. The second reason for concern is that, in terms of accute and chronic physical and psychological effects, and the associated risk of `sudden sniffing death', the inhalation of volatile substances for the purpose of intoxication is highly dangerous. In remote Aboriginal communities there is a third major reason for concern, that the practice is of such prevalence that it is causing considerable social disruption and distress. Because the two groups distinguished by the Committee's terms of reference are sociologically distinct, they have been considered separately, and the Committee's report has been presented in two parts. In the first part, the Committee concludes that volatile substance abuse is a widespread, though erratic problem-evidence from some areas having shown that experimentation may be as high as 50 per cent. There are three broad groups abusing volatile substances, experimenters, social abusers and chronic abusers, the latter of which form about 1 per cent of the total abuse population. While young people are generally aware of the practice, adults generally are not. The Committee concludes that the primary causes of experimentation with volatile substances are curiosity and peer pressure; and facilitating factors include the wide availability of substances and the lack of preventative measures. The continued abuse of volatile substances appears to be due to the pleasurable effects of the practice, such as euphoria, excitement and group cohesion. In contrast, the primary cause of chronic abuse seems to be an inability to cope with seemingly intractable problems and, while social abusers do not come from any particular socio-economic or minority group, chronic abusers usually come from emotionally or economically deprived families. In considering the responses to volatile substance abuse in urban areas, the Committee has made a number of conclusions and recom- mendations, the most important of which are as follows. Firstly, as a general conclusion, the Committee points out that the phenomenon of volatile substance abuse is a social problem not a `product' problem and it thus recommends that responses to the problem be directed towards preventing abuse through broadly based education programs. More specifically, the Committee concludes that education is the best and most important strategy to prevent and reduce volatile substance abuse, although the Committee emphasises that no approach should provide specific information about the practice to young people. It recommends that Federal and State governments should adopt a preventative education strategy based on a dual approach of providing healthy lifestyle and personal development programs for adolescents, and providing factual information for parents and professional personnel. In this regard the Committee notes that the peer support program has the potential to play an extremely important role in the prevention of drug abuse and it recommends that the peer support foundation be supported financially by recurrent funding from both Federal and State grants. The Committee has concluded that there is a small but significant need for treatment services for the rehabilitation of chronic sniffers. The concept of a national poisons informations centre is endorsed by the Committee, as is the concept of a national institute for drug and alcohol studies. The Committee recommends to the Federal Government that priority consideration be given to the establishment of such a centre. The Committee also concludes that legislative action is not warranted, with three exceptions, the most important of which is that each State legislate to make it an offence for retailers knowingly to sell volatile substances to minors for the purpose of abuse. The Committee has also concluded that industry and government should co-ordinate an extensive campaign to educate retailers about the problems of volatile substance abuse and how they can assist to combat those problems. The Committee also found that evidence in favour of dire warning labels outweighs evidence against them and recommends that industry continue progressively to identify and label products capable of abuse. The concept of industry sponsorship is supported by the Committee, which also recommends that a joint industry/government foundation be established in each State to co-ordinate and administer funding for action which is directed towards drug abuse prevention from industry groups. In the second part of the report, the Committee has concluded that petrol sniffing is an Australia-wide phenomenon and that the magnitude of the problem is of sufficient proportion for urgent action to be taken. The Committee has thus recommended to Federal and State governments, and to Aboriginal agencies, that they give priority to all efforts to respond to the problem. In examining the epidemiology of petrol sniffing the Committee has found that it is highly cyclic in prevalence, varying both regionally and temporarily. However, in some communities there is now a perennial core of chronic sniffers. Although a wide range of causes was proferred, the Committee was unable to get a clear indication as to why Aboriginal children sniffed petrol. The few sniffers that the Committee spoke with unanimously said it was for `fun'. The causes most frequently cited by adults were peer pressure, curiosity and boredom. Factors contributing to the continuation of the problem were found to be lack of community resources, lack of strong leadership and effective decision-making processes, lack of commitment to solve the problem and lack of co-ordination by controlling instrumentalities. The problem of petrol sniffing was also seen by some to be a symptom of the many broader social problems besetting Aboriginal people in remote communities. The acute and chronic physical effects of petrol inhalation were found to be similar to those induced by most other volatile substances with the addition of the toxic effects of organic lead, which primarily affects liver and kidney function, causes reversible and irreversible brain damage and damages peripheral nerves. Some sniffers have already been found to have chronic lead poisoning. Numerous responses to petrol sniffing have been made, including punishment, exile, locking up of petrol supplies and vehicles, and the provision of recreation facilities and youth workers, but nowhere did the Committee find complete success. In making recommendations the Committee has suggested, firstly, that the act of petrol sniffing not be made a criminal offence, but that the acts of supplying or inciting minors to inhale petrol be made offences. Secondly, in order to control petrol sniffing, that ring- leaders who pressure children to sniff be removed from communities. To do this, care and custody provisions of State child welfare legislation could be used. Thirdly, the Committee has recommended that there is a need for education of parents and other adult groups as to the consequences to the health of children who inhale petrol. Fourthly, the Committee has found that there is an urgent need for the training of Aboriginal youth workers and recreation officers to work in communities. Finally, the Committee believes that the solution which has the greatest chance of solving the problem in the long term is the homelands/outstations movement and the Committee has thus recommended that outstations be given far greater support than they are currently accorded. In suggesting a strategy for the control of petrol sniffing, the Committee points out that all actions must originate from and be controlled by the Aboriginal people in those communities concerned and that all programs created to prevent or reduce petrol sniffing should be based on the involvement of all youth in both recreational and educational activities. In concluding my tabling statement, I would like to thank all those who have been involved in the Committee's inquiry; the people who made submissions and gave evidence and, in particular those who assisted with the Committee's visits to remote areas. I would also like to thank the various Hansard officers who accompanied the Committee on its visits to remote areas. I would also like to thank, on behalf of the Committee, the members of the committee's secretariat; the Secretary, Dr Pippa Carron, research officers, Mr Toby Miller and Mr Greg Rillen, and the steno-secretary, Mrs Jean Thompson, for their outstanding work in assisting to collect and bring together the large amount of information which has formed the committee's report. Finally, I personally would like to thank the other members of the Committee for their support in producing a unanimous report on this very vexing issue. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator ROBERTSON —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 5 December, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.14) —The Senate has commenced debate on the Petroleum Revenue Bill and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) which are clearly related to each other and are being dealt with cognately. I commenced my speech by making some general observations about the Government's policy in relation to the petroleum industry and, in particular, to its proposals for a resource rent tax regime to apply, although at present its policy is related only to Greenfields off-shore areas. There is, of course, an in-principle commitment to this form of taxation which the industry and we in the Opposition are concerned may be applied progressively by the Government not only to the petroleum industry but also perhaps to the whole of the mining industry. The other worrying aspect of the Government's proposals for a resource rent tax is the fact that it is to take effect from 1 July 1984-and here we are at the end of 1985 and the Government still has not produced even a draft or exposure draft of legislation for such an important new tax. It seems as though that is not likely to be seen for some time. Yet the Government is proceeding to seek cash bids for new and highly prospective off-shore areas for exploration for oil and gas. There is not only no sign yet of a capital gains tax and how that will apply but no sign of the resource rent tax either. How anybody can make any sensible bids in that state of the law I do not know, but perhaps the Government will be able to tell us that in due course, though I very much doubt it. This legislation is a dry drum, so to speak, for the Government's attachment to a resource rent form of taxation. Nevertheless, the Opposition will not oppose this measure because it could have some benefit for some producers or explorers. Its framework has been explained by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). It is called resource rent royalty legislation-RRR legislation rather than RRT-but its immediate purpose is to give full legislative effect to an agreement which has been entered into by the Western Australian Government West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd-Wapet- which is the owner and operator of the Barrow Island oil field amongst others. It is classified as an on-shore operation. It is an island off Western Australia, but it is part of Western Australia so it is an on-shore oil field. In fact, it is a very old oil field and the purpose of this legislation is to encourage the company to continue producing oil from the field which is becoming quite depleted. It would not be economic for the company to proceed much longer with the extraction of the oil that is there, under the existing tax regime with the full effect of the crude oil levy by the Commonwealth and the royalty to the State. The agreement was entered into on 25 June and took effect on 1 July this year. Legislation has been passed by the Western Australian Parliament and this legislation is required at Federal level because there has to be a new taxing regime. The existing crude oil levy arrangements have to be modified as do State royalties. That is the purpose of this legislation. It will have a beneficial effect in relation to Wapet, and it may have a beneficial effect in other special cases involving oil fields around Australia. It is for the companies concerned to consider whether they want to make use of it. The Opposition is not opposed to this legislation. I emphasise that that does not affect our opposition to and great concern about the proposed resources rent tax, as a sword of Damocles which hangs over the whole petroleum industry and ultimately, I fear, may hang over the mining industry as well. The real concern about that related to the proclivities of this Government in the tax field. If there were some other and more beneficial tax regime to be substituted, of course, neither the industry nor the Opposition would be quite so worried about it. The fact of this is seen as an additional or in effect, excess profits tax is the really worrying aspect of the resource rent tax proposals. I think that concern is well justified when one considers the extent to which this Government has created new imposts on the oil industry. For instance, in March 1983 when this Government was elected the situation in relation to taxing the oil or gas industry was that we had the old oil excise or the crude oil levy-we are dealing with this today in reapplying the levy-there were of course Federal and State royalities on production, the Federal excise and State franchise on petroleum products and some production licence arrangements. Now in December 1985 and post-March 1983 we have the following tax regime relating to the industry: We have taxes on old, intermediate and new oil. Admittedly the intermediate oil tax is some alleviation for the industry, particularly in Bass Strait. However, there is now a new oil excise whereas previously there was no tax on what is classified as new oil until this Government came to power. There is now a proposed resource rent tax. There is now cash bonus bidding which has been introduced and which, in effect, is another tax impost on the industry. That may be with or without a resources rent tax, we will not know whether this is so until we see the full details of the lagislation. We have production licence arrangements such as Federal and State royalties on production. We have retention lease arrangements which involve a licence fee and a threat of higher premiums. Of course, we have an increased Federal excise on petroleum as well as the State franchise fees on petroleum profits. Incidentally in regard to the Federal excise, despite Mr Hawke's promises in 1983 that there would be a reduction of 3c a litre in the price of petrol in fact there has been an impost of more than 3c a litre on the consumer of petroleum products. We have had various threats from the Government about signature bonus payments and, as I have said, retention lease premiums. Of course, goodness knows what is in store in relation to production in the Timor Sea and even perhaps a hydrocarbons corporation. That is the sad picture which emerges at the end of nearly three years of this Government's dealings with the vital petroleum industry. No wonder there is widespread concern in the industry because it does not know where it stands. The industry does not know what is in store for it next. This in an industry absolutely vital to Australia's future and which has an absolute priority for finding more oil in particular and gas as well. As I said we in the Opposition are very concerned. We have to see this legislation, although we are not opposing it, in the context of the attitude of this Government to this vital industry. I want to emphasise that the only reason we are going along with this legislation, as indeed Wapet itself has emphasised in discussions I have had with it, is that this is simply a tax on old oil. If it were a tax on any new oil that of course would be completely in breach of the incentives and encouragements given to the industry to explore for oil in recent years-most of which of course is now unfortunately under a cloud as a result of this Government's taxing policies. There are a few comments I wish to make on the nature of this legislation. Despite the fact that the agreement was entered into between the Western Australian Government and Wapet in June this year, the legislation did not come into this place until fairly late in the session. Even after its introduction the Government had to move 41 amendments during the Committee stage in the House of Representatives. It did this, incidentally, without giving any notice to the Opposition at all. The amendments were simply bunged down on the table only during the Committee stage of the debate, not even at the beginning of the debate on the Bill. Although these amendments were minor, they indicated very inadequate preparation, poor drafting and a general lack of consultation and liaison with everyone concerned. There are still anomalies in the present amendments and of particular concern is new clause 2A in the Schedule to the Petroleum Revenue Bill, which introduces a penalty by way of additional royalty under the agreement. It is not stated in the Bill, but this penalty appears to apply to cases where a producer is in breach of the agreement. We are concerned that the terms of that breach and the level of penalty are not stipulated, nor are there any consultative arrangements in place apparently, by which appeals may be made or further negotiations conducted. The Government has also introduced an amendment to remove the ability of a party to the agreement to terminate the agreement after seven days notice in writing. These are some of the confusing situations that still occur. There is also the remaining concern that Wapet has about this matter. Wapet still has to sign the agreement and it really needs some guidance from the Federal Government before it goes about one particular situation. There is a difference between the agreement made between Wapet and the Western Australian Government and the model agreement which the Government says should apply to any special arrangements of this kind-and this applies to Wapet as much as any other interested oil producer who wants to take advantage, if such there be, of this legislation. There is a difference between the actual pioneer agreement between Wapet and the Western Australian Government and the scheduled agreement in this Bill. The Schedule details definitions of what is meant by `an arms length transaction', whereas the Wapet agreement with the Western Australian Government does not contain that sort of detail. In fact, it may well be and probably is a fact that on a literal interpretation of this Bill, this Federal legislation would not apply to the very Bill that has been the cause of all the legislation here and in Western Australia. I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans to indicate whether the State agreement with Wapet will be regarded as valid in accordance with this Federal legislation. Also, there is another clause in this Bill which seems to limit the power of State Ministers to make decisions which are not in accordance with procedures approved by the Federal Minister and presumably that gives the Federal Government total power of veto over the States. The arrangements between Western Australia and the Commonwealth are for a sharing of the revenue that is raised by this Bill and presumably there is agreement on that score between the Commonwealth and the State. That is not a matter on which I really want to comment except to say that the Commonwealth will be paying Western Australia about $20m this year in recognition of or compensation for loss of revenue to the State as a result of its giving up its royalties which it would have received had the old arrangements continued-that is assuming, of course, that Wapet continued in production. That seems to be a bit of a bonus for Western Australia and I suppose it is justified. As I have said, this legislation applies only to Barrow Island at this stage. However, apparently discussions are being carried on with the respective State governments and the Federal Government about other potential candidates. Fortunately the industry itself will still be able to choose whether it will come under the umbrella of this legislation or whether it will carry on with the existing tax arrangements. There may be some inducement for some alleviation of the effect of the impost on old oil, particularly when oil fields are depleted. I hope that the Federal Government does not seek to promote this legislation as a dry run, so to speak, for its resource rent tax before it exposes the RRT legislation. There is a desperate need for this Government to put down an exposure draft of its resource rent tax legislation. Is that too much to hope for particularly in view of the fact that the legislation will apply retrospectively to 1 July 1984-that is, 18 months ago. However, this Government has not been able to produce even an exposure draft of the legislation. If the Government seriously intends to go on with this alternative tax regime, is it not reasonable that everybody should know, and know soon, just what the exact details are? Major decisions are having to be made by people in the industry on matters which are absolutely vital to the future economic health of this nation. We are entitled to expect far better than that from this Government. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(9.33) —The Senate is debating the Petroleum Revenue Bill 1985 and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. Listening to Senator Durack say that the Opposition is not opposing this legislation reminds me that after the election of 1974 Billy Snedden, the then Leader of the Opposition, described the outcome as one in which the Opposition did not lose the election-it was just that it did not win it. It seems to me that that type of thinking is being applied in respect of the Petroleum Revenue Bill. Although the Opposition is not opposing the Bill, it has not gone quite as far as saying that it actually supports it. One cannot be sure whether in fact Senator Durack's supporting argument to the head statement that the Opposition is not opposing the legislation was in fact opposition in support. Senator Durack's speech was certainly an excursion into a wide ranging area of Opposition concerns about tax. However, he did not seem to say very much about the legislation. Senator Durack —The legislation is all about tax. Senator COOK —Yes, but the honourable senator talked about the tax package and what this Government is doing. He said that at last the Government had the courage to address the major taxing problems of this nation. However, he did so in such a confused way that I do not think anyone listening to the debate quite understood what the point of his opposition was. Senator Robertson —That's not unusual. Senator COOK —No, it is not unusual. This legislation seeks to replace crude oil excise levies and to rationalise the present taxing regimes with a resource rental royalty. It is proposed that a tax based on an oil resource rental tax will replace the ad valorem tax that applies at present. This legislation, which recognises Western Australian legislation, has been jointly worked out between the Commonwealth and the State of Western Australia. West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd, or Wapet, which operates at Barrow Island in the north-west of Western Australia, is party to, agrees with and supports this legislation. So it is legislation that has consensus support. It is also legislation which fits into the mosaic of this Government's approach to the proper taxing policies with respect to resource development in the petroleum area. When debating matters of this sort, I always like to point out that the petroleum resources of the nation are the property of the people held in trust by the Government which gives licence to develop by private companies. Therefore, it is proper that there be a payment of royalty or tax which rewards the public purse in some way when the exploitation of those resources is undertaken. On this occasion, what we have done is merely rationalise the existing structure. It is the on-land application, if you like, of resource rent tax and that tax applies above a threshold which is calculated by taking the long term bond rate, adding 15 per cent and then taxing anything above that at the rate of 40 per cent. While in some sense the actual details of the application fo resource rental tax are still to be refined, in this case that is the formula that will be followed. This legislation also sits easily and compatibly with this Government's cash bidding legislation. Now we have legislation covering the letting out of off-shore exploration leases, legislation has been announced and is in prospect for resource rental tax, and we have the resource rental royalties regime as well, and that brings all those items together. Given that Senator Durack has taken a long time in speaking in this debate, although his Party supports the legislation, it remains for me to say only that it is a commendable initiative of the Western Australian Government and of the Western Australian Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr David Parker, in working with the Commonwealth to bring this legislation to this point. Senator Gareth Evans —It is a triumph for co-operative federalism. Senator COOK —Yes, it is a triumph for co-operative federalism, as the Minister says. It stands as a model, which, I believe, other States will eventually follow so that, even within the federal system in Australia, we will have a completely rational way of dealing with taxes on petroleum production. Commendation of the Western Australia Government's approach, and particularly of the Minister, David Parker, in its discussions with the Commonwealth should be noted. Senator Durack, in his remarks, said that the return to the State is estimated to be in the order of $20m. He came perilously close to criticising that gain for Western Australia. Of course, he did not do it finally. Senator Durack's constituency being Western Australia may have hindered his making the criticism that some of his colleagues from the House of Representatives made of that type of gain to the State. It reflects well on the Government of Western Australia that it has taken this initiative. The outcome will be beneficial. It will help the State Government and it will bring on at Barrow Island more productively a resource which is awaiting this legislation going through to be further exploited. I commend the legislation to the Senate. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.38) —The Petroleum Revenue Bill is supported by the Australian Democrats. It permits the waiving of State royalties and Commonwealth excise duties when a State government introduces a resource rent tax and signs a revenue sharing agreement with the Commonwealth. It seems to me that the chief advantage of this Bill is that it will mean that older fields can continue to be developed productively. Our oil resource is variable, depending on how much of a field we can economically produce. If we are interested in oil self-sufficiency, it makes good sense to create an economic regime which encourages people actually to produce as much oil as possible from a field and not just to abandon it when it still has 20 or 30 per cent of its producible reserve. This Bill provides for that. I think it is a good Bill in that respect and it is a good Bill for the conservation and wise use of the resource. It is also a good Bill because it advances the concept of resource rental taxation. I believe this shows a coming of age in Australia. Australia is making a transition from a Third World country, which simply considered itself an open quarry for anyone who wanted to come along to exploit it, to a developed country, a country with some self-confidence that can say: `Our resource is worth something and you will have to pay for it if you want it. We will not just give it to you'. This is a very important point. As honourable senators may or may not have noted, I come from overseas and I have a slightly different perspective on the way multinationals work and also on how Australia perceives its own resources. It seems to me that Australians have very little true appreciation of the value of their land, their trees, or their resources in general. I suppose this is only natural because for so many years we were simply a colony of a very important and aggressive nation, Great Britain, which used us to supply raw materials for its manufacturing processes. This thinking goes on today. It is a kind of parallel to the New Guinea cargo cult of some years past where the New Guinea natives, perceiving that aeroplanes would land at Port Moresby with refrigerators and washing machines on board, would go out in the bush, hack out a strip, build a decoy aeroplane out of palm thatch, and hope somehow to attract the cargo from the sky. I think Australian leaders often do the same thing. We put in massive infrastructure development, hoping that somebody will come along and use it to mine our resources. We can develop our own resources. We should have the self-confidence to do so, and I think the self-confidence is coming. The Australian view towards the country is really a function of the people who came here first, the convicts and settlers, who were ripped out of a Northern Hemisphere environment and put in a very harsh, to them, area to which they simply could not relate. When I came to Australia from the Northern Hemisphere I found it difficult to appreciate the land. It was harsh; the seasons were backwards; Christmas came at the wrong time of the year; the weather patterns were wrong. If one projects that back to the early settlers, who depended on their senses, one can see that they may have had an intense dislike for the land, especially if they were kept here under force. I hope that modern Australians can learn to appreciate their land, and when it is exploited to extract the proper value from it. I agree with Senator Cook that the resources of the nation belong to the nation, not to the multinational oil companies or to any individual. If they are to be utilised-I hope not overutilised-the people of this nation should receive recompense and share in the benefits. It should not be for just one small section of the community, namely, the oil companies and those who support them, it should be for everyone. For those reasons I support the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.43) —I am pleased to have the support of the Senate for this measure, even though it was not given very generously or graciously in the case of Senator Durack. Senator Durack seems generally to have failed to appreciate the significance of the legislation. It is not just another taxing measure or impost, but rather a very serious and major attempt to rationalise State and Federal tax regimes in this area and to do so in a way, as Senator Sanders said in his very admirable contribution, that is very much in the interests both of the companies involved in these projects and of the nation, to the extent that it will encourage more production from marginal oil fields than would otherwise be the case. That is the essential virtue of a resource rent royalty or resource rent tax approach. That is why so much effort has been expended, in co-operation with the Western Australian Government in particular so far, to devise this tax regime. The Petroleum Revenue Bill is of general application, as it has to be for constitutional reasons, quite apart from anything else. As has been made clear throughout this debate, the Bill's immediate application is to Western Australia and in particular the Barrow Island field. The Schedules to the Bill were being written at the same time as the agreement between Western Australia and West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd was being negotiated. That very tight timetable was made necessary by the requirement to get the legislation through the Western Australian Parliament before it rose, for a number of months, and through the Commonwealth Parliament before it rose. That is why a number of amendments to the legislation, especially to Schedule 1, were made in the House of Representatives after the Bill was originally introduced. The need for those amendments was not a product of the Bill being in any way ill-thought out, as Senator Durack was suggesting, or of there being a lack of consultation, as he was also suggesting, but rather of the circumstances that I have just described. A question has arisen as to whether, in the particular case of Barrow Island, the legislation as it is now before us is, in fact, in conformity with the agreement that has been negotiated between Western Australia and Wapet and endorsed by the Western Australian Parliament. A question has been raised by Senator Durack as to whether, in particular, there is that conformity insofar as the Western Australian agreement does not specifically go to the extent of defining an `arm's length' transaction, even though it provides, as is required by the Schedule, that where the relevant petroleum is sold by the producer otherwise than in an arm's length transaction, the producer shall be taken to have sold the petroleum for an amount equal to the value of the petroleum at the time of the sale. Let me say for the record, as invited to by Senator Durack, that I am of the considered view that the agreement is so clearly written in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 1 and so obviously written with the intention of conforming to Schedule 1 that the omission of a definition of the expression `arm's length' is a purely formal matter and of no substantive significance whatsoever. Clearly, it is the case that the agreement conforms with all the essential requirements of the Bill. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution it may well be appropriate that at some time in the future the agreement between Western Australia and Wapet be formally amended to embody the definition in question. I will suggest to the Western Australian Government and Wapet that at an appropriate time-perhaps after the Western Australian Parliament resumes next year-such an agreed formal amendment be made. I stress that I do not believe that such an amendment is necessary, but it may, nevertheless, be useful to put the matter beyond any possible shadow of a doubt. Let me say finally that this is an important, in fact path-breaking, piece of legislation, as will be the off-shore resource rent tax legislation when we introduce and enact it next year, legislation which will, in fact, largely mirror, in its substantive provisions, the provisions of the Western Australian resource rent royalty legislation which has been passed by the Western Australian Government to complement the Bills before us today. There has been some criticism by the Opposition of the passage of time that will occur before the RRT legislation finally sees the light of day. I acknowledge that it is important for that legislation to be formally enacted as soon as possible, but I think it should be pointed out for the record that the problem has been the enormous workload placed on the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office in the last few months as a result of this year's tax reform package. I make the point that the only project development to which that off-shore RRT regime is presently applicable is the Jabiru project. I assure the Senate that that project has not been in any way inhibited from proceeding by the delay in formally enacting the legislation. All outstanding policy issues so far as that legislation is concerned have been resolved and publicly announced, certainly to the satisfaction of the Jabiru project people, and no doubt also to the satisfaction of any oil company or potential investor who wants to know what the parameters of the RRT regime will be. So, although it is no doubt a good debating point on occasions like this to make the sorts of points that Senate Durack has made, I assure him and the Senate that there is no cause for any criticism of the Government in the way that this has operated so far. I commend the Bills to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment, requests or debate. Debate resumed from 14 November, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.52) —The purpose of the Customs Tariff (Stand-by Duty) Bill 1985 is to impose a special customs duty of 3c per litre or about $5 per barrel on crude oil imports by local refiners who do not pick up their allocation of Australian crude oil under that voluntary allocation scheme. This may appear to be a genuine attempt by the Government to guarantee the future of the Australian oil industry, but in fact when we look at it this is measure which is really designed to lead to further govenrment control and an increased tax burden on an industry already overwhelmed by government controls and taxes. I have already had something to say in detail about that earlier and I do not propose to repeat it now. The only real purpose of this Bill is to secure such government control over oil production and maintain its already bloated crude oil levy on old, intermediate and what is now new oil as well. The Opposition will oppose this short-sighted and unnecessary legislation. We will vote against it. It is interesting to note that the Bill was initially introduced into this Parliament in May 1984 by the predecessor to the present Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans. However, there was a storm of criticism of it within the industry and I think the Bill was withdrawn. It was not proceeded with and presumably it disappeared with the election at the end of the year. It may be that the Government has made some concessions to meet the criticisms of it, but the general principle of the legislation remains unchanged. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether he has had any genuine consultation with industry about the matter, but the impression I have is that there has not. Nor does the Bill reveal any great indication of that. Maybe it is just another indication of Senator Evans's penchant for fixing everything up by passing laws through this Parliament in the belief that that somehow does so. Senator Gareth Evans —You were never guilty of that sin. Senator DURACK —No. I had a little more judgment, I think, about these matters than he has. I think his predecessor had perhaps a little more judgment than he has about the virtue of legislation and the role of lawyers-which is an every increasing one, of course, if Senator Evans had his way. This legislation is contrary to the spirit of the voluntary allocation arrangements and it is contrary to other measures to deregulate the crude oil market, particularly since longer term exports have been permitted in the current year. The proposal is also inequitable in that there are no other controls over fuel imports and the duty would not apply to, say, the importation by independent retailers. Refiners have had an incentive not to pick up locally produced oil during the market downturn and following the depreciation of the dollar, both of which were thought to be providing a threat to the local industry, but that threat has not been of any significance. While some refiners have sought a reduction in crude oil allocation levels, the industry still substantially accords with the voluntary arrangements and, in fact, producers have increased production to take advantage of the export opportunities which they have been given. Government revenue has substantially increased as a result of the export of oil and increased production. There has been an extra $507m in the 1984-85 Budget revenue and a further increase of about $300m is forecast for the current Budget year. The Government has been having a financial bonanza from its taxes on oil production in this country, yet here we have a measure designed by the Government to increase its revenue further. The Government estimates that the proposed duty would raise $4m each month in which any one medium sized refiner remained in a shortfall or underlift situation. I believe that that would be justified only if there had been a collapse in existing voluntary arrangements. This legislation is contrary to the Opposition's deregulatory stance. It makes a mockery of the rhetoric from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about deregulation. I do not think that I can accuse Senator Gareth Evans of being an enthusiast for deregulation on the basis of his record as Minister for Resources and Energy, but we hear a lot of empty rhetoric from the Prime Minister about deregulation. Yet in this measure the Government proposes further regulation and taxes for an industry already, as I said, overwhelmed by such imposts. For those reasons the Opposition will oppose what we can only see as a draconian measure. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.57) —The Australian Democrats do not see the Customs Tariff (Stand-By Duty) Bill as a draconian measure at all and we are, indeed, supporting this Bill. We support it because we see it as a necessary measure to protect the partial allocation scheme. Under the partial allocation scheme most new oil lifted in Australia is available for sale on the free market, and old oil from which the Government receives about 71 per cent of the price per barrel is sold under the allocation system. Under existing legislation it would in some circumstances be cheaper to purchase crude oil overseas at spot prices rather than lift the full allocation of Australian crude oil. This would result in avoidance of the old oil excise and a subsequent drop in government income. By providing that an excise of 3c per litre be paid on imported oil substituted for Australian crude, government income-public income-is protected. I should think that that would interest Senator Durack but apparently it does not. For this reason alone we support the Bill. I do not wish to delay the Senate any longer. I indicate that we will vote with the Government on this issue. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.58) —I am indebted to Senator Sanders for his support for the Customs Tariff (Stand-By Duty) Bill and I have noted Senator Durack's comments on behalf of the Opposition. I simply say in reply that the purpose of this Bill is to maintain some control, as Senator Durack says, of crude oil production and distribution in this country. But we are seeking to do that not because of any passionate commitment to heavy-handed government regulation and intervention for its own sake, but rather in the interests of maintaining, as Senator Sanders says, the integrity and credibility of the present allocation system. I will be happy to publicly debate at any time the merits of that system, but I will spare the Senate that contribution in view of the shortage of time with which we are confronted today. I say finally that this Bill has been substantially redrafted following its initial exposure in 1984, to meet criticisms from various industry quarters. Those criticisms have largely subsided as a result of the reconsideration which then took place. Since Senator Durack expressed so much confidence in my predecessor's judgment in legislative matters, I am happy to inform him that, in fact, the present legislation was settled by my predecessor. The only reason it was not proceeded with late last year is that we ran out of time after the reconsideration process had taken place. The only reason it was not proceeded with in the first half of this year is that it was caught up in the May-June review of the allocation and import parity pricing system that then took place. We believe that so long as the present partial allocation system remains, it is important to have in place the kind of penalty duty regime for which this Bill provides as a guarantee that the integrity of that system will be preserved. Accordingly, I commend the legislation to the Senate. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D.Chipp, D. L. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R.Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J.Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Foreman, D. J. Sanders, N. K.Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Short, J. R.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S. Coleman, R. N. Lewis, A. W. R.McClelland, Douglas Brownhill, D. G. C.Tate, M. C. Withers, R. G.Bolkus, N. Watson, J. O. W.Button, J. N. Hill, R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate. Debate resumed from 29 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.07) —I rise to speak on behalf of the Opposition on the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. This Bill seeks in essence to do three things. It seeks to restore to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in two instances certain powers lost by the Tribunal as a result of two court cases and to increase the disciplinary powers the Tribunal has over individual broadcasters. Before going on the three specific areas of the Bill, I think it appropriate to note that this Bill is the second piece of broadcasting legislation to come before the Parliament in the course of a couple of weeks. That is indicative of the way in which the Government is dealing with broadcasting legislation-by making piecemeal adjustments to one of the most complicated pieces of legislation this Parliament has ever passed. It is now evident that the whole regime of the Broadcasting and Television Act is in need of fundamental overhaul and revision. The Government must at some stage turn its attention to dealing with questions of a far broader scope rather than what it is doing at the moment, which is making piecemeal adjustments on the run. The second general point I make is that this Bill goes largely to the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. We did not have a chance to debate the annual report of the Broadcasting Tribunal this year. Therefore, let me take this opportunity to note that Mr David Jones, the Chairman of the Broadcasting Tribunal, reaches the end of his term at the end of this year. He is taking an appointment, as I understand it, as a County Court judge in Victoria. I think all honourable senators would wish to be associated with congratulating Mr Jones on having steered the Broadcasting Tribunal through a number of very difficult cases and through a very difficult period in the history of broadcasting regulation in Australia. Mr Jones has done an excellent job as Chairman of the Tribunal and deserves to be congratulated. This legislation touches on three issues. First, it touches on the right of the Broadcasting Tribunal to determine standards relative to the broadcasting of programs for children. Secondly, it touches upon the power of the Tribunal to regulate the quota of Australian material in advertisements. Finally, it deals with disciplinary powers of the Tribunal under section 119 of the Act. I shall take each of those issues in turn. The powers of the Tribunal to establish standards for the broadcasting of children's programs came from a long and complicated case before the High court of Australia in May 1985. On 21 May the Full Bench of the High Court rendered its judgment in the case Herald-Sun Television Pty Ltd. and others v. the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. In effect, the Court struck down the powers of the Broadcasting Tribunal to pre-classify children's television programs; that is, the requirement that all programs broadcast for children in the designated C category and in designated hours for children's television be classified by the Tribunal before they go to air. The Court said in its judgment: . . . only programs which meet the standards determined for children's programs should be televised within particular hours . . . The Act does not go further and give the Tribunal power to decide that a particular program should not be shown during those hours . . . The Act does not give the Tribunal power to give directions for the purpose of enforcing standards which have already been laid down, or for the purpose of substituting its judgment in a particular case for the application of a pre-determined standard. The judgment noted that the Tribunal had been relying upon various censorship powers and held that the Act did not permit the Tribunal to so rely. As a result of that case there was a great deal of confusion about the powers of the Tribunal in relation to the control and pre-classification of children's television. This concerned the Department of Communications. It received a submission from the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations dealing with this matter in August 1985. The relevant part of the FACTS submission is fairly short. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- FACTS submission to Department of Communications, August 1985 Pre-classification precludes ascertainment. (e) It is no answer to say that the classification only relates to material which is to be televised for one hour in any day. In fact children's programs are extremely costly with no corresponding financial benefit to the station. The rejection of a program by pre-classification will, in most cases, mean that the program will not be produced at all. This deprives the viewing audience of some potentially excellent programs which have, in effect, been ``censored''. Further, pre-classification automatically prohibits `live' programming and therefore limits the potential of developing certain types of programs, e.g., news, sport, current affairs, designed for children. It is now also proposed that ``programs which are advertised or presented in a way which suggests they meet the ``C'' conditions relating to content'' will also be subject to pre-classification. FACTS is unsure as to what this means. On any interpretation it goes well beyond the power the Tribunal previously purported to apply. (f) The system of pre-classification is likely to produce sterotyped programs which are known or thought to appeal to the predilections of the Classification Committee. Over a period of time this will produce stagnant and unimaginative television programs and therefore stifle creativity. (g) The proposal will effectively deny licensees from any right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal when it is alleged that a program does not comply with the Standard. This right is now enshrined in the Act and should not be taken away. (h) It is argued that the production of Australian drama for children will be adversely affected if there is no pre-classification of programs. This argument cannot be sustained. The pre-classification of programs can have no effect on the amount of first release children's drama telecast each year by licenses. In the absence of pre-classification, licensees would continue to be required to telecast a prescribed amount of Australian produced children's drama which complies with criteria established by the Tribunal. There is ample evidence to show that since the High Court decision on pre-classification, licensees have continued to commission and purchase new children's drama. Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Senate. In essence, FACTS was saying that its principal concern about this matter was that it was a very costly procedure. Secondly, it was worried that the pre-classification of programs meant that children were being denied access to live television broadcasts and that, obviously, because a program could not be pre-classified and at the same time be a live broadcast, children were being fed a diet of rather standardised, formalised, stereotyped television programs and that the excitment of live sport, news broadcasts or any sort of live entertainment relevant to children was being denied to them. The matter further came before the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts which, in reporting on its examination of annual reports, published its third report on children's television standards in August 1985. The Senate Committee undertook a lengthy investigation of this matter and came up with a series of recommendations which, in effect, said that the power of pre-classification should be returned to the Tribunal and made explicit in legislation. The Government has proceeded to take up the recommendations of the Committee. It is a further example of the value of the Senate committee system in dealing with a specific matter coming before the notice of the legislature as a result of some doubts about the existence of powers under Commonwealth legislation. Senator Colston —A fine committee too. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Colston says that it is a fine committee. I note that Senator Colston and Senator Teague, who were intimately concerned with that investigation, are in the chamber this morning. That determination by the Government has received a great deal of support. For instance, it has received support from the Australian Children's Television Foundation. In fact the front cover of its annual report for 1984-85 draws attention to this matter. The front cover has a drawing of a large number of small furry animals in deep distress over the fact that a newspaper headline indicates: Court `pulls plug on children's television'. The back cover has the same furry animals in a state of high excitement over the headline: `Government restores Tribunal's powers'. I think that is a little exaggerated, if I may say so. I think the Australian Children's Television Foundation is also starting to intrude a little too far into the general question of automatically knowing what is best for children. Nevertheless the Opposition is happy to support the amendments to be made to that section of the Act. In particular we are happy that certain progress has been made towards overcoming our problem about live broadcasts for children. In the House of Representatives our shadow Minister for Communications, Mr Ian Macphee, pressed the Government very strongly on whether the new regime would allow the classification of material for children's television at the script stage. Previously, this material has had to be actually produced ready for broadcast and then classified. We have been pressing that what should happen is that a classification should be given for a script and, if the script receives the classification, the program can go ahead and be made and could well turn to be a live program, of course adhering to the script which had been approved. Mr Macphee pressed this very strongly in the House of Representatives on 19 November and, in replying to the debate, Mr Duffy, the Minister for Communications, agreed with the point Mr Macphee was making. In Hansard of 19 November he said that all of his officers `are clearly of the view that the Bill as currently drafted would allow the making of a standard requiring pre-classification at the script stage'. He went on to say: The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is to examine the desirability of making a standard which will allow approval for children's television programs to be based on the script for the program rather than the completed program. We very much welcome the Minister's assurance, and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief statement made by Mr Macphee in response to the Minister's assurances given in the House. Leave granted. The document read as follows- OPPOSITION VICTORY ON CHILDREN'S TV CLASSIFICATION The Opposition has successfully pressured the Government into agreeing that children's television programs may be approved at the script stage, rather than only when the program is completed. This is a major victory for the film and television industries, and will open the way for C classified programs to be broadcast live. The Shadow Minister for Communications, Mr Ian Macphee, strongly supported the Film Industry Standing Committee, which called for the C classification to be available at the final script stage and not merely at the program stage. ``Not to accept the Committee's approach might result in some excellent scripts never being presented as programs because of the possibility of being denied a C status,'' he told the Parliament. ``If the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal can make a judgment at the script stage and grant a final C certificate, that will encourage more investment and encourage more commitment on the part of writers, producers and actors to produce high quality children's programs. We hope that this flexibility will also mean that programs can be run live. As it now is, they are all pre-recorded. ``As a matter of principle the Opposition is opposed to the concept of censorship. But after due deliberation we accept the need for prior approval of programs in order that they be given the C classification to show that they are designed especially for children. ``The Opposition is quite adamant about the fact that this is the only type of pre-classification which is tolerable and, even then, it ought not necessarily be continued in perpetuity.'' Mr Macphee also criticised the trend towards increased regulation, legal complexity and cost of proceedings before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. ``The Opposition believes very strongly in self regulation in the broadcasting industry, and we take the view that those broadcasting standards which a government considers to be important should be in the Act itself rather than drawn up as regulations and administered by the Tribunal,'' he said. ``I intend preparing on behalf of the Opposition a policy aimed at greatly reducing the regulations imposed by the Parliament and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on the broadcasting industry. Moreover we are determined to remove the potential for abuse in procedures designed to help the public. Commercial broadcasting management should have the primary responsibility for meeting and enforcing standards, with the Tribunal retaining the ultimate power to suspend or revoke a licence.'' Senator PUPLICK —The second matter that comes before us is the question of the control of local advertisements. Again, this matter came before the High Court of Australia in the case of Saatchi and Saatchi Compton (Vic.) Pty Limited against the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and Actors Equity of Australia. It was decided originally by His Honour Mr Justice Beaumont on 23 November 1984 and eventually was upheld on appeal in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The essence of this was that the Court held that the Tribunal's powers were powers to fix general standards, that is, standards of decency and standards of taste, but were not to be construed so as to give it power over other things. For instance, in the course of Mr Justice Beaumont's judgment, he said: In my opinion, the ordinary meaning of `standards' and its context suggest that it is the quality of the product, rather than its quantity, that is the subject matter of the Tribunal's power of determination under s. 100 (4) . . . He went on: . . . The Tribunal may regulate the content of the advertised material in terms of its quality in the sense of what is regarded as socially desirable or acceptable. He continued: In my opinion, such a direction does not provide `standards' in relation to the televising of advertisements. The provision does no more than restrict the locations at which television advertisements may be produced to sites within Australia. It does not purport to deal in any way with the quality of what may be televised. The purport of this has been that we have a situation in which the Tribunal has laid down standards about the Australian content of a television commercial so that not more than 20 per cent of the time of the advertisement to be broadcast shall be of non-Australian material. In other words, to give a classic example, if I were an Australian company manufacturing spaghetti and I wanted to make an advertisement showing somebody eating spaghetti in front of the Trevi fountain in Rome, I would have to send an Australian actor and an Australian film crew to Rome to film the commercial. I could not make contact with an agency located in Rome and ask it to film somebody else, using its facilities, in front of the Trevi fountain, and send the film back to me to put on Australian television. I would actually have to send an Australian film crew and an Australian actor to Rome in order to make such an advertisement, given the so-called standards laid down by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that a number of problems arise from this. In its 1983-84 annual report at paragraphs 104 to 106 it indicated that the Tribunal was undertaking an investigation into what was called ghost crewing. It noted: On 30 April 1984 the Tribunal announced that it would conduct a public inquiry into the filming and production of certain British Airways television commercials. This became known as the ghost crewing inquiry. The Tribunal proposed to investigate inter alia whether four British Airways commercials were produced in conformity with the relevant Television Program Standard. Frankly, for the Tribunal to be spending as much time as it has in those sorts of inquiries is really seen as fairly nonsensical. To set out the position in more detail, rather than detain the Senate I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an article from the Australian of 17 June 1985 headed `Tougher local content laws threaten TV ads'. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Tougher local content laws threaten TV ads The Federal Government is believed to be preparing tough new laws to fill the gaps in the Broadcasting and Television Act covering the local content of television advertising. The moves could make the local content standards imposed by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal even harder for multi-national advertisers to expose their international advertising campaigns on local television. The Government's move follows the dismissal last week by the Full Bench of Federal Court of an appeal brought by the tribunal over a decision in favour of international advertising agency, Saatchi and Saatchi. The Full Bench decided in a two-to-one vote on the dismissal, effectively quashing the ABT's advertising standards which state that all television advertisements must be produced in Australa. The standards proclaim ``such advertisements may include a proportion not exceeding 20 per cent of the duration of the advertisement, pictorial or sound matter which portrays persons, places or events which can not be created in Australia''. The section of the tribunal's standards is legally no longer valid and foreign advertisements may now be shown on television. Mr Jim Malone, federal director of the Federation of the Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS), made this point clear after legal advice. He said that while FACTS, the industry's self-regulatory authority, would continue to support the local content standards ``we will need to review the legal basis on which we administer them following the decision''. ABT chairman, Mr David Jones, said after the judgement that ``we will have to look at the general effects of the decision for a few days before making a statement''. Both believe the Government would probably move to cover the loophole during the Budget session of Federal Parliament, although amendments may not be effectively in place for several months. A source close to Saatchi and Saatchi Compton said the agency may have done itself and the industry a disservice as the Government's amendments to the Act could be stronger than the ABT's original standards. The client at the centre of the row has been British Airways which is working under Saatchi and Saatchi Compton's ``global marketing strategy'' meaning one campaign would spread across many countries. The airline is not expected to introduce its overseas advertisements in the short term as a result of the court success, partly because of the Government's intentions to close the loopholes. This would appear to be the case with Coca-Cola, which incidentally will soon be shooting in Australia for footage to be used in overseas campaigns. It is understood the company and its agency, McCann Erickson, were investigating an avenue where overseas produced commercials would be screened as a ``trade off'' for the local shoot. The industry reaction to the judgement could be summed up with the comments of Mr Malcolm Spry, group managing director of Australia's largest locally owned advertising agency, Monahan Dayman Adams. He said many foreign companies would start to use their overseas advertisements in preference to local production. Mr Spry, and the managing director George Patterson in Sydney, Mr Alex Hamill, confirmed there was a growing trend toward ``global marketing'' where multi-nationals use the same advertising strategy and commercials across the world. However, there would be only a few campaigns which could easily be transported to local screens without changes, Mr Hamill said. Companies understood to be keen to use their overseas advertising campaigns include several United States computer giants, including Wang, and also cosmetics group Eastee Lauder. The marketing director at Wang, Mr Steve Chambers, said: ``The decision vindicates our position that no authority should limit our global marketing strategy.'' Wang last year launched two television advertisements in its corporate communications program and bitterly complained that they had to be made in Australia instead of being imported from the US. Mr Chambers said the company was formulating its budget for the next financial year and overseas advertisements could be a part of future campaigns if the Government did not bring in the amendments. Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Senate. The Tribunal, having had its powers restricted by the Saatchi case, noted further in its 1984-85 report that, because the Minister had indicated that he would take steps to overcome this problem, the Tribunal would not take the case further on appeal. It noted that a number of instances had occurred where this problem had arisen before the Tribunal, one instance being an advertisement produced by Young and Rubicam Coudrey Pty Ltd for Volvo and one shown on Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd as a trailer incorporating footage from the American television program Get Smart in an advertisement for Visionhire Aust. Pty Ltd. It was indicated that this was giving the Tribunal problems and the Tribunal has now persuaded the Government to bring down this new set of standards. Frankly, although we do not oppose the clauses relevant to this, we do believe that this is an indication of a quite unnecessary interference in and restriction on the power of advertisers and individuals to determine how they want their products to be marketed and sold and, in our opinion, it is an indication of the Tribunal getting into a far more regulatory stance than we would like to see. The final part of this legislation deals with the powers of the Tribunal under section 119 of the Act in terms of what might be described as the Tribunal's disciplinary powers. Clause 12 of the legislation introduces a new section 119, which states: Where a person has- (a) presented in a live broadcast the whole or a part of a program; or (b) passed or selected for broadcasting the whole or a part of a program (being a program that was subsequently broadcast), in respect of which, or in respect of the broadcasting of which, the program standards were not complied with or this Act was contravened, the Tribunal may, by direction having effect either indefinitely or for a period determined by the Tribunal- (c) prohibit the person from presenting programs in live broadcasts or passing or selecting programs for broadcasting; or (d) impose restrictions on the presenting by the person of programs in live broadcasts or on the passing or selecting by the person of programs for broadcasting. It goes on to describe certain procedures which must be undertaken in terms of notification and hearings. But the key thing to understand about this is that this is a power given to the Tribunal now to say: `We, the Tribunal, will set program standards'. It is not necessarily very easy to get copies of all these program standards out of the Tribunal; they are not as well known publicly as they ought to be. But if a person breaches one of these program standards-leave aside a breach of the Act; we do not object to that-he may be taken off the air by the Broadcasting Tribunal for whatever period it may direct. It may be for an hour, it may be for a day or it may be for the rest of his career. Not only may he be taken off the air but also he may be prevented from undertaking certain activities related to what the Act describes as the passing or selecting of programs. If one looks at the explanatory memorandum one sees, in terms of the lack of clarity in the Act, that were a court to turn to the explanatory memorandum for some sort of guidance in the matter it would find this: Clause 12 substitutes a new section 119 which empowers the Tribunal to issue directions to a person to prohibit the person from presenting live broadcasts or selecting programs for broadcasting. In other words, it is not just that he may not participate in live broadcasting; it is that he may not participate in selecting programs for broadcasting. In other words, he might not be able to function as an editor, he might not be able to function as a program controller, or he might not be able to function as a person selecting programs. This goes considerably further than the old provisions of section 119. The old section 119 referred to broadcasts which caused or may have caused offence to a section of the public. It did not refer to the specific standards laid down by the Tribunal in its own program standards. This makes the Tribunal not only the legislator but also the judge, the prosecutor and the sentencing authority. Under those circumstances, in the Committee stage we propose to move an amendment that has been circulated on behalf of the Opposition to leave out the words `the program standards were not complied with or'. In other words, we propose to move an amendment that states that only breaches of the Act should be treated in this fashion because the Act is known, it is public and it is generally available. We believe that that should be the test against which people should be judged. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter to me from David Morgan, the Federal Director of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, which sets out the views of that organisation on the proposed changes to section 119. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Senator Chris Puplick, Parliament House Canberra Dear Chris, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our concerns about the Government's proposed amendment to s119 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, 1942. The amendment which is contained in the B &T Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), 1985 has been correctly described in the House of Representatives as ``draconian''. * * * ``Restrictions on Participation in Broadcasts The amended section 119, by its inordinate and unnecessary width, has the potential for the Tribunal to introduce new forms of censorship in that Tribunal has the potential to make orders against a licensee which could effectively prohibit the broadcast of certain matter or the broadcasts by the certain individuals. While the stated objective of the provision was linked with live broadcasts, effectively the new section has the potential of affecting the rights of individuals employed in the broadcasting industry. The old section 119 provided that where a person has been prosecuted or convicted by a criminal court of ``rendering, passing or selecting for broadcast an item which contained matter which was blasphemous, indecent or obscene . . .'' or which had caused offence to a section of the public the Tribunal could direct that person to refrain from rendering, passing of selecting an item for broadcast for a specified period. The scope of the new section 119 is not limited to serious enfringements such as blasphemy, indecency and obscenity. Nor does it rely, in the first instance, on a prosecution in a criminal court. It now encompasses non compliance with Program Standards and any contravention of the Act. It should be noted that the Tribunal would be given a power to prohibit a person indefinitely from passing or selecting programs for broadcasts where that person may have passed or selected a program which had been shown to breach a program standard. History reveals that the situations to which the Minister referred in his second reading speech, namely, where live broadcasts are involved are extremely rare. It must be presumed therefore that the additional power and wider scope has been deliberately included to enable the Tribunal to take action on matters which were not necessarily referred to by the Minister. FACTS questions the necessity to create a statutory power which has been potential of threatening the livelihood and future of individuals employed in the television industry, relying on the act of passing or selecting for broadcast material which was found to be a contravention of a Program Standard or the Act. People who pass or select material for broadcast are the employees of the licensee. It is the licensee who is responsible for the supervision and the actions of employees just as it is the licensee who is responsible for the televising of any material passed or selected by its employees. FACTS submits that if a situation were to arise where such a major concern became evident after proper inquiry that a major concern emerged in respect of a live broadcast it would be a sufficient and simple solution for the tribunal to request a licensee to pre-record any such matter or any such individual. The Minister concedes in his second reading speech that in those circumstances it would be the licensee who would be clearly responsible. Again, I take this opportunity to thank you for your interest. Yours sincerely DAVID MORGAN Federal Director Senator PUPLICK —We believe that in particular in relation to section 119, these are absolutely major problems with the administration of the Broadcasting and Television Act. We will therefore move after the second reading stage a motion under Standing Order 196A for the referral of this matter to a committee for further investigation. We do not believe that the delay in establishing the renewed powers of the Tribunal in relation to children's television will do any damage between now and February and we do not believe that the restriction on the production of advertisements will do any damage between now and February. But we do believe that the issues which are raised by proposed new section 119 in clause 12 of this legislation are of sufficient importance that they ought to be investigated. It is our intention to move that motion. Apart from that, I conclude by repeating our general complaint that the way in which the Government is going about making amendments to broadcasting and television legislation is still too ad hoc and too responsive to immediate crises and has not presented a thought-out revision of the Act which, clearly, is long overdue. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.29) —Like Senator Puplick I pay a very great tribute to Mr David Jones for his magnificent work as Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Australian Democrats, unlike the Opposition, will be vigorously supporting the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). While I am paying tributes I would like to pay tribute to the current Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who I believe is probably the best Minister for Communications that we have had for a long time. Unlike Senator Puplick, the Democrats believe that this legislation is urgent. When I say that it is urgent I mean that it needs to be passed this session. The Democrats would need to have overwhelming reasons to move any amendments to this Bill because, as we know, the House of Representatives, in its customary fashion, has risen early for the year and if the Senate moves an amendment to this Bill it will lie in King's Hall somewhere between the Senate and the House of Representatives chambers. When legislation is in limbo I do not know where it goes. Is it stuck between the legs of King George V and left there until the House of Representatives resumes or where does it go? The point is that if amendments were carried this Bill would not be passed and the amendments in the original Bill would not apply until February. I have had some reasonable representations from Ada de Lacy, Executive Director of the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia, and I have received a letter from Barbara Biggins of the Australian Council for Children's Films and Television and a letter from the Australian Children's Television Action Committee imploring me and other political parties to pass this legislation without delay. Therefore, the Australian Democrats would need overwhelming reasons to prevent this Bill being given royal assent. The Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill is an essential piece of legislation. Television has changed the world. In fact, it is a technological phenomenon for which I believe the world, particularly Australia, was not ready socially. We saw it coming but, like many technological advances, we did not prepare our children for it, we did not prepare family life for it and it and it has had a fundamental impact on our philosophy. Television has changed the world and it has changed the way in which we see the world. It took the printing press, which was invented in the sixteenth century, 300 years to have a marked impact on the world or its people. It has taken television less than 30 years to have a massive impact. School age children in Australia now spend seven hours watching television for every hour that they spend reading. I shall repeat that to emphasise it. Average school age children spend seven times more of their time watching television than they do reading. That indicates how incredibly television has changed our society. Another staggering statistic is that the average school children, during their school lives, will spend 15,000 hours watching television, whereas they will spend only 11,500 hours in school. In other words, they will spend about a quarter more of their time watching television than they will spend listening to teachers in school. Senator Robertson —And a good deal of it inappropriate for them. Senator CHIPP —Indeed, a good deal of it is inappropriate and ill-chosen. During their school lives such children will see half a million advertisements. While I am mentioning commercials I pay tribute to the commercial television stations in Australia. By and large, I think they do a magnificent job. In fact, they compare more than favourably with commercial television stations in other parts of the world. But somewhere along the line a most irritating and impertinent phenomenon is being allowed to occur. Why do these television stations allow the advertisements broadcast to be louder than other parts of the programs? I find it impertinent-- Senator Collard —They are not supposed to be. They are supposed to be automatically tuned down. Senator CHIPP —I know that they are. I have checked this with the Department of Communications. There is some technical device-Senator Collard, with his great knowledge of technical matters, would know this-which enables the frequencies to be fiddled with so that the advertisements appear louder to the listener. I find it offensive to my young children when they are watching a children's show to have to experience the showing of advertisements that suddenly come through much more loudly than the rest of the program. However, that is by the way. An industry which has that amount of influence over the way we see the world, particularly the way the young see the world, has to be subject to government regulation. I think even the most passionate deregulation-minded person would have to agree with that. The responsibility for regulation, including the setting of standards, falls on the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I should mention that in order to fulfil that responsibility, the Tribunal needs to be adequately staffed, which I believe is not the case at the moment. Until the Saat- chi and Herald-Sun Television cases, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal excerised two crucially important regulatory powers, namely, the ability to set quantitative standards, such as those specifying the amount of Australian content which must be broadcast; and secondly, the right to require children's `C' time programs be shown to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal before they were approved for broadcast. This we refer to as the pre-classification power. As I understand it, the Opposition puts forward a respectable philosophical point about standards. Opposition members have some objection to which Senator Puplick referred to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal setting the standards. FACTS-the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations-also has that view; it objects to the Tribunal setting standards. I think there are only two other possibilities. One is total self-regulation. With the media having such an incredible effect on human life, particularly children's lives, there must be regulation. But somewhere along the line the Opposition has seriously suggested that Parliament should set the standards. That at first may look a respectable proposition, but can anybody here imagine a debate on a Bill which sets standards? The mind boggles at the kinds of contributions that would come from all over the place if Parliament were to set the standards. Senator Puplick —We already do in terms of blasphemy and indecency. That is provided in the law at the moment. Senator CHIPP —Indeed we do, and as a former Minister for Customs, I know the difficulty in interpreting even words which have been specifically designated as that. But we have to go that far and I acknowledge Senator Puplick's point, but when one refers to standards, it goes so far beyond just being blasphemous, obscene or offensive. The only group, as I understand it, to oppose pre-classification was FACTS. Its reservations related partly first, to the effect of pre-classification on investment in children's programming-a respectable point of view; secondly, to the fact that the Tribunal's Children's Television Committee lacked the necessary expertise. I think Senator Puplick raised a question mark about the Tribunal's capacity or expertise in this matter. The suggestion put forward by the Film Industry Standing Committee that pre-classification be done at the final draft script stage has been accepted by the Minister. This would seem to answer one of the industry's complaints. The industry's other criticism that the Children's Television Committee lacked expertise and should be replaced by a panel of industry experts does not, I say with respect, impress me too much. Children's television, including the eight hours of children's drama which licensees are required to program each year, is judged against eight age specific criteria. In order to judge whether the program meets the necessary standard, the Committee needs considerable knowledge of the child audience as well as a knowledge of television production. If the industry is objecting to the expertise or lack of it in that Children's Program Committee, let us look at who is on it. I would like Senator Puplick to tell me which group he objects to and where there is no expertise. Senator Puplick —I did not draw attention to their expertise. I said that they were going too far in regulating children's television, not that there was any lack of expertise. That was a criticism made by FACTS, not by me. Senator CHIPP —Then I withdraw my comment about Senator Puplick and I accept what he says. Let us look at this Committee. Three of its members are from the television industry. One member is a writer and publisher of children's books. One member is a librarian expert in the area of children's literature, and one member is a child development expert. One member is a mother of children in the age group covered by the Committee's work. The Tribunal's power to set quantitative standards is particularly necessary if the world we see on television is to be an Australian world. Only 4 per cent of prime time television is taken up with Australian drama. At least 80 per cent of advertisements are Australian, which is some compensation, as advertising has been a training ground for the Australian film industry. In passing, I make the sad comment that we have allowed overseas companies to take over the Australian advertising industry. I have not the figure with me now but over 80 per cent of our advertising industry in Australia is owned overseas. Therefore, it is essential that there is a requirement in legislation forcing television stations to run Australian-made material. I listened carefully to Senator Puplick's complaint about the difficulties of this requirement, and I accept the thrust of his argument. But if we did not have something in the Act as I have indicated we would have nothing but Coca-Cola ads produced in the United States of America and so on. The Australian film industry and industries associated with advertising in Australia would suffer. The power to regulate the amount of Australian content in advertisements was struck down by the Saatchi case and is restored by clauses 4 and 6 of this Bill. The Opposition, as I understand it, objects to clause 10 which gives the Tribunal the power to reprimand or admonish a licensee for a breach of program standards, and clause 12 which confers on the Tribunal the power to prohibit a person from live broadcasting for breach of program standards. I know that the industry is concerned about these sanctions and, as Senator Puplick will be moving an amendment in Committee, I will reserve my remarks until that stage. It must be borne in mind that under clause 7, the Tribunal must call an inquiry before imposing any of these sanctions. Clause 8 provides a defence that the breach of standards was, first, due to a reasonable mistake, secondly, due to reasonable reliance on information supplied by others or, thirdly, was beyond the licensee's reasonable control. In addition, a decision that a broadcaster is in breach of section 119 is reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on its merits. It is not possible to rely, as the Opposition wishes to, on self-regulation by the industry, backed up by the ultimate sanction of removing or suspending a broadcaster's licence. What government would even contemplate taking a licence away from Kerry Packer, for example? I am not suggesting that that would be desirable. I think that he has made a magnificent contribution to media in Australia. It is nonsense to say that we should rely on the ultimate sanction of taking away a broadcaster's licence. The value of a major metropolitan television licence could be measured in hundreds of millions of dollars. Metropolitan television stations last year made an operating profit of $63.6m. Removing or suspending the licence of a major television station is not a realistic, flexible or effective way of enforcing broadcasting standards. This Bill gives power to admonish and gives the Tribunal power to force that admonition to be broadcast by the offending television licensee. For example, if the television licensee broadcasts something offensive, the Tribunal can say to Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10 or whatever it is: `As the first item on your 6.30 news, you will broadcast that the Tribunal has admonished you for doing something offensive'. That seems to be a reasonable sort of penalty. It can suspend a person; it can impose restrictions on a person. In other words, it can say, for example, that a provocative announcer on radio must have a seven-second delay button. How the hell they work those things out still mystifies me. When I am doing a talk-back program, knowing how someone can press a button and delay what I am saying for seven seconds, I am mystified. This sort of precaution can be imposed on a person or a television licensee. Perhaps we can talk a little more about that in detail in Committee. Generally we support the legislation and commend the Government for bringing it in. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.45) —I do not propose to delay the passage of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Referral to Committee Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.46) —I move, pursuant to standing order 196A: That the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in February 1986. The only point I make about this motion is that we believe that delay may allow us to look at some of the significant civil liberties problems which, we believe, arise under the proposed new section 119. We do not believe that it will have any adverse effect on the children's television side of things or on the advertising side of things. For instance, the children's television decision was made on 21 May 1985. I do not believe that there has been any substantial decline in the quality of children's television programs broadcast since May 1985. Another couple of months will not make any difference to the continuation of that decision. The decision on the Saatchi case was handed down on 23 November 1984. For more than a year we do not believe there has been any evidence that Australian airwaves have been flooded by foreign or substandard commercials. I note with great interest Senator Chipp's concern that we will be flooded with American made Coca-Cola commercials. It is curious that he has picked that as an example because, in fact, the Coca-Cola company was so impressed with the standard of Coca-Cola commercials made in Australia that it took a very brilliant young television executive by the name of Kilner Mason from the advertising agency that he worked for in Australia over to the United States to make all of Coca-Cola's advertisements for world-wide distribution. Senator Collard —They have won prizes. Senator PUPLICK —Indeed, the Australian Coca-Cola advertisements have won international awards. Therefore, we do not believe that another couple of months delay on the children's television side of things or on the commercial side of things will in fact harm Australian television. We believe it will give the Standing Committee time to look at the civil liberties implications of section 119 and that that is an important and worthwhile part of the operation of a Senate committee. I indicate that should the Australian Democrats indicate that they will not support our reference to the Committee we do not propose to divide on the question. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.50) —For reasons I gave in my speech during the second reading debate on the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) the Australian Democrats cannot support the motion. We do not think that there is the concern that Senator Puplick genuinely believes there is. Secondly, we would need overwhelming reasons to delay this legislation because of representations we have had from the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia, the Australian Council for Children's Films and Television and other organisations pleading with the Parliament to pass this legislation with expedition. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.51) —Very briefly, the Government of course will not be accepting the amendment. The principal reasons are: Firstly, this Bill does nothing more than restore to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal the powers it always assumed it had prior to the court's decisions; secondly, the changes in the Bill are consistent with the recommondations of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts August 1985 report and the Administrative Review Council in relation to the enforcement of the standards of ABT procedures. Obviously, of course, if this amendment were accepted the Bill could not be passed in 1985 and would not be passed until well into 1986. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.51) —in reply-The only remark I make is that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is not correct in saying that this Bill does nothing more. It does nothing more in relation to the children's television programs. It does nothing more in relation to the Saatchi case in advertising, but it does a considerable amount more in relation to removing the old section 119 and introducing a new section 119. The Minister simply is in error in saying the Bill does nothing more than re-establish a pre-existing situation. Question resolved in the negative. The Bill. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.52) —I move the amendment to clause 12 circulated on behalf of the Opposition. I move: Clause 12, proposed new sub-section 119 (1), leave out `the program standards were not complied with or'. I will be brief on this matter. The reason for moving this amendment is that we believe that if people are to be punished, as indeed they can under the provisions of section 119, there ought to be a great deal more clarity in terms of what it is they are to be judged against. We do not believe that a contravention of program standards should carry the same weight as contravention of the Act. I draw attention to the fact that section 119 of the Act has been a live issue. For instance, in February 1979 the Melbourne radio station 3CR was subject to an Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiry over some alleged anti-semitic broadcast. Certain restrictions were placed on it. In a subsequent case the Melbourne public broadcasting section 3RRR had its licence renewed in October 1978 for a period of only one year instead of the usual three years, for the simple offence that a volunteer broadcaster had broadcast what was deemed to be an offensive record. The station was punished accordingly. In May 1972 the Broadcasting Tribunal directed that no live interviews with Dave Allen, Peter Cook or Dudley Moore should be broadcast on Australian stations because their language was regarded as causing offence to people. So these three fairly well known and well established international comedians-- Senator Chipp —And very funny ones. Senator PUPLICK —Indeed, as Senator Chipp said, they are extremely funny people. The Tribunal directed that they were not to be allowed to be featured in live interviews. In December 1974 Mary Hardy was called on to show cause why she should not be put off the air for use of an expletive. In March 1975 Mr Graham Kennedy got into a certain amount of trouble for making certain calls which he indicated were the imitation of a crow. Since then both Ian Chappell and Derryn Hinch have had certain problems with their broadcasting-in one case I think deliberately; and, in the other case, somewhat more accidentally-and with the operations of the Broadcasting Tribunal. After all Ian Chappell was punished for the sort of off the cuff slip that characterises most of the public utterances of the President of the United States, who does not quite know when the microphone is on or when it is not on. Yet Ian Chappell has been subjected to a regime under section 119 which is now proposed by the amendment in the Bill before us to be extended. We believe that breaches of the Act may in fact form a proper basis for people to have judgement rendered against them and for punishment to be imposed on them. What we do not believe is that the breaches of the program standards, that is to say, the way not in which the Parliament interprets the Act but the way in which the Broadcasting Tribunal interprets the Act, should carry the same weight as the actual principal legislation. We have had trouble finding out what the program standards are in a number of instances. They are not easy to obtain and they are not published in the sort of way that the Act and the Regulations under the Act are published. For instance, one cannot go to the Government Bookshop and obtain a copy of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal program standards in the way in which one can obtain a copy of the Broadcasting Act and the regulations made under that Act. Therefore, people may find themselves in breach of standards which are not well known or which are not standards specifically given the approval of the Parliament or subject to parliamentary approval in the way in which regulations are subject to that approval. We believe that this is an excessive power and that it is one which should not be in the legislation. Finally, we believe the power is excessive in that it is not just that people can be punished by being taken off the air; they can be punished be being restricted from undertaking other activities. The words in the Act are `passing or selecting programs for broadcasting'. Thus, a whole broadcasting career might be put in jeopardy. The restriction might be for an hour, a day, a month, a year or it might be a permanent ban. Although the decision is reviewable on its merit by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, I put it to the Committee that the sentence is not reviewable in the same way and, secondly, the standards-the touchstones against which one must be tested-are not reviewable by the AAT. More importantly, they are not reviewable by the Parliament. This is an excessive power which should not be in the Act and the Opposition has therefore moved this amendment which I commend to the Committee. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.57) —For reasons that I gave during the second reading debate of the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Bill (No. 2) 1985, the Australian Democrats cannot support the amendment, although we acknowledge that it is a very responsible and proper matter for Senator Puplick to bring up. This is a difficult question. I disagree with Senator Puplick slightly when he said that the amendment goes further than the original one of 1942. We must remember that something like this has been in the Act since 1942. It is interesting to read the way in which the Act of 1942 is more draconian than this one, and that is where I disagree with Senator Puplick. Section 119 of the 1942 Act says: Where- (a) a person is convicted of an offence against the last preceding section or; (b) the Board has reason to believe that a person- (i) has rendered for broadcasting or televising an item; or (ii) has passed or selected for broadcasting or televising an item (being an item broadcast or televised from a broadcasting station or a television station, as the case may be), which has caused or may have caused offence to a section of the public, the Board may call upon that person to show cause . . . That is draconian. It specifies that an offence may be caused if a person has broadcast an item which has `caused or may have caused offence to a section of the public'. Does that mean that if Channel 7 broadcasts something that is offensive or may be offensive to the League of Rights or to some fundamentalist Moslem group-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Or the Demo- crats. Senator CHIPP —Yes, or anyone-the Democrats or even the Liberal Party or whoever. If it is offensive to a section of the public then an offence would have been committed. The current section 119 is less draconian. Admittedly, Senator Puplick quite properly said that it leaves the determination of those standards in the hands of the Tribunal. I agree with him on that. I do not agree with him that it is difficult for a broadcaster, whether it be a radio station or a television station, to obtain a copy of those standards. It might be difficult for Joe Blow to walk in off the street and say `Look here, what are your standards?'; but certainly every radio and television station in Australia is very well informed about those standards. We have been given an assurance by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and I would be pleased if the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, would pay us the courtesy of repeating it today. I hope that the Department of Communications has furnished him with the appropriate words from Mr Duffy which Mr Duffy promised me that he would read into this debate in order to give us an assurance that section 119-that is clause 12 of this Bill-is not intended to have the effect of preventing a person who commits an offence as a live broadcaster from participating in any form of broadcasting. I was speaking to Mr Duffy on the telephone this morning and he promised that he would furnish that assurance to Senator Walsh. Section 119 has been in the Act since 1942 and in that time it has never been used in the way in which Senator Puplick fears. The Tribunal could not impose an unreasonable penalty-it cannot under the amended section in any case, because section 119 (2) requires the Tribunal to consider the offence and impose a reasonable penalty. If in any instance the penalty was unreasonable, there is a right of appeal to have the decision reheard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on its merit. This is a significant safeguard of the rights of broadcasters. For these reasons the Democrats cannot support the amendment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.01) —The Government will not accept the amendment either, for the same sorts of reasons as those Senator Chipp has given. Senator Chipp referred to this matter, but I think it is important that I should repeat it: The proposed control over standards, if you like, in the Bill is a good deal less sweeping than that in the existing Act. The existing Act mentions that `anything that causes offence to the public'-- Senator Chipp —Any section of the public. Senator WALSH —Yes, to any section of the public, can result in the offender being put off the air. That will only apply under the new Bill to breaches of the Act or of program standards. The other matter raised by Senator Chipp was about the assurance he had been promised by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). I have a note here from the Minister's office which I trust will cover Senator Chipp's request. It says that normally the licensee has control over the selection of programs to be broadcast. However, in relation to a live broadcast, a particular person has authority to decide which sound and/or pictures go to air. The part of section 119 which deals with the selection of programs is aimed at this sort of situation. The intention is that if a particular person abuses this authority so as to breach standards or the Act, his future participation in the selection of programs where the licensee has no control might be limited. However, this does not affect the preparation of programs where the licensee or the licensee's employees can approve or disapprove of them. The power proposed in section 119 is not a new one. The power to take that sort of action in relation to offensive programs has existed since 1942. Indeed, for these reasons the power is a good deal less sweeping than it was between 1942 and the present. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Puplick's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator M. Townley) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Missen, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Harradine, B.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. MacKiernan, J. P.Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Morris, J.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Vigor, D. B.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Lewis, A. W. R. Coleman, R. N.Brownhill, D. G. C. McClelland, DouglasWithers, R. G. Button, J. N.Hill, R. Robertson, E. A.Messner, A. J. Grimes, D. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.11) —Although the Opposition will not oppose the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 at the second reading stage, I must register our dis- pleasure about the way in which legislation of this magnitude and complexity is being dealt with. Over the last few years I have spoken at some length in the Senate about this practice. At this stage of the debate I move the following amendment: At the end of the motion, add: `, but the Senate- (a) expresses its deep concern at the burden of costs and diversion of resources caused by excessive regulation that constricts Australian business and blunts its competitive edge; (b) expresses its deep concern that the apparent quest for certainty in legislation has led to unnecessary complexity and technicality; and (c) records its view that the entire legislative package which is the subject of the amendments proposed by this Bill needs to be examined as a whole with the objectives of: (i) lifting from business the burden of unnecessary, confusing and incompetently drafted laws and excessive regulation, (ii) limiting legislation to essential matters, (iii) achieving brevity, simplicity and intelligibility with the purpose of making laws as comprehensible as possible to the ordinary intelligent lay reader, (iv) widening the process of outside consultation, and (v) streamlining the processes of law making'. I would like to indicate some of the sorts of problems that we confront with this companies and securities legislation. It amends a series of Acts dealing with companies and securities. The 118-page Bill contains 200 clauses. The explanatory memorandum which has been made available to the Parliament is of 231 pages. Whether that document elucidates the technical problems in the Bill might be another matter. Into the bargain, the Government put down a guillotine to limit debate on this legislation in the House of Representatives. Only 45 minutes was allowed for debate on this massive piece of legislation. The use of the guillotine meant there was no opportunity to debate the Committee stage of the Bill. The amendment which I have just moved was in fact moved and defeated in the House of Representatives. Despite the fact that the Bill has been sitting on the Senate Notice Paper for some time, the Government has brought on this major piece of legislation for debate late in the morning of the last day of sitting of the current session. I was personally approached by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) yesterday. He expressed his great concern that the legislation should be passed and not delayed. The Opposition has never intended to delay it. As I said, I was personally requested by the Attorney-General not to impede its passage today. He said it was absolutely vital that it be passed so that the Government could abide by the obligations placed upon it under the co-operative arrangements with the States and the Ministerial Council of Commonwealth and State Ministers. I am detailing these points to get on the record yet again-I do not know how many more times I will have to get it on the record-that it is simply not good enough for such a major package of legislation dealing with companies and securities laws, complicated and detailed as they are, and in many cases, inevitably complicated, to be handled in this way in this Parliament. I am not prepared to buy that, and I have said this before. I know it was the Fraser Government that entered into the scheme, and I had some ministerial responsibility for it for a short time, but I repeat that it is not good enough to take the view that because the Ministerial Council has proposed this piece of legislation, there is nothing the Parliament can do about it. That is simply not the case. Although there are obligations under the scheme-- Senator Gareth Evans —Stop fulminating. You took exactly the same view when you were in government. Senator DURACK —If Senator Evans were to listen to what I am saying he would not make that sort of inane interjection. There is an obligation, as the Attorney-General personally reminded me yesterday, and I accept what he said; I agree with it. He has an obligation under the scheme to put this legislation before the Parliament, and if the Parliament does not pass it then certain consequences may follow. Let us not be intimidated, as the Attorney-General seemed to be, by any likely threats from the States to terminate this scheme. For goodness sake, the States have gained magnificent concessions under this scheme. They will not want to repudiate it. So let us be real politicians for once and stand up for our responsibilities in this Parliament. Senator Gareth Evans —Are you in favour of national legislation? Senator DURACK —If the Minister will listen he might possibly follow the drift of my argument-with effort, I know. My argument which is not a new one-I am only repeating what I have said in this place several times before-is that if this Parliament is dissatisfied with certain aspects of the legislation, even though it has been agreed to by the Ministerial Council, and if we had had proper time to deal with it, the Ministerial Council would have to look at the Parliament's views. The Ministerial Council would have to face the question of whether or not it was prepared to accept the views of this Parliament. If it was not, that may be the end of the scheme; I do not believe for one minute that it would be. The overwhelming probability is that if this Parliament were insisting on a particular amendment to the legislation, the Ministerial Council would accept our views. Yet time after time the Minister comes in here and says that there is nothing that can be done about it. Despite the fact that we are the national Parliament, despite the fact that the Minister has a fundmental responsibility to this Parliament, despite the fact that we have the ultimate responsibility for the good government of this nation and the welfare of the business community, we are being told that we are not able to do anything about it. We simply have to rubber stamp what the Ministerial Council does. I am well aware that there is great concern about the co-operative scheme itself. I am well aware that many people think it is a mistake and that there ought simply to be a national scheme. I am not going to debate that today. I am trying to make this co-operative scheme work better. The present view of the Opposition on this scheme is that it ought to be able to work better than it does, and it may well be that it ought to be reviewed. We are in the process of reviewing all our policies and, no doubt, that is one policy we will be reviewing. I am not debating that issue today; I am debating this legislation and I am simply saying that the way this Government approaches the question is not good enough. We should consider further that this Bill is an annual Bill. In fact, I think it is a biannual Bill now; we seem to be getting two of these Bills a year. Certainly, there are exposure drafts and amendments made as a result of the exposure drafts. I am all in favour of such drafts. I said earlier today that it was time the Government gave us an exposure draft on its resource rent tax. I commend the approach that has been taken in relation to this legislation. That exposure draft is for the business community and other interested people, but that does not relieve us as legislators of our responsibility of having to say yea or nay to the final result, which is the legislation presented to this Parliament. I have suggested, and I reiterate, that this Parliament should set up a standing committee on companies and securities. Because it is essentially a review process, it would be a Senate committee and it would comprise senators with an interest in and a knowledge of, or they would obtain a knowledge of, these technical matters. At least in that way there would be some contribution to this major responsibility of the national Parliament. There could be no greater abdication of our responsibility than the sorry history I have just detailed of the way this piece of legislation is being processed through the Parliament in this session. Today, right at the very end of the session, I am under pressure to keep my remarks as short as possible because there are still a number of other Bills that have to be passed today before the Senate rises late this afternoon. That is simply not good enough. I propose to keep on making these complaints as long as I have the responsibility of handling this legislation on behalf of the Opposition in the Senate. As I said, this legislation seems to be biannual; it might even be triannual next year. As far as I can see, it will go up at an exponential rate. Once we have hugely complicated, detailed legislation such as this, the need develops for more and more amendments to it. My learned colleague Mr Spender, who dealt with this matter in another place, indicated that the Opposition was opposed to a number of clauses in the Bill. He gave reasons for that opposition, and I do not propose to go over them again here. On behalf of the Opposition I have just moved an amendment in principle to the motion for the second reading, and we propose to press that view in this debate. However, as we all know, that will not amend the legislation. I do not propose to move or to debate amendments in Committee, but I want to put on record the fact that the Opposition is opposed to 15 clauses in the Bill. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the various clauses or sub-clauses of the Bill which we oppose. As Senator Gareth Evans has not seen the table, perhaps he would like to do so, but I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- (1) Clause 6, page 6, lines 1-9, omit paragraph (b). (2) Clause 9-Opposition to oppose. (3) Clause 34-Opposition to oppose. (4) Clause 35-Opposition to oppose. (5) Clause 55-Opposition to oppose. (6) Clause 66-Opposition to oppose. (7) Clause 72-Opposition to oppose. (8) Clause 73-Opposition to oppose. (9) Clause 74-Opposition to oppose. (10) Clause 75-Opposition to oppose. (11) Clause 94-Opposition to oppose. (12) Clause 105-Opposition to oppose. (13) Clause 168, page 102, lines 3-18, omit paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). (14) Clause 170-Opposition to oppose. (15) Clause 191-Opposition to oppose. Senator DURACK —That approach is in accord with the stance we took in the other place, where the Bill was introduced and where the fullest debate should have occurred on all these matters, but, after only 45 minutes, the Opposition was cut off from doing anything about it because of the use of the guillotine. Mr Spender did all he could and tabled the list of the clauses that the Opposition was opposing in the other place. I do not want to delay the passage of this Bill, because I share the concern of the Attorney-General, which he expressed to me yesterday. If we were to debate the 15 clauses, the Bill simply would not go through the Parliament today because the Parliament is getting up. We are again hamstrung from doing anything effective about this piece of legislation. As I said, the Opposition certainly does not want the legislation to be defeated or delayed. The fact is, if it had been brought on at an appropriate time, some more rational debate might have been able to be had about it in this chamber. Certainly as the House of review we ought to have more time than the House of Representatives was given. Although we do not have a guillotine in force today, we have the pressure of time, this being the last few hours of the sittings of the Senate during the Budget session. I simply want to put on record the Opposition's dissatisfaction, at the very least, with 15 clauses of this legislation, massive as it is, and reiterate the need for a different approach to handling this sort of legislation. I believe that a great deal of the Bills that are at least annual, and a great deal of the material that is put up through the process of the ministerial council and ultimately through this Parliament, are unnecessary. My learned friend's comments in another place have indicated some examples of where we believe that this legislation is unnecessary. In fact, there is not much good to be seen in it at all and indeed a lot of it is unnecessary. However, I commend one particular provision in this legislation; the proposal for the removal of retirement villages from the ambit of this scheme. It was discovered that, because of the sort of complexity which I have mentioned, the proposals which are put forward under which people invest money in retirement villages were treated as a prospectus and had to comply with all the elaborate paraphernalia of this scheme. Last year there was widespread concern among the trustees of charitable bodies and other organisations which run retirement schemes. They were protesting strongly about it at that time. As shadow Attorney-General, I told them that we were opposed to that and certainly, if elected to government, we would remove it. I am pleased that the present Attorney-General obviously has made the same decision and in this legislation has excluded retirement villages from having those requirements imposed on them. I commend him for that; it is a very good approach. I commend to him that he should follow that approach in respect of a whole lot of other proposals that he finds being put up to him through the processes of the Ministerial Council and his own advisers. However, there are a number of other things in this proposal which increase regulation, instead of decrease regulation, to the tune of 200 clauses in the Bill and the promise of plenty more to come in the coming year. That is a happy thought for the new year. I hope that the Attorney-General and the Government will be able to do better next year than they have done in the past couple of years. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.30) —The Australian Democrats will not be opposing this piece of legislation, although I would like to take up a comment of Senator Durack about the difficulty in which this Senate finds itself regularly at the end of the session when the House of Representatives is up and we are faced with Bills of one sort or another which may be more or less imperfect and which may benefit from amendments of one sort or another. We are prevented from doing that simply because, if the legislation does not get through, the Bill will not come into force until some months later when the House of Representatives resumes sitting. I can recall us complaining about this under previous governments and I would have thought that any political party which had the nous to get into government also would have the nous to arrange its business in such a way that this kind of mess occurred less regularly instead of more regularly. The Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 arises, as has already been said by Senator Durack, from the Commonwealth's obligations under the formal agreement reached by the States and the Commonwealth in 1978-an agreement and arrangement that was implemented under a previous Liberal Government. The agreement provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth-States scheme for uniform laws with regard to companies and the securities industry. In accordance with the agreement, this legislation has been agreed to by the ministerial council, which does not appear to have met with a great deal of approval from Senator Durack. Nevertheless, it has been agreed to by the Ministerial Council on Companies and Securities. If it is passed, it will automatically amend corresponding State legislation. I suggest that that was at least part of the reason for both Senator Durack's and my concern about being forced to pass this legislation willy-nilly because it has come before us when the House of Representatives is not in a position to accept any Senate-originating amendments. The first exposure draft was released, I understand, in June of last year. There was, as usual, some considerable response to the draft that was brought down by the Government; indeed, that is why drafts are brought down. Changes were made as a consequence of those responses and a second draft was issued in June of this year. In addition, I understand that a number of seminars were held at which the legislation was discussed. So to argue that there has been no consultation or very limited consultation falls down in the face of that sort of seminar and draft process. When this Bill was being debated in the House of Representatives a number of members of the Opposition babbled on, as they have a tendency to do, about how there is too much regulation involved right across the board. They objected to a number of aspects, such as the takeover provisions, the investigative powers granted to the National Companies and Securities Commission, disclosure of the basis on which shares are held and provisions affecting winding up. The complaint about the fact that we as a country are becoming excessively regulated is one that I hear regularly when I talk to and meet with people not only in the business area but also in other areas in the community. The attitude of people to having regulations imposed on them seems to me to be remarkably similar to the attitude of people to tax reform. They have a tendency to get up and say that there are all sorts of problems, but they still want their own particular concessions, protections and so on built into the legislation; it is everyone else who is supposed to be prepared to give ground. It is an unfortunate `protect me only' syndrome that is creeping into the community at all levels which I see as I talk to groups. I hope fervently that it is a very temporary measure indeed, because it is extremely selfish and expensive to the community to the extent that vested interest groups are pushing their own barrow and their own obvious selfish interests to a much greater extent now than ever before. The Liberals have brought forward a fairly long amendment, which is an attachment to the second reading motion, but, as Senator Durack pointed out, it will not hold up the passage of this legislation. They express a number of concerns in that amendment to which I will come in a moment, but they do not seem to have raised-I would have thought that this was at least as important as some of the things they mentioned in their amendment and some of the things that were raised in debate in another place-the point that it is increasingly recognised across the board that there are problems which need to be solved and that many of these problems flow from unregulated corporate behaviour. One thing that has concerned many people recently has been the spate of takeover activity, particularly in the retail sector, and the broad economic effects of that. Monopolies are not necessarily a good thing. It does not seem to matter whether they are government monopolies, or monopolies in the private sector. They inevitably limit choice and, inevitably, there is a consequential limiting of cost containment. The consumers, ordinary Australians, and indeed other businesses do not necessarily benefit from that. I know that there is a lot of carry on about the benefits of takeovers. People say that they remove weak management, keep other management on their toes and help the economy by re-allocating resources in ways that will produce long term benefits and so on. But, as I understand it, most of the evidence from overseas refutes those rather wonderful claims for takeovers and indicates that, the benefits that are supposed to accrue from takeovers, willy-nilly, very rarely do. The Liberals, as I said earlier, were behind the formation of this legislation in 1978. Indeed, Senator Durack has acknowledged that. I would have thought that it was, in fact, a useful way for ongoing review to be conducted in this field. Senator Durack has proposed the establishment of a committee to take over this review role. That may or may not be an adequate substitute. It is something that certainly we will be prepared to look at in the new year. Senator Durack —I am only suggesting it as an addition, as a way of this Parliament performing its role. I am not substituting the Ministerial Council. I am simply saying that this Parliament should have control. Senator HAINES —Are we having a review of the Ministerial Council? Senator Durack —We are the elected persons in this country. Senator HAINES —That is indeed true. It may, as I said, be a useful alternative or adjunct. I have not seen the fine details of what Senator Durack proposes, but we will, of course, look at it. I just wonder how much larger this place has to become before it can accommodate all the committee structures that everybody is talking about. Senator Durack —I thought we might have to find something for the 12 extra senators to do. Senator HAINES —I am sufficiently well worked now not to require work on any additional committees. It seems to us that there is a genuine need for regulations to control some of the more predatory companies around the place and if, inadvertently, people such as those involved in groups organising retirement villages are picked up in this legislation, surely the answer is to do what has been done under this Bill and that is exclude them as not being particularly relevant to the processes of the legislation. But there is an increasing number of predatory companies and, in order to protect the consumer and smaller sections in the business community, there is a need for regulations of the sort encompassed by this legislation. We cannot support the rather exaggerated claims in the rhetoric that makes up the Opposition's second reading attachment. It is a particularly long attachment which begins by expressing its concern at the burden of costs and diversion of resources caused by excessive regulation which, it alleges, constricts Australian business and blunts its competitive edge. I repeat a comment that I made a little while ago. I wonder what the Opposition thinks the formation of monopolies does. Certainly, there is no competitive edge; there is no competitiveness at all when takeovers increase to the extent that we have, in essence, a series of monopolistic companies doing much as they please, not necessarily to benefit the consumer or other sections of the business community. It seems to me that, as usual, the Opposition has indicated, in at least the first part of its amendment, that its interest lies mainly with big business and that it is prepared to sacrifice the concerns, needs and competitiveness of the small business community in its concern for larger companies. The Opposition then talks about unnecessary complexity and technicality. Again, as I said a moment ago, if there are problems with things like retirement villages they can be excluded rather than wiping the whole legislation simply because a few people are picked up unnecessarily. I would also have thought that if a few members of the business community, particularly the big business community, behaved with greater responsibility, a greater sense of ethics, we would not need this legislation anyway. The Opposition's amendment states the Opposition's view that the entire legislative package, which is the subject of the amendment, still needs to be examined as a whole with a number of objectives. The objectives do not, in fact, include the whole question of business ethics, which I suggest a number of people regard as a contradiction in terms, particularly when small businesses have been the subject of one of the more vicious takeover bids that are becoming increasingly common. The objectives that the Opposition lists on the second page of its amendment include things like consultation. I would have thought that in the process from June of last year through to December of this year, there would have been some attempt through seminars and drafts by the Government to ensure that a fairly reasonable, indeed adequate, process of outside consultation was engaged in. I am not quite sure what the Opposition means by its last objective-that is the streamlining of the processes of law making. I am sure that we would all support that, given the shambles that this place occasionally gets itself into but, on the whole, the Opposition's amendment to this legislation sets out, in essence, to provide untrammelled behaviour patterns for big business and to remove the sort of protection that regulations and legislation supply to consumers and vulnerable small groups. It does not provide a great deal of assistance to either the legislative process or economic development through the business community in this country. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.43) —I thank Senator Haines for a very constructive and thoughtful contribution to the debate on the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985, which demonstrates a much better understanding of the principles of the legislation than was evident from the previous Attorney-General, Senator Durack. Senator Haines —That is only because you agree with me. If you didn't agree with me you wouldn't say that. Senator GARETH EVANS —My idea of an agreeable person is one I agree with. The honourable senator is absolutely right. Senator Durack's speech, by contrast, was the kind of cry of pain and distress that we are used to hearing from him whenever he is confronted with something large and complex. It is a cry we heard from him often enough when he was in government when he had the support structure to prop him up; in Opposition it has become even more familiar, although I suppose it is more understandable. I put that to one side and concentrate on the focus of his attack today which was the inappropriateness, in his words, of this Parliament being asked to adopt a take it or leave it approach to the package of amendments which has come to us from the Ministerial Council on Companies and Securities. Under the co-operative scheme which was, of course, the brainchild of the Liberal Party of Australia when in government and, in particular, the present Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, as the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the Commonwealth has effectively surrendered its legislative power in favour of legislation agreed to by a majority of the States and the Federal Government. If the Opposition does not like that state of affairs it ought to contemplate joining with us, as it should have done years ago, in enacting a single national company law system which would enable this package of legislation to remain completely within the control of the national government. That is as it should be, the Australian Labor Party has traditionally argued, because of the essentially national character of the problems with which the legislation is dealing. The Labor Party did not support the establishment of a scheme in this form. It preferred a national approach but in Government we have been prepared to live with a co-operative scheme for as long as it works and while efforts are being made to improve the national standards and the scheme is able to cope with the increasing demands for uniformity of regulation of the national companies and securities markets. When one comes to the substance of the legislation, it may well be that the Opposition does have some disagreements with particular aspects of the Bill. It may indeed be that the Government does not regard every last clause of this Bill as ideal. But it is the obvious and inevitable consequence of the structure of the co-operative scheme that the outcome of the deliberations by eight different governments of different political persuasions with local conditions and pressures which differ in some degree-in those circumstances-will be such that compromises will be reached. If one takes the view that Senator Durack seems to be putting to us that it is an appropriate course of action for this Parliament to reject outright legislation or make sweeping and significant amendments to it, the result of that would, of course, simply be to create an impasse as far as the States were concerned. Senator Durack —Why would it if the Ministerial Council accepted our view? Senator GARETH EVANS —The situation would be that the proposal would go back to the Ministerial Council. It would look at it and if it did not like it, we would have a situation where, in terms of the existing co-operative agreement, after the lapse of six months each of the States could go its own way and that would be the end of uniformity as we know it. If Senator Durack thinks that something is to be gained by bluff, brinksmanship and aggressive and sophisticated negotiations of a kind that he no doubt thinks he is capable of but the historical record is otherwise, I simply remind him of the fact that this legislation has already been through a very prolonged process of debate, discussion, consultation and the reaching of compromises between the particular-- Senator Durack —But not in any parliament in Australia. Senator GARETH EVANS —You were on the phone and you were not listening to what I was saying. You never listen to what I am saying anyway. You would learn a great deal if you did. The problem is that we are caught in a situation where we have abdicated legislative authority to an extra-parliamentary body. It is a peculiar and unique feature of this legislative scheme. It is a lousy legislative scheme and I fully agree that that is so. We ought to do something about it but as long as we have got it we are stuck with it. It is no good behaving in this quixotic, will-o'-the-wisp, away with the elves and fairies approach that Senator Durack brings to these debates because it has no shred of reality and no shred of substance in terms of what he is saying. I turn finally to the long-winded, rambling, but at the end of the day, utterly trivial second reading amendment that Senator Durack has advanced. Again, it is just a general all purpose whinge, rather than any kind of constructive contribution in the national Parliament to the issues with which this Bill is concerned. I take issue with the claims that this legislation imposes excessive regulation and that it is unduly complex or unintelligible, even though I readily acknowledge that no doubt large slabs of it are completely unintelligible to Senator Durack. The truth of the matter is that this Government has adopted a very aggressive deregulatory posture across a whole range of business activity. I will not bore or detain the Senate by spelling out in detail what that has been. I simply remind the Senate, among other things, that in a recent companies amendment Bill we stripped away very substantially the amount of financial and other information which companies are required to include in their annual returns. The commitment is there and any additional regulations that do arise from time-to-time in the context of this kind of legislative package are based on a very careful cost-benefit analysis. We all aspire finally to the aim of framing legislation which is as brief and simple as possible. However, the hard reality, as much as Senator Durack might fulminate against it, is that this legislation of necessity deals with complex matters and difficult issues of law which it is simply not possible to instil into a few sentences of felicitous language. The state of the law is simply a reflection of the increasingly complicated and sophisticated structures through which business is carried on. It seems only logical if the manner in which modern business is conducted is not immediately intelligible to the ordinary man in the street, the law required to deal with it may not be so either. It is a pursuit of the will-o'-the-wisp, this constant crying of two-bob populists around the place for legislation that is intelligible to the intelligent layman. The intelligent layman would not waste his time propping up beside his bed legislation of this kind and the sooner we recognise that reality the better off we will all be. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Durack's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Missen, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L, D, Puplick, C. J. G.Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D, Short, J. R.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, B. C.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson. J. O. W.Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Morris, J.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Lewis, A. W. R. Coleman, R. N.Brownhill, D. G. C. McClelland, DouglasWithers, R. G. Button, J. N.Messner, A. J. Georges, G.Chaney, F. M. Robertson, E. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.58) —The Opposition will support the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) at the second reading stage, but we believe that a Bill of this kind should be referred to a committee for more detailed examination. It is another example of the problem which is presented to the Parliament by the sort of legislation we have been debating. It is a large piece of housekeeping legislation which makes supposedly technical amendments and no policy amendments to a large range of legislation. The Opposition members who have responsibility for the areas which cover the various aspects of this legislation have studied the Bill as best they can and believe that it falls within the guidelines for a biannual Bill. Nevertheless, we think the best way of dealing with it should be to refer it to a committee for a proper examination. There are no other matters in the legislation that I wish to raise. An amendment was moved in the other place to deal with the problems presented by bans on mail to South Africa and the need for this Parliament to discharge its responsibility to its constituents concerning the principle of being able to communicate with South Africa or, indeed, any part of the world which has been violated by union bans for which the Government seems to have no regard. That matter, however, was the subject of a special Bill introduced into the Senate by my colleague Senator Lewis on which we had a full debate at the relevant time. Unfortunately, both the Government and the Australian Democrats opposed that attempt by the Opposition parties to maintain the freedom of communication by Australian people with countries outside Australia against the sort of union strong-arm tactics which were obstructing that freedom and for which the Government did not seem to give a damn. I do not propose to move an amendment in that regard and to have that matter debated again in this chamber. We have already done our best and we failed because of the opposition to that measure by the Government and the Democrats. As I have said, the Opposition will support this measure. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.00) —I thank Senator Durack for his support for the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2), even if, again, it was rather grudgingly given. I just mention in response to his suggestion that the measure be referred to a committee for further consideration-I do not know whether he is proposing to move that-that if we did this we would have a situation in which, quite apart from anything else, the extradition legislation would not be amended as is here proposed and any delay in relation to that would, I am advised, set back the negotiation of extradition treaties in a number of countries by at least six months. I do not think that circumstance is anything that this chamber would wish to bring about. I hope that this will be borne in mind in case anybody has the bright idea of moving a reference off to a committee after the Bill has passed the second reading stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Referral to Committee Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.01) —I move, pursuant to standing order 196A: That the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1985 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in February 1986. Despite the attempts of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to make his usual threatening and bullying noise about these matters, we are not moved by the assertion, unsupported by any argument or any facts given by him, that the extradition laws which are proposed in the Schedule to this Bill will be delayed for six months. It seems to me like the sort of figure that the former Attorney-General was wont to pull off the top of his head and make by way of assertion. The statute law miscellaneous provisions legislation from time to time has been used to do all sorts of things. We are always assured by governments that there is nothing of any great substance in it. I remember that on the last occasion that we had statute law miscellaneous provisions legislation before the Parliament there were two areas of quite significant change to the law. There were some 90-odd amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act, which people did not have a chance to look at and consider because of the way in which they were included in the legislation; and the statute law miscellaneous provisions legislation was used to give ratification to a treaty on the protection of Antarctic seals. This piece of legislation has at least four very substantial areas in the Schedule. It contains amendments to two extradition Acts-the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. These are significant matters which deal with reviews of magistrates' decisions, the surrender of a fugitive and matters which are of considerable significance as far as civil rights and individual liberties are concerned. There are extensive amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 in terms of the delegation of powers to registrars. For instance, to take one area in which I think a number of honourable senators have had a very close interest over the years, there are very major amendments to the Patents Act 1952. To take just one example of the things put into this omnibus Bill, the amendments to the Patents Act concern one of the most important and significant new developments in patents legislation; namely, the right to patent living organisms. Issues of considerable policy importance are touched upon by that, as well as issues which are of considerable import for the Australian scientific community. There are the ways in which the application of the Chakrabaty decision of the United States Supreme Court might have validity in relation to patent legislation in Australia. We have a Schedule to the Bill which contains virtually three pages of amendments to patents legislation. Those amendments, in the opinion of the Opposition, concern the sorts of things that ought to be very closely looked at. I take from this large omnibus Bill just those four examples of areas where scrutiny by a committee would be of considerable value. I conclude by reminding all the absent members of the Australian Democrats of their commitment on this matter. I remind them that the policy document of the Australian Democrats, in part, reads: All government activity should be open to scrutiny by committee, which should also assist Parliament by making members more aware of matters which need to be dealt with. Committees will also provide a specific mechanism to ensure due consideration of any matter brought before Parliament. Specifically, the Democrats' policy document commits them in these words: While a Bill is before Parliament it will be scrutinised, clause by clause, including any delegation of power, by the relevant Standing Committee. We do not accept that this is not a perfect example of a Bill which ought to be looked at in detail. We know that on many occasions there are examples of changes to the law, including changes made to the rights of individual citizens, which are often sneaked through in terms of these sorts of omnibus statute law miscellaneous provisions. As I was saying, and as Senator Harradine will remember, there was the way in which the amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act were made a couple of years ago in this sort of legislation. I think there are some significant issues in terms of the amendments to the Patents Act, to which I have already referred, regarding the patentability of micro-organisms and living organisms. I believe that this is the sort of legislation which is ideally suited to reference to a committee. The reference is for report by the first sitting day in February. We do not accept that it is not possible to go ahead with negotiations with other countries over extradition treaties simply because this piece of legislation is not in place and we regard this legislation as a perfect test case for this sort of thing. On this occasion we shall also be taking the vote on this matter to a division. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.09) —I too believe that this is a matter of great concern. As Senator Puplick mentioned, about this time last year a statute law miscellaneous provisions Bill which made substantial amendments to a number of pieces of legislation was brought into this place. We were told on that occasion by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) that that situation would not occur in future. I do not have the Hansard with me. I think the Minister will remember that. He gave that indication in good faith. Substantial amendments are now being made to the Patents Act in respect of a very important area of biotechnology. We also have substantial amendments indeed to the family law legislation. These amendments provide for delegation of powers to registrars from judges, including the delegation of powers of the Family Court of Australia referred to in proposed new sub-sections (a) to (m), however many that is. Some of those are quite important delegations. I believe that most honourable senators will not have had time to examine this legislation. As a matter of fact, I saw on the Notice Paper the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) and I recalled the guarantee given by the Minister previously. On that basis, I did not even look at the legislation because I believed that it would be only dotting the i's and crossing the t's. This Bill does not dot i's or cross t's in respect of at least those two matters. I believe that a reference-I am not too sure what the motion is, if Senator Puplick can help me-- Senator Puplick —A reference to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for report in February. Senator HARRADINE —I think that would be eminently desirable. Nothing would be lost if, in fact, in respect of the other measures the legislation is only dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.11) —The Government rejects very vehemently the suggestions that have been made by Senator Puplick and supported by Senator Harradine, for reasons of his own, that this is an appropriate measure to go to a standing committee for consideration over the recess period. On 30 May 1985 new guidelines were tabled for statute law miscellaneous provisions Bills of this kind in the aftermath of some concern having been expressed by Senator Harradine and others last year that these Bills were gradually assuming the status of catch-all compendiums for a lot of measures of substantive significance that ought otherwise to be dealt with. The Government acknowledged the force of that criticism and has acted accordingly in tabling new guidelines and introducing legislation on this occasion which is squarely in accordance with them. I shall not go through the detailed substance of those guidelines, except to say that it is my advice and belief that they have been fully observed on this occasion. That means that the matters before us are essentially of a kind which simply ought not to require detailed consideration and detailed, substantive debate. They undoubtedly do require some checklist type consideration. There should have been ample opportunity for that kind of consideration and, indeed, for more detailed consideration to be given to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2). This Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 16 October this year. It is now 6 December. Senator Peter Baume —Don't blame us. You mucked up the program. Senator GARETH EVANS —No. It has been available for consideration through the resources of the respective party organisations, through Senator Harradine's research operation and through the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. All honourable senators have had ample opportunity to look at this legislation. There might have been ground for the criticism if the legislation had been wheeled into the House of Representatives two days ago, banged through the House of Representatives and then introduced in this chamber. That is not the case. The Bill had been fully available to the respective party organisations and to Senator Harradine so that they could give it such scrutiny as they thought appropriate. Now let me turn to some of the consequences that would flow from the reference in this case. I mentioned this in my initial contribution in the second reading debate. I will repeat it-to take just one example. One of the amendments proposed to the extradition legislation goes to a crucial jurisdictional issue. It applies to sub-section 4 (8) of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act. It concerns the matter of extra-territorial offences committed by nationals of the requesting state. On the basis of advice I was given this morning and which was repeated to me this morning, a few moments ago, by the officers intimately concerned with it, the reality of the matter is that without this amendment the negotiation of a number of treaties-especially two, one with Switzerland, which is currently on the decks, and a second one with Indonesia-will suffer substantial delay. The Swiss, in particular, have indicated that the treaty now being negotiated cannot become the subject of their consultative process until this jurisdictional point is resolved. In other words, the whole negotiation process has been put into suspension until this jurisdictional issue is resolved. So it is not a matter of continuing the process of negotiation over the period between now and the end of February, as Senator Puplick was suggesting to us, with all the knowledge he has as a back bench member of the Opposition with no familiarity with the circumstances of this matter. The reality of the matter is that crucially important extradition legislation-- Senator Peter Baume —How patronising. You are as patronising as ever. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sick of being patronised by that junior bore over there who has far too much talent to be assuming that kind of role in this place but who is having the mantle thrust upon him by the atmosphere he no doubt confronts in his Party room, where even his particular brand of contribution stands out as sparkling by comparison. It has been no help to our consideration of this matter to have had the kinds of contributions we have had. The reality is that full processes have been observed in the conduct and preparation of this legislation and in its conduct through the respective Houses. I strongly urge the Senate to recognise that and stop boring us to death at this very late stage in our proceedings with desperate attempts to get some further acres of Hansard recorded in the index under the names of the people in question. Let us get on with the remaining business of this place. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.17) —in reply-One can see why the pre-selection panel in Jagajaga was as impressed as it was. The matters raised by Senator Evans are totally unpersuasive. They fall down on the basis of their own argument. If the amendments to the extradition Acts are as significant as the former Attorney-General, Senator Evans, says they are, they clearly breach the guidelines which were given that significant amendments would not be made by way of statute law miscellaneous provisions legislation. Secondly, if the extradition negotiations with Switzerland are delayed, so what? One does not appear to have been overrun by crooks and criminals in the absence of this treaty negotiation with Switzerland or Indonesia to date. Therefore, that argument does not persuade us. Senator Harradine's points are absolutely valid. The significant amendments to the Family Law Act and the patents legislation are sufficient to indicate that this matter would benefit from further examination by committee. We are relying on the Australian Democrats, hopefully, to adhere to the provisions of their stated policy on the reference of Bills to the Committee. I commend the motion to the Senate. Question put: That the motion (Senator Puplick's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Missen, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Short, J. R.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. Walters, M. S.Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W.Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J.Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M.Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F.Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M.Devlin, R. Sanders, N. K.Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Siddons, J. R.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Lewis, A. W. R. Coleman, R. N.Brownhill, D. G. C. McClelland, DouglasWithers, R. G. Button, J. N.Chaney, F. M. Mason, C. V. J.Messner, A. J. Siddons, J. R. Question so resolved in the negative. The Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.25) —I raise with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) as a matter of policy why, for example, the provisions in Schedule 1 dealing with amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 have been included in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1985 and not included in a Bill dealing specifically with amendments to the Family Law Act. Were they dealt with in such legislation, it would be open to members of the House of Representatives and members of the Senate to move amendments to the legislation and to the principal Act. That opportunity is not available to us at this time, except in respect of the specific matters contained herein. I also ask the Minister whether he can give a guarantee that these measures are simply in the nature of internal administrative arrangements and do not in any way alter the rights and responsibilities of either members of the court or of participants in the jurisdiction. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.27) —On the information available to me, I believe I am able to give Senator Harradine the assurance that he seeks. The provisions here to amend the Family Law Act are to deal with case management practices and procedures. They do not in any way alter the substantive law or the way in which that law will in fact be applied. The basic desire is to avoid the situation wherein a great deal of judicial time was being occupied on routine procedural matters which might more appropriately have been dealt with by registrars. As I understand it, it is to remove a particular anomaly whereby an application that a matter be heard by a judge rather than a registrar had to be itself dealt with by a judge. The situation was thus being created that a great deal of scarce judicial time, which all of us concerned with the administration of the Family Law Act want allocated to the crucial property and more particularly custody cases that are appropriate for judicial attention, was being occupied in that way. This then added to the delays in the lists for the matters that did have to be heard by the judges. The estimate that I have been given and one of the reasons for wanting this legislation to be passed now rather than referred to a committee was that this particular matter was having the potential to cause a great deal of delay in the lists. As a result, it was desired to break that essentially technical log-jam. As I understand it, those are the reasons for it and that is why the provision is cast as it is, to rearrange who can apply to whom for what. It is simply in order to avoid that situation. It is a corollary of recent amendments which have been designed to vest more power in the registrars and take some of the pressure off the judges. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.30) —The Opposition supports the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1985. Its purpose is to broaden the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank to provide finance for all general business purposes and to provide equity financing and packages of equity and debt. Currently the charter is restricted to the establishment of businesses and for the purpose of primary production. This measure represents one of a number of measures designed to improve the access of small businesses to bank finance, including equity funding and packages of equity and debt. The Commonwealth Development Bank has traditionally been a lender of last recourse. However, it is expected that in the light of the removal of interest rate controls, banks generally will be prepared to increase the finance and services available to small business. Subsequently, a higher proportion of the demand for Commonwealth Development Bank finance should be in higher risk areas and for longer terms, sought on the basis of projected income flows rather than on the traditional banking basis of security. There is no doubt that the proposed changes should benefit the small business sector generally. There are no significant costs or savings arising from the Bill. However, it is worth noting that this Bill has had very little parliamentary scrutiny and has received very little parliamentary debate because it was guillotined through the House of Representatives, along with a large number of other Bills, on 23 May this year. But it is not until now that it has come into the Senate. There is a real sense of urgency by the Government to get this Bill through. It was so urgent in May that it had to be guillotined through the House of Representatives, which meant that members of that House were not given an opportunity to discuss it to any extent. Now, six months later, we have it brought into this chamber on the last day of sitting, once again so that honourable senators are under immense pressure not to discuss the significance of legislation on which many people do have views. This certainly underlines the impropriety of the way the Government has gone about its legislative program this year. There is a problem which is of concern to some Opposition members, and I stress that it is not an insignificant problem. There is certainly concern with the broadening of the Commonwealth Development Bank's capacity to enter into these quite proper arrangements for small business. There is concern that it may reduce the availability of finance in the areas which the Bank has traditionally serviced; namely, the rural sector and some specific business sectors. We hope that there will be no reduction in the availability of finance for those areas. I stress that there is no way that those areas will not proportionately suffer, as they must if in fact new areas of finance are to be involved. But the fact remains that it is a quite proper concern that the Commonwealth Development Bank should maintain the volume and certainly the availability of finance to those traditional areas of rural and business sectors. Even though the Bill is not of a controversial nature, it should have been accorded time for sufficient debate in both Houses of the Parliament. In view of the pressure of time, I simply add a couple more points. One is that the activities of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation as a whole, including the Commonwealth Development Bank, have been subject to a great deal of comment both in the Senate and outside it. For example, there was a recent study by a Melbourne graduate school business management group which reported that the Bank had in fact served the taxpayer particularly poorly over the years and had been surpassed by its competitors in terms of growth and on three separate measures of profitability. It then recommended that the Bank be sold. Of course, that prompted a quite proper reply from Mr Vern Christie, the Bank's Managing Director. It is interesting to note that, following this, at the annual meeting of the Bank the Managing Director quite clearly asserted that there were problems for the Bank as a result of it being owned by the Government. I quote what Mr Vern Christie is reported as saying: `We would agree that we're less profitable than the private banks, but if you look at the reasons for that it's a lack of capital', . . . `We restructured the bank last year admittedly, but all that came out of that was that the Government put its first-ever capital subscription since we were established and agreed that they'd give us dividend relief over two years'. `It would take a capital injection of about $600 million or $700 million to make the corporation comparable with major competitors', he said. Given the budgetary restraints being exercised by its shareholder-the Commonwealth Government-he thought it unlikely such a large capital subscription would be forthcoming. `We think that given the limitations that we have had, our performance is remarkable', Mr Christie said. I totally agree with him. In fact, the Bank has performed exceptionally well, given the limitations imposed on it by its inappropriate ownership by the Commonwealth Government. It is interesting to see that the man who runs this operation is, in effect, giving de facto support to the proposition that the capital base of the Bank is inadequate and it is inadequate because it is owned by the Government. If ever there was a sound case for the participation of the public in this Bank in order to expand, for example, its capital base, it comes from inside the Bank itself. I just make the point that the Bank has had special tax arrangements. Because of the Bank's ownership by the Commonwealth, it also raises problems for this Government, for example, when the Bank criticises the Government's own economic policies. The Bank was quite critical of the Government's refusal to remove the ceiling on interest rates for home loans under $100,000. Whatever one's feelings about the rights and wrongs of that, the fact is that the Commonwealth Bank has criticised the Government on that score and it has said that `the ceiling on home interest rates should have been removed some time ago. Inevitably the ceiling will limit the amount of funds available for housing in the market as a whole'. When the Commonwealth Bank says that it adds an additional impetus-if you like an additional pressure-to the debate. The Commonwealth Government may find some merit in removing that kind of embarrassment or perhaps that kind of inhibition on the Bank from not only doing what is in its best interests but also, in many instances, saying what is in its best interests. The Opposition supports the Bill. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(12.39) —I support this very important Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill, the purpose of which is to broaden the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank so that the Bank can provide finance to all businesses. In other words, we are undertaking the removal of certain restrictions on the Bank's lending activities which at the moment limit the provision of finance for the establishment and development of businesses and for the purpose of primary production. We think the Bank should have a much wider charter than that. Further, it has been agreed that the Bank should be able to offer more diverse forms of finance, including equity funding and packages of equity and debt. I will be mentioning in my speech my great regard for the Commonwealth Development Bank in later moments if, in the inordinately short time allowed, I get an opportunity. This Bill is part of a legislative program of the Government which is consequent upon the restructuring that began in April 1984 when the Government announced significant changes to the financial structure and organisation of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. It will be recalled that at that time it was proposed that steps be taken to move the structure of the banks within the Corporation to make them more akin to those within the private banking sector and to try to strengthen the capital position of the Commonwealth Bank which, as has been mentioned by Senator Michael Baume, was grossly underprovided for in that respect. There was a capital injection of only some $15m, which might be thought to be too little but, of course, there was a transfer of $75m from the reserves of the Commonwealth Development Bank and an amendment to allow a greater retention of retained earnings and so on. But that is not what I want to concentrate on at the moment. I want to deal with the quite extraordinary proposition of the Opposition and the breathtaking audacity of some members of the Opposition, including the most prominent, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), to include the Commonwealth Banking Corporation in the ideological crusade towards privatisation. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition has launched this crusade and has added his distinctive voice to this program. I for one and I am sure the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association and others are raising their voices against it. John Howard, when speaking about the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank on 28 August at the National Press Club, said that he would not take fright at the possibility of foreign ownership though one should hasten slowly in that regard. He said that he would not open it up immediately to overseas ownership but he acknowledged that, if we dump them all on the domestic markets and we did not allow any foregin capital in we would push interest rates through the roof. That is how the Leader of the Opposition speaks about disposing of the Commonwealth Bank-the bank owned by all Australians. He talked about dumping it on the domestic markets and, if they were strained by such a dumping, he would consider majority overseas ownership; not just yet but eventually because he knows that the people of Australia would not stomach such a sale immediately to overseas investors. It has been pointed out that the Australian people have made only very modest contributions to the capital of the bank; some #10,000 initially in 1912 when it was founded by a Labor government and some $15m recently. After some 73 years of operation, with such a small capital input by the Australian people, we now have a tremendous asset which Mr Howard is prepared to sell off even to overseas investors. It is not as though this institution has failed the people. I will demonstrate that with facts and figures and not with mere rhetoric. When we look, for example, to efficiency indicators, we find that a AAA rating has been given by Moody's and Standard and Poor's. It is the only Australian bank with that AAA rating and one of the few commercial banks world-wide to have that rating. Its combined profits are also worth noting. In 1985, its combined profits came to $250.5m. Income tax, that is, payments to the Federal Treasury, were $102m, the profit allocated to the Commonwealth was some $22m and to the various State authorities, $34m, leaving retained profits in the organisation of $163m-a very impressive and healthy performance. We know, of course, that in the line up of world banks put out by Euromoney magazine, as quoted in Australian Business of August 1985, on a world wide basis the major Australian banks, private and Commonwealth, are in much the same league. The ANZ Bank is No. 43 in the world league, Westpac is No. 44, the Commonwealth Bank is No. 47 and the National Australia Bank is No. 65. So one can see that the Commonwealth Bank and two of the major private banks in Australia are at about the same rating world-wide. I think that is a significant indication that it is not markedly as inefficient as some of the decriers of the Commonwealth Bank have made it out to be. These are only some measures of its efficiency. The major point I wish to make before the suspension of the sitting for lunch in two minutes relates to the question of-- Senator Grimes —We will not be breaking for lunch. Senator TATE —I believe that we are not suspending the sitting; so perhaps I can take a little longer. Mr Deputy President, can I get a clear indication of my status at the moment? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —At the moment you are permitted to speak for another 25 minutes. Senator TATE —At what time is the Senate adjourning? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Senate is adjourning at 4.15 p.m. As I understand it, it is planned that the Senate will sit through the lunch hour. Senator TATE —I am indebted to the Senate for wanting to hear me on this very important topic. The fact is that staff are the backbone of any operation. It must be acknowledged that the staff are of a very high quality in 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 flyers 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. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) (12.45) I move: That the Order relating to the luncheon suspension of the sitting this day be varied to enable the Senate to sit between 12.45 p.m. and 2 p.m. There has been agreement that there be no quorums or divisions in that time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(12.46) —I have been somewhat disrupted in the flow of my remarks on this very important topic, but I am indebted to the Senate for not adjourning at a quarter to one as usual. I am making the very important point that one can have various indications as to efficiency, and the Commonwealth Bank measures up very well when one looks at its international ranking and its profit performance, given the fact that it is only in recent years, with restructuring undertaken by this Government over the last two years, that it has improved its capital basis and been encouraged. Indeed, this legislation is part of that encouragement and is more akin to some of the competitive forces that work within the private sector. Nevertheless, I am making the point that it is the quality of the staff that has to be acknowledged. The Australian Financial Review has made that point extremely well. I know that in Tasmania-and I speak for a moment as a Tasmanian senator-the employees of the Commonwealth Bank there are very well regarded by the whole of the Tasmanian community. They provide 167 services to Tasmanians at the latest count I was able to undertake. There are two city branches in Hobart and six urban areas are covered around the Hobart district. There are four branches in Launceston and branches in Burnie, Devonport, New Norfolk, Scottsdale, Smithton, Ulverstone, Queenstown, Georgetown and Cygnet. I have not mentioned the various post offices and I could go into the service centres and so on and so forth. Suffice it to say that the coverage in my home State is very extensive and well regarded by Tasmanians in all walks of life. I am emphasising 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 could outline many instances. In fact if one looks at the very well presented annual report for 1985, one finds some of the more notable instances mentioned of the major raising of capital and provision of finance for major Australian projects. I could mention some of the more notable; for example, the management of the multi-option finance facility to cover the cost of the construction, launch and insurance of Aussat satellites and related earth stations and equip-ment, a momentous event for Australia and its communications. It is also 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. One might also note 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 finance 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 Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd to buy back the farm by purchasing the Australian assets of Utah. In reading the very interesting and well presented annual report of 1985, I also note the fact-and of course this is relating to the report of the year past-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. That is perhaps the aspect which is best known to most Australians, that the Commonwealth Bank is Australia's biggest home lender. 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 misdescription and fraudulent labelling that would be, to have an overseas owned so-called Commonwealth Bank. I appeal to all home loan borrowers who have the opportunity to arrange mortgage facilities through the Commonwealth Bank to protest strongly at that prospect ever coming to pass. I turn, as the Bill demands, to the Commonwealth Development Bank of which I am a great admirer. It is worth noting that the Commonwealth Development Bank is celebrating 25 years of operation and its total assets passed the notable milestone of $1 billion. It now pays tax into Commonwealth revenues. I would also mention that it has an after-tax profit of $10.5m, reflecting the Government's decision to remove the CDB's exemption from the payment of income tax as from 1 July 1984. I wish also to mention that the Commonwealth Development Bank during 1984-85 approved loans totalling $278m compared with $270m in 1983-84. I shall not go into the breakdown of that figure, except to remark that tens of thousands of primary producers and business enterprises throughout Australia have benefited from this service, unobtainable from other banks operating in Australia. That has to be emphasised. Honourable senators will be well aware that the Commonwealth Development Bank is a lender of last recourse. When other banks and financial institutions will not assist a farmer, a fisherman, somebody in the primary industry sector, 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 were a fulfilment by the Commonwealth Bank of the spirit of its charter, it is here. I am proud to supplement that observation with the recognition of the considerable help the officers of the Development Bank give to similar development banks in the Asian and Pacific regions. I return to the purpose of the Bill, which is to amend the charter of the Development Bank so that it can provide finance to a wider range of small businesses and primary producers throughout Australia. I see Senator MacGibbon nodding in agreement because I know that he sees this as a good thing and the Opposition is supporting the Bill in this respect. Senator MacGibbon, like the Government, is concerned that primary producers and small businesses get greater opportunities to obtain finance from this magnificent organisation. I have made my strong plea that the community rise up in resistance against the privatisation mania that obsesses the Federal Opposition and some of its front benchers at the moment. I will not be distracted by some of the toing and froing and modifying that goes on in some of their statements. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) made his position very clear on 28 August. It must be kept in mind as a signal to the community of the Opposition's political program in relation to the Commonwealth Bank. I for one do not intend to stand idly by to watch the dismantling and sale of this great institution owned by all Australians. I believe that the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association with widespread support from the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress held only recently will mount a vigorous campaign of resistance. I assure the officers and managers throughout Australia, particularly in Tasmania where they are held in such high regard, of the 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 HAINES(South Australia)(12.53) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill on the grounds, as Senator Tate has already indicated, that it will extend the area of operation of the Commonwealth Development Bank. The bank, since its foundation, has supported Australian industry when private institutions have failed or refused to do so. It is the bank of last resort to many people who need assistance in order to pursue development programs. The Commonwealth Development Bank has had a history of lending to those people who have been largely ignored by the rest of the financial system, namely people with new ideas and the drive and application to make those ideas succeed and be of benefit to the community both through the development of the economy and encouraging employment. Had the Development Bank not been created, I suggest that many hard working entrepreneurial Australians would have been denied the opportunity to help develop this country. That would have been a sad thing indeed. In the past, the Bank has been restricted in its ability to help entrepreneurs by legislation governing its activities. It has been allowed, for example, to issue only debt capital and much of its lending has been to primary industry. As Senator Tate said, it has played a very important part in helping those people involved in primary industry. As a source of last resort finance it has played a very vital and very real role for primary industry. Certainly our agricultural and pastoral industries are very important in terms not only of the internal development and economy of this country but also export income. Therefore, in the broader economic sense our reliance on the agricultural and pastoral industries in this country in the past has been vast indeed. However, the time has now come when we have to look at additional areas to provide economic growth. The extension of the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank through this legislation is one way of recognising that fact. Sadly, of course, many of our primary exports are to markets that are greatly oversupplied. These exports must compete against highly subsidised output in some Asian countries. Their prices fluctuate wildly according to factors such as weather, market conditions and so on. They therefore have become a somewhat unreliable-I do not say this in any pejorative sense-source of foreign income. Of course, as time goes on primary industry is employing fewer and fewer people. With our balance of payments deficit running currently at over $11 billion, it is quite clear that we have to develop new industries to help us pay our way in the world. The tertiary sector and the presently unfashionable, in some eyes anyway, manufacturing sector must provide the means for our economic rebirth. The lesson to be learned from successful exporting countries such as Japan, Korea and Singapore is that the economy can, and must, be given direction by the Government. This must be done not through some sort of Soviet style or communistic, bureaucratic planning but through direction and guidance by commercially based organisations with a long term view, such as that provided, for example, by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Australian culture of course is such that no government here could implement something in the manner in which the Japanese have. I think we have to use their example to provide incentives rather than simply trying to adopt their methods wholesale. Certainly there is a crying need for incentives for development in this country right across the spectrum. I think the initiative shown in this piece of legislation goes some way towards implementing that. For example, the legislation will allow the Commonwealth Development Bank to lend to a far wider range of enterprise than is presently the case and to take up equity itself in companies for which investors cannot be found. Therefore, the bank itself will be able to take a much larger part in actively pursuing industrial development in this country. Of course, this is not going to be done in some sort of willy-nilly fashion. Projects will have to be commercially viable before the bank will invest. Projects considered to be ahead of their time by, for example, private investors-for all their talk about risk capital they do not particularly like taking risks-can now be taken up by the bank. This is the sort of assistance we have to give to industry if it is to develop in the areas we want. It encourages and assists people who wish to develop efficient and productive enterprises, rather than being a licence to profit from inefficiency and lack of investment as, for example, is the current tariff system. Senator Tate has already mentioned that the Opposition thinks that the Commonwealth Development Bank and its parent, the Commonwealth Bank, are inefficient anachronisms which should be sold off to private enterprise. In fact, the Opposition seems to think that privatisation, in this as in other areas, is an end in itself. Like Senator Tate I beg to differ from that fairly strongly held position in the Opposition camp. The Australian Democrats take the view that privatisation should not occur unless it can be proved that the community could gain through the sale of particular enterprises and that there is a benefit in the long term rather than just through short term one-off Consolidated Revenue increases. The Opposition view would seem to be that if it is profitable one sells and if it is not profitable one leaves it in the lap of the taxpayer. So the poor old taxpayer loses in both cases. The most notorious example of this attitude currently being expressed by the Australian Federal Opposition is reflected in the Thatcher Government's sale of British Telecom. This highly profitable enterprise, which is of tremendous strategic and social importance, of course, was sold off at what was virtually a bargain price. Shares have since rocketed on the stock market; employers have sold off the shares they purchased and, as a result, the Government has given a gift, I suggest, from the entire community to a group of largely wealthy investors. I would certainly-I think my Party would share this view-hate to see that sort of thing happen in this country. The Commonwealth Bank is a valuable institution which should be retained in the public sector. Public ownership, certainly in this area, has a number of advantages. In our rapidly changing financial environment, it gives the Government the capacity to influence the workings of the system in a way it would otherwise not be able to do. Without a player in the market which is friendly towards it, the Government's regulatory job becomes much more difficult. The new banks which arrive in Australia may find the environment not to their liking at some time in the future and attempt to change the rules by not co-operating with the Reserve Bank of Australia. If the Reserve Bank has someone it knows will play by the rules -to continue the metaphor-it is easier to assess whether regulations are, in fact, hampering the system as a whole or whether the banks are simply trying to improve their own positions through non-co-operation, thereby often limiting services to the community generally. The Commonwealth Bank, therefore, has the capacity to be a stabilising influence in the Australian financial scene and this is indicated by its triple A rating. In a world of liquidity problems and collapsing banks this is a significant attribute, notwithstanding claims made recently that the Commonwealth Bank is inefficient and a drain on the taxpayer. The bank, it is said, returns very little in the way of profits to the Government and lags behind other banks in terms of returns on assets. All I can say is that those who compiled that report make very selective use of figures. As Senator Tate pointed out a moment ago, the bank has been remarkably efficient and has performed very well for the taxpayer, although perhaps not quite as much in accordance with its founders' intentions as Senator Tate would have us believe. The bank has more staff than its competitors. This is something that its detractors claim and which nobody else would deny, but it has them for a very good reason. It employs some 35,000 people across Australia and, in doing so, is performing more than adequately its commitment to service all Australian communities, not only those that are profitable, urban and close at hand. This, obviously, will involve providing facilities in remote areas with small populations and that can only be done at quite significant cost. But it is something which can be done by a bank in the public sector, which is highly unlikely to be done by a bank in the private sector. Those sorts of facilities certainly will not be provided to ordinary people living in isolated areas by the foreign banks that have so far been admitted by this Government. The Commonwealth Bank has some 1,300 branches scattered across the country. That, together with the number of people whom it needs to service, is more than sufficient reason for its return on investment being somewhat lower than that of the private banks. Given the capital that has been put into the bank, it has been remarkably efficient, Mr Deputy President. Private banks, as you would well know, raise capital on share markets to pay for expansion. The Commonwealth Bank cannot do this. It started in 1913 with something like a $20,000 loan. The only capital contribution made by the Commonwealth since then was a $15m grant in 1983. The bank has, therefore, performed a remarkable feat in expanding to its present size with virtually no outside capital infusions. One of the functions it performs most admirably had already been well covered by Senator Tate. Given the time constraints on us today, I do not want to go over it all again, except to say that the role played by the Commonwealth Bank in the home loan area is vitally important to a large number of people on reasonably low incomes who may not be able to get their housing funding from anywhere else. The Commonwealth Bank accepts the fact that it has a responsibility in this area and managed to overturn its original intention a few weeks ago, for example, to charge service fees on loans. The study criticising the Commonwealth Bank looked at its performance over a 10-year period. However, several years ago the bank was radically restructured. Its profits jumped by 55 per cent in 1983-84 and 24 per cent in 1984-85. These are the largest profit increases for any of the banks currently operating in this country. Last year over $100m in dividends and taxes was paid to the Government or, in essence, into Consolidated Revenue. The Commonwealth Bank has always given good service to the public both in this way and in the provision of normal banking services, and it has done so in a very efficient manner. Since its restructuring I suggest, Mr Deputy President, that it has become even more efficient, more worth while and of more value to the community generally. In the future it will return benefits to the community in money and social terms, and these benefits must be retained for all Australians through maintaining public ownership and not divesting into the public sector for some ideological ground or short term financial gain. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(1.07) —Mr Deputy President, I do not intend to delay the passage of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 8 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(1.08) —The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(1.08) —The Australian Democrats support the Census and Statistics Amendment Bill 1985. It puts in place the machinery for conducting the Australian census in external territories where appropriate. I have only one question. We tried to find out what territories are to be prescribed and it would be useful to know whether Antarctica is one such territory. We support the Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(1.09) —in reply-I do not know whether a decision has been made yet as to what territories will be prescribed. I suspect it has not been but I will see that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) responds to that question in writing. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 8 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(1.10) —The Opposition will give very firm support to this measure. It gives effect to a very valuable report of the Law Reform Commission on the subject of foreign state immunity, which needs some firm and clear rules which this Bill will provide. In view of the fact that the reference was given to the Law Reform Commission when I was Attorney-General, it is doubly pleasing that we now have a report, and legislation giving effect to it in a reasonably speedy way. We are pleased to support the Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(1.11) —in reply-I thank the Opposition for its support and I do not intend to delay the Bill any further. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(1.13) —This Bill is merely a machinery one bringing into force some more or less machinery matters rather than dealing with any substance in the stevedoring industry. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. In fact, we give it our support. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(1.13) —I thank the Opposition for its support and wish the Bill a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(1.15) —Mr Deputy President, the Opposition supports this measure, but we do propose to move an amendment to it which has been circulated. The object of the legislation is to remove a provision of the Judiciary Act which has given the Attorney-General the obligation of providing legal aid if there is a certificate made to him by a judge presiding at a trial that there is an accused person without any legal aid or assistance. This has been used recently in the famous Maher case. Senator Haines —Infamous. Senator DURACK —All right, the infamous Maher case, if you like-but I think it may be premature to make any comment about it because it is under appeal, I understand. The Attorney-General faced real difficulties in that matter and it has rather exposed this old provision which, on the face of it, may not be seen to be necessary in this day and age with very considerable machinery and funds for legal aid. The present Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) wishes to have this removed entirely. The Opposition believes that that is going too far and that in fact the power to give it by the Attorney-General ought to be retained in case there is some extreme case where legal aid has not been provided. But in the normal course of events the Attorney-General should be able to refer this question to the legal aid system. Overwhelmingly, people who cannot afford their trial on a major event would be accommodated within the legal aid system and there is no reason why the Attorney-General, except in an extreme case, should be called upon to provide legal aid direct. That is what the issue is about. The Opposition supports the Bill, but will be moving the amendment which has been circulated. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(1.17) —As Senator Durack has already pointed out, the intention of this Bill is to repeal sub-section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act 1903-a sub-section which has been substantially unaltered since the passage of the original Act and which was, indeed, a useful provision at a time when there were few arrangements for legal aid. What appears to have happened is that, following the Maher case, the Government had a sudden rush of blood to the head and decided that it ought to do something about it fairly quickly. I suspect that it has grossly overreacted. I realise that the Government is not disputing that it does have some actions under Article 14.3 (d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; but it is arguing that the existing legal aid system provides a more appropriate mechanism and that sub-section 69 (3), which I understand has recently been described by a member of the judiciary as an historical anachronism, can be disposed of, primarily because it is open to abuse by people who have been refused legal aid elsewhere, as, of course, happened in the case of Mr Maher. I am not at all sure that the Government has justification for removing this section simply because of its concern at the opportunities for abuse. The problem in the Maher case arose less because sub-section 69 (3) was to be to be used than because there were significant deficiencies in bankruptcy law. Those deficiencies allow people such as Mr Maher to tie up their assets in such a way that, while they do not qualify for legal aid through the normal channels, they can use sub-section 69 (3) to become, essentially, technical bankrupts. It seems to me that changes should be made at that point-to the technical bankruptcy loophole-rather than at the sub-section 69 (3) end of the problem. We, therefore, are quite happy to support the concerns expressed by the Law Council of Australia with regard to the somewhat excessive nature of the solution proposed by the Government. The Law Institute of Victoria too has expressed to us and elsewhere its concerns. In addition, the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in its Alert Digest No. 11, expressed concern that an existing statutory right is being taken away-something that most legislatures are loth to accept unless there is a very good reason. Quite frankly, we do not believe that that reason exists in this case so the Australian Democrats, supporting the arguments raised by the Law Council of Australia and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, support the amendment to be moved by Senator Durack which, essentially, retains the last resort provisions of sub-section 69 (3) for the appointment of defence counsel where appropriate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(1.21) —The Government will not accept the amendment, for reasons that were set out by the Attorney- General (Mr Lionel Bowen) himself in the other place in replying to the debate on 13 November. This provision, although having obvious merit at the time that it was inserted in the Judiciary Act, in the days before we had a fully functioning legal aid system, is in fact quite anachronistic. The existing legal aid system with the commissions now existing in every State is perfectly appropriate and apt to deal with matters arising under Commonwealth laws in exactly the same way as the system is perfectly apt to deal with any other matters which might involve people appearing before the courts. Senator Durack —How could Maher have defended himself without legal assistance? In the end, he was denied legal aid by the Legal Aid Commission. Senator GARETH EVANS —Was he denied legal aid? Senator Durack —It would not give him legal aid and that is why he applied to the Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a matter for the legal aid commissions to apply the criteria available to them. I do not want to make judgments about the assets available to Mr Maher, even if not technically his own to dispense. Clearly, the Legal Aid Commission made some kind of judgment along those lines. It is a judgment, I think, that at first blush would be shared by about 99.9 per cent of the Australian community, in all the circumstances of that case, and I really do not see that it is helpful to track over that case, the circumstances of which we cannot know in this chamber. The only relevance of the case is that it disclosed the absurdity of the still continuing existence of a procedure for direct application to the courts which had some-- Senator Haines —It also discloses the problems in the bankruptcy law that allowed him to divest himself of those assets and become technically bankrupt. The problem surely lies there. Senator GARETH EVANS —That may be so, but the problem is not addressed by retaining on the statute book, even in the modified form that is now proposed, the existing procedure in section 69, which is a relic from an earlier pre-legal aid age. Senator Haines —But it is not addressed by removing it either. Senator GARETH EVANS —It may not be, but that is not what this legislation is about. If the honourable senator thinks there is a case for some further legislation she is at liberty to communicate that fact and I undertake to do so to the Attorney. I do not want to prolong the debate. The prospect of moving Senator Haines once she has made up her mind is minute. I acknowledge that and I shall not waste her time, mine or that of the Senate in trying further to push the immovable, albeit irrational, object that presently confronts us in the chamber at this time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(1.25) —On behalf of the Opposition I move: Page 1, clause 3, lines 9 to 15, leave out the clause, insert the following new clause. Indictments ``3. Section 69 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section (3) `or refer the matter to such legal aid authorities as the Attorney-General considers appropriate' after `the accused person'.''. I have already referred to this amendment. Its purpose is to insert the words `or refer the matter to such legal aid authorities as the Attorney-General considers appropriate'. I have already explained the reason for that. In fact, Senator Evans seems to have answered the argument, not very well, but he has made some effort to do so. Indeed, I think he thought we were discussing the amendment at an earlier stage. I want to make just one point in addition to the discussion we have already had. I am sorry to refer again to the Maher case but it reveals the need, in some cases, for a residual power of the Attorney-General to give costs where an accused person, facing a serious criminal offence, does not have his own resources and has been refused legal aid for good reasons or otherwise by the Legal Aid Commission. As I said, overwhelmingly, this position will never arise in Australia in this day and age because of the adequacy, by and large, of our legal aid scheme. But the odd case will arise. In the Maher case the facts were enormously complicated. The judge at the trial is the best person to observe whether an accused person in such a case would need some legal assistance. In this case, the legal aid people refused it. If the judge himself thought that a person needed legal assistance, even though the legal aid system had refused it, under the legislation as amended by our proposal, the Attorney-General would still have the responsibility for looking at the question on the certificate of the judge. We are preserving the extreme case but it is one which, in the interests of justice, should be preserved. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(1.27) —I indicate that I had thought, when I arrived in the middle of my half-eaten lunch, that we were debating the amendment. I have made the Government's position on the amendment clear. I do not need to repeat what I said before. The Government will oppose the amendment and will seek a division accordingly. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(1.27) —The Opposition supports this Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(1.27) —Good. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(1.30) —The Opposition does not oppose this legislation but just requires an undertaking from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who represents the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), that section 72 of the Constitution is not prejudiced by section 3 (2) of the principal Act. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(1.31) —in reply-Senator Archer raised with me a day or so ago the implications of section 72 of the Constitution for the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Amendment Bill. The short point is that it is the Parliament that is still fixing the amount of remuneration payable to judges and other statutory officers within the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution but that the Parliament is, in fact, acting on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal, although for all practical purposes that advice-the Tribunal having been set up by statute-is invariably accepted. Nonetheless, there is no obligation, statutory or otherwise, on this Parliament to accept the products of the Remuneration Tribunal's determination, so to that extent the fixing of the salaries is still done by the Parliament rather than by the other Tribunal. That really is the short answer to the-- Senator Archer —So the actual remuneration is not taken out of the hands of the Parliament? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, it is always up to the Parliament to accept, reject or amend such recommendations of the Tribunal and to that extent it is the Parliament that is doing the fixing. But, of course, in all our interests and for the sake of all our sanity, we hope that there will continue to be acceptance of the principle of an independent tribunal for practical purposes, if not legal and constitutional purposes, doing the fixing or the determination. I thank Senator Archer for his support for the Bill on behalf of the Opposition and I wish it a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(1.33) —The Opposition has much pleasure in supporting the Public Lending Right Bill. We have one small amendment to move when we get to the Committee stage of the debate. This scheme has been a considerable benefit to Australian authors. It has allowed for some compensation to be made to Australian authors in the same way in which compensation is made to the performers of records through the scheme which is in place and administered by record industry association bodies to ensure that where records are continually played on radio and through other means, the composers are compensated for the public use of what they have initially created. I suppose that, like other senators who might be affected, I should declare a pecuniary interest in the matter as a recipient of payment under the public lending right scheme, although I am sure that compared with colleagues such as Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Mason it is probably very small biscuits. The scheme, which has its genesis in Scandinavian countries as far back as 1946 in Denmark, and 1964 in Finland, was one of the notable initiatives in the field of the arts undertaken by the Whitlam Labor Government, and I think everyone gives full credit to the Government for having established that scheme. There are only two points to be made in relation to this Bill. Firstly, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table taken from the annual report of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, which is an analysis of the public lending rights payments for 1984-85 showing the range of money paid, the number of authors in each category and the number of publishers in each category and the total expenditure under the scheme, which amounted in 1984-85 to just over $1.5m. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT PAYMENTS 1984-85 Range $ Authors Publishers 1 - 25... 144 82 26 - 50... 522 44 51 - 75... 538 23 76 - 100... 429 11 101 - 250... 1264 30 251 - 500... 575 31 501 - 750... 204 16 751 - 1,000... 100 3 1,000 - 2,000... 165 14 2,000 - 3,000... 44 8 3,000 - 4,000... 19 2 4,000 - 6,000... 13 4 6,000 + ... 12 14 4,029 282 $ Payments to Authors... 1 267 631.96 Payment to Publishers... 308 457.80 Adjusting Payments... 1 305.24 Total... 1 577 395.00 Senator PUPLICK —Under this scheme both authors and publishers are compensated for their contributions. In fact, the current payment is at the rate of 70c for authors and 17.5c for publishers. The payments are based upon a survey of libraries and the borrowing requirements. There have from time to time been criticisms of the way in which the survey has been conducted, but time does not permit us to go into that this afternoon. The final point to make, therefore, is that the Australian Society of Authors is particularly anxious that payments under this scheme should be indexed. It is the only type of scheme which currently does not have a provision for indexation, and the only public lending rights scheme throughout the world that does not have such a provision. I believe that is a very justifiable request which the Government might like to look at. We have a series of amendments which can be dealt with quite quickly in Committee, and the principle behind those might best be left to the Committee stage. Other than that, I have a great deal of pleasure in indicating the Opposition's support for this legislation and commending it to the chamber. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(1.37) —The legislation before the Senate is a sound reminder of the Australian Labor Party's commitment to the arts in Australia. The introduction of the Public Lending Right Bill is a culmination of action taken by the Labor Administration of 1972 to 1975. At this stage, perhaps like Senator Puplick who spoke before me, I should declare an interest in this piece of proposed legislation, although that interest is quite small, especially after the payments made to me are taxed at my marginal tax rate of 60 per cent. The proposed legislation will not result in any change to my personal interest, so I feel at liberty to speak about the Bill. The public lending rights scheme was introduced by the Whitlam Government in 1974. The concept of public lending rights, however, was not unknown in Australia at that time. Indeed, the first scheme of this nature was introduced very shortly after the end of World War II. This was in Denmark in 1946 and was followed by Nordic countries such as Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland. New Zealand introduced a scheme in 1973 and Australia and the United Kingdom followed in 1974 and 1979 respectively. The purpose of this Bill is to establish a statutory public lending rights scheme to provide payments to Australian authors and publishers whose books are used by members of the public through public libraries. It is a little ironic that composers and dramatists have, in many countries, received payment whenever their works are performed in public, but that it was not until 11 years or so ago that authors and publishers were compensated when their books were lent to readers in public libraries. Although we now have a Public Lending Right Bill before us, it must be stressed that this Bill is merely giving legislative authority to a scheme which for some time had relied on administrative action. The scheme came into reality in April 1974 and had many similarities to the New Zealand scheme which had impressed the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam. It did, however, have some significant differences from the New Zealand scheme. Under the Australian scheme, eligibility for payment to an author could extend beyond his lifetime. This occurred because the life of each title extended from its date of publication through the life of an author or, if the author died, for 50 years from the publication date. Australian publishers also receive a royalty. The payment to authors was originally 50c a year for every copy held in a library, provided that a sample survey indicated that there were at least 50 library shelf copies. That amount has been increased over the intervening years but certainly has not kept in line with inflation. The rate of payment per volume has increased to 70c for authors and 17.5c for publishers. If the original payment had increased to reflect changes in the consumer price index it would be at least twice the rate which is now paid. The same thing would happen for the original 12.5c per copy for Australian publishers. It would now have been at least twice that rate. This matter was mentioned by Senator Puplick when he said that perhaps we should have some indexation provision in the legislation. For the many authors who benefit from this scheme it is hoped that in the future a more realistic adjustment will be made for both the author's and the publisher's rates. If not, the Australian public lending rights scheme will be regarded as only a token gesture to authors and publishers and will quickly fall into disrepute. The public lending rights scheme acknowledges that writers contribute to the enjoyment and learning of the Australian community. This scheme does not regard the amounts which are paid to authors and publishers as a gift from government. Rather, the opposite is the case. The payments should be regarded as a right. The public lending rights scheme provides a little more financial independence for Australian writers. Even with this increased independence, it is fair to say that most authors still struggle to maintain a living. It is often thought that Australian authors are financially secure. For most, this is a total misconception. Certainly, some authors make a reasonable living from their writing and some are reported to be quite wealthy. Colleen McCullough, for example, was reported not too long ago as being a millionaire. Considering her prolific output and the successful translation of her works to the screen, this is hardly surprising. I suppose that we can still call Colleen McCullough an Australian even though she left here in about 1963. It must be remembered, however, that, provided the necessary conditions are fulfilled, public lending rights are paid not only to wealthy authors but also to less successful authors. It is these people, the less successful, who find this payment to be of real significance. In the total budgetary context this Bill is only a minor piece of legislation. It controls expenditure of less than $2m. When the average payment per claimant is calculated it may be seen that the actual amounts paid to authors and publishers are small. In 1984, for example, $1.1m was paid to almost 4,000 writers, an average of just under $300 per author. The average payment to publishers is larger principally because there are fewer publishers than authors. An amount of $279,000 was paid to 225 publishers in 1984, an average of $1,240. For a commercial publisher, a payment of this nature is of help, but hardly one which in itself would make that person wealthy. Not only authors and publishers benefit from an author's work; the Australian film industry has been quick to see the advantage of producing films based on Australian written material. Some of us earlier this year, for example, had the opportunity to preview the film An Indecent Obsession, which was based on the novel of the same name by Colleen McCullough. Other Australian authors have been similarly successful in having their work translated to the screen. I expect that, with the Australian dollar having depreciated against the United States dollar, the demand for Australian-made productions will increase. If this is so, it will undoubtedly be of benefit to Australian authors. An increase in the filming and televising of our own culture will probably result. I should mention one matter which does not relate strictly to this Bill but which affects not only authors but also composers and musical performers. We now have strict copyright laws, but I sometimes wonder how often these are breached. The photocopier undoubtedly eats into the potential gain of authors. Some schools that I have visited obey the law strictly. Others have apparently never heard of copyright provisions. In the musical area the tape recorder and the video cassette recorder have allowed pirate and private copying to proceed almost unhindered, despite its illegality. Estimates have been made that every recording that is made is reproduced 2 1/2 times by pirate and private taping. A similar breaking of copyright occurs with movie productions. In another but related area, I read an advertisement recently which proclaimed the virtues of a particular piece of computer software. It claimed that this would allow a user to copy even the most difficult, copy-protected computer disks. The fact that there may be copyright breaches in making a copy did not seem to worry the advertisers and, presumably, their customers. This is an issue which will have to be pursued to protect our artists and authors from the parasites who thumb their nose at the law. Returning to the Bill before us, it is a long-awaited piece of significant legislation. An Australian authors Bill was introduced in 1975 but lapsed with the shameful dissolution of the Parliament in 1975. It is a great pity that the Fraser Government did not take up the idea and propose legislation of a similar nature. However, the Public Lending Right Bill 1985 is now before this chamber and I, like the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(1.46) —The Australian Democrats support the Public Lending Right Bill. Unlike the previous two speakers, I do not have to declare an interest in this because none of the books that I have written are actually in public libraries and, if they were, I do not think anybody would buy them anyhow. I certainly recommend to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is at the table, that he actually look at having public lending rights for university libraries. I might be able to get something from that. The Australian Democrats welcome this measure. It is a pity that this piece of legislation has taken so long in its legislative passage, and we hope that it now may be speeded up. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.47) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their support for the legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(1.47) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of `scheme', leave out `approved', insert `determined'. (2) Page 2, sub-clause 5 (1), leave out the sub-clause, insert the new sub-clauses: `(1) The Minister may, by instrument in writing- (a) determine a scheme for and in relation to the making of payments to persons in respect of books; and (b) determine modifications to a scheme determined pursuant to paragraph (a). `(1A) Sections 48, 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to determinations under sub-section (1) as if in those sections references to regulations were references to determinations, references to a regulation were references to a determination and references to a repeal were references to a revocation.'. (3) Page 2, sub-clause 5 (2), line 28, leave out `approve', insert `determine'. (4) Page 2, sub-clause 5 (3), leave out `approving', insert `determining'. The four amendments are all related. They seek simply to change the way in which payments for the scheme shall be established. They provide that, instead of these payments being covered by a determination and notified by simple publication in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, they should be implemented by regulation so that the regulation might come before the Parliament and possibly be disallowed. That would have particular relevance if the intention were to decrease the payments to authors. As a result, if the Government at some future stage moved to decrease the payments, instead of those being covered by a determination which would not be reviewable by the Parliament, they would be covered by regulation. They would therefore be reviewable by the Parliament and the matter would remain within the proper control of the Parliament in terms of the expenditure of public moneys. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.48) —The Government opposes the Opposition's amendments. I think Senator Puplick knows the reasons, being an avid reader of the House of Representatives Hansard. Briefly, they are that the amendments would, as he knows, remove control of the scheme from the hands of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and the committee responsible for administering it. The Public Lending Rights Committee will be specifically constituted. It will be a broad-based committee, widely representative of the literary community; therefore there will be a considerable amount of accountability there. If we have parliamentary disallowance of the rates, we have the situation that the Parliament passes the Budget in which the rates are set and then the Parliament later has the power to disallow those rates. We do not think that is a very wise course. For those and other more explicit and better expressed reasons, the Government opposes the amendments. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(1.50) —I indicate, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, that we will not be supporting the amendments. We think there is merit in the proposal; but, due to the fact that this piece of legislation has been around for so long, we believe that it is more important to have it in legislative form. We hope that the Government will look at this issue again in the new year to see whether or not the Parliament in fact may have more of an input into this operation. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(1.51) —This Quarantine (Validation of Fees) Bill validates fees already charged. I am not going to take any length of time; but I point out, as indeed was pointed out in the House of Representatives, that it is brought about by bungling, incompetence, or whatever one likes to call it, by the Government in that the previous legislation was not adequate for the task. So, this is basically validating fees which have already been charged. There was some concern-an amendment was moved in the House of Representatives because of it-that anybody who was challenging those fees should be protected. I understand from the officers of the Senate with whom I talked about the possibilities of that amendment being moved here that inquiries they have made indicate that there have been no challenges to the collection of those fees; so there is no need for us to move the amendment that was moved in the House of Representatives. Thus, the Opposition will be supporting the Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(1.52) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting the Bill. However, I support the warning fired across the bows by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Validation should not be taken as a type of activity which the Parliament will constantly take lightly. It would be useful if, in fact, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report was drawn to the attention of various departments. On this occasion there seems to be no other way out. But this is the third instance I can remember in the last year. It seems to me that, in relation to this type of activity, it should not necessarily be assumed that the Parliament will always acquiesce in fixing up bungles that have occurred in the past. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.53) —I thank the Opposition for its support. I certainly take on board Senator Macklin's warning. I suppose it is a result of the legislative indigestion that we have suffered in the last 10 or 11 years that this sort of thing happens. I will draw his warning to the attention of the Minister and other departments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(1.55) — Common noddies, terns, turtles and sea snakes might not be everybody's cup of tea but quite a few of them have their address at the Ashmore and Cartier Islands and they have been having a rough time lately. The Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Amendment Bill is to make sure that the laws of the Northern Territory operate as Commonwealth law for the administration of those islands. The Commonwealth has not handed over all powers; it has kept some criminal powers to itself and also power to make certain appointments such as Commissioners of Police and appointments in the field of workers compensation. The islands lie west of Darwin and north of Australia, at some of our northernmost points. They are flat islands. Their reefs have been desecrated to a certain extent by traditional and modern day Indonesian fishermen. Ashmore Island-the western one-is the most important one because it has fresh water on it. The fresh water in the area has been polluted largely by the Indonesian fishermen burying their dead there, particularly cholera victims. Fresh water on a coral island is a wonderful asset to have and should be restored. The trees have all been cut down and should be given a chance to regenerate. The Ashmore Islands-there are three of them, situated about 70 kilometres north of Cartier Island which is a smaller one-have been declared as a marine park. It does need patrolling. I notice that this area is one of the undetermined areas of our maritime boundaries. We have four; it is not the last one, by the way-there is one to the south-west of Australia where we have a settlement to make with France; we have another settlement with France to the north-east of Australia on the continental shelf with New Caledonia and there is to be a settlement with New Zealand. We have just finished the Papua New Guinea settlement but the Timor Gap area is one that is yet to be determined. There is no question, though, that the islands do belong to Australia and the only problem that remains to be settled with Indonesia is over the continental shelf. I presume that is under active negotiation now because there is oil and gas in the area. The Jabiru oil well is in the area and I noticed in a newspaper the other day that the forward bidding for authorities to prospect has just been let by the Federal Government under an Act which has recently been passed through the Senate. I think it is important that we patrol and service the area of the marine park. I think it would be a good exercise for our naval vessels. I notice that our submarines, when they go out of Perth, do a 70-day tour right up to Malaysia, down the Indonesian archipelago and then back to Perth. I think it would be a great idea if they could commit a few of their indiscretions round the Ashmore and Cartier reefs to patrol them. We have to be sure that the traditional Indonesian fishermen who are given access to the area are-- Senator Grimes —What indiscretions? Senator SHEIL —That is when a submarine has to come to the surface for air and charge its batteries; it is as simple as that. What I was saying is that the area needs patrolling to be sure the traditional fishermen who fish there are traditional fishermen, that they do not have motorised vessels or refrigeration, and that they use monofilament lines. They can have modern hooks, but they should not have any of the large trawls, machinery, winches and engines that are associated with modern day fishing, in order to protect the islands and allow some regeneration of trees and of the reef. We do not accept the amendment by the Australian Democrats, which I think would make the depth to which the continental shelf goes as a national park 200 metres. We think that is excessive and that their arguments for it in an area of development and negotiation with Indonesia are not persuasive. Debate interrupted. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I preface it by reminding him that in the last two weeks the Opposition has been questioning the Government about its response to the campaign of union pressure over superannuation claims which have led to bans, stand-downs and threats in the paint and transport industries. I further remind the Minister that in all this time the Government has been unable or unwilling to offer any practical assistance as these industries are picked off by major trade unions and that, indeed, the irresponsible remarks earlier this week by the Treasurer have actually encouraged further union action. Now that the Australian metal trades employers face a period of industrial action after Christmas by the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, what can or will the Government do to bring to an end this campaign of intimidation and blackmail over the superannuation issue? Further, what practical steps will the Government take to thwart the boast of the AMWU's Mr Greg Harrison that employers would `fall like dominoes' and agree to join the union scheme? Senator BUTTON —The comments made by Mr Greg Harrison are colourful. They only illustrate a flamboyant way of stating what has been, I understand, an announced policy of the AMWU in respect of superannuation. In regard to the substance of the question, the Government has been negotiating with the Australian Council of Trade Unions regarding these matters and will continue to do so. I am not in a position today to say what the outcome of those discussions with the ACTU has been and what the outcome of future discussions in the immediate future will be on these matters. I should indicate that both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have indicated publicly their view about union pressure in relation to superannuation. Senator Walters —They said that it was all right. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters has helped me with that interjection. I think it is incorrect for Senator Chaney to refer in the context of his question to the irresponsible statement of the Treasurer. Senator Chaney —He has backpedalled on it now. Senator BUTTON —No, he did not backpedal on it. If the honourable senator looks at what the Treasurer said, as distinct from what the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news reported that he had said-- Senator Walters —I heard him. Senator BUTTON —You did not hear him, Senator. You heard the AM program, perhaps. If honourable senators analyse what he said, I think they will recognise that the statement of the Treasurer was not irresponsible and was consistent with the statement made by the Prime Minister. However, the Government will continue to try to bring orderliness into what is admittedly a difficult situation at the current time regarding trade union campaigns on this issue. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his reaffirmation of some opposition within the Government to the union tactics, but I asked him whether there were any practical steps that the Government would take. I ask him: In the event that the metal trade unions conduct industrial campaigns against the employers, would the Government join with the employers in seeking a reconvening of the national wage case before the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a public hearing on union commitment to the wage fixing principles? Senator BUTTON —That is a matter about which I cannot make any commitment at this stage. It is a matter primarily for the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I am sure it is a matter which will be considered by him and at an appropriate time I guess he will make an announcement about it. Senator COATES —My question is directed to Senator Grimes in his capacity as Minister for Community Services, Minister representing the Minister for Social Security and Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is he aware of suggestions in the media recently that this Labor Government has not made substantial achievements in the area of social welfare and is not committed to social welfare reforms? Will the Minister give details of the facts about this matter in order to set the record straight? Senator GRIMES —I did see reports, particularly emanating, I gather, from the Sunday program last week when journalists with unbiased and disinterested political views, such as Mr David Barnett, stated that the Labor Government had achieved nothing in the way of social reforms and nor was it interested in doing so! I think that those suggestions are unfounded. I think they are scurrilous suggestions, but typical of the suggestions which emanate from that source. The Government's record, I think, is one of which we can be proud. I will list some of the achievements. Although I know Senator Coates knows about them, I think Mr Barnett and others should know about them. We have achieved major reforms in the welfare area, I believe. The single adult rate of unemployment benefit, for instance, has been increased by over 40 per cent since we came to power-a benefit which had been left to erode by inflation since 1978 by the previous Government. Payments to pensioners and beneficiaries for their children have risen by between 56 per cent and 100 per cent, depending on the various payments. We have extended rental assistance to the unemployed. We have significantly increased the rate of rental assistance and will relax the current harsh income test for rental assistance. We have increased pensions and benefit-free areas by up to 100 per cent. We have introduced a myriad of new payments and fair entitlement conditions, including special arrangements for the young unemployed with children, remote area allowance and the carer's pension and payments for multiple births. We introduced the beneficiary tax rebate and exempted from tax several payments for children and rent. Our initiatives on the income security side alone will cost about $1,500m in any one year. In my portfolio we have set major reforms either in place or on target. We have new programs which significantly increase funding for home and community care and supported accommodation, in co-operation with the States. We have reviewed all Commonwealth disability programs and have allocated $5m in this year and $15m next year for reform initiatives. We will introduce new disability legislation next year. We have increased and rationalised subsidies for hostels. We are currently reviewing the nursing homes and hostels areas with a view to further major reform. We have provided an additional 26,000 child care places and will, at a cost of $107m, provide another 20,000 places in the next three years. Of course, in Dr Blewett's portfolio we have introduced a new health insurance scheme, Medicare. I think that in the short time in which we have been in government we can be proud of our achievements. We will continue to seek achievements of this type in social reform. That is the answer to Mr Barnett and his ilk. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Is it true that the Commonwealth Schools Commission has produced a list of new non-government schools that do not have approval for recurrent grant funding in 1986? Are there 29 schools so listed which will be given zero recurrent funding next year in respect of enrolments in the categories set out on the list? Is it not true that this is the first time that in this way any school will be denied recurrent per capita funding? Finally, is not this whole situation a direct reversal of the assurances given by the Prime Minister before the last election when he announced the 12 levels of funding, eight-year plan for all non-government schools? Senator RYAN —Senator Teague's series of questions is so tendentious that I do not quite know where to start to dispose of it. There is no category of schools which is not receiving any funds. Of course there is not. Apart from anything else, I must express some concern that Senator Teague, who took up a great deal of the Senate's time in having me explain to him the way in which the new non-government school policy works, sees fit to ask me about it yet again. I do not know whether he cannot understand or whether he is just trying to stir up trouble. The fact is that not all applications for the new non-government schools recurrent funding were successful. I do not have in my mind the details of those which were not successful because some of them are appealing and some of them may well succeed under appeal. The fact is that very clear guidelines are laid down for the assessment of these proposals. The primary advice comes from representative State committees on which there is ample representation of non-government school interests and of State governments. That advice goes to the Commission and on receipt of all of that advice I make a decision as to whether proposals fit in with the legislation. There is no category of school which does not receive funding. Some proposals were not successful and some of those are the subject of appeal. These may be successful or they may not-I do not know what the outcome will be at this stage. To suggest that there is a new category of school which receives no funding is really to make a stupid distortion of the whole system. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that this document I am holding up is issued by the Commonwealth Schools Commission and is headed `New schools not approved for recurrent grants'? Does it not have 29 such schools listed in it? Senator RYAN —I have no idea what document Senator Teague has in his hand. It is a rather stupid course of action, I might suggest, for Senator Teague to hold up a document and then ask me to tell him what it is when he is holding it. Presumably he can read. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister seen the report by Tony Grant Walker in yesterday's Australian Financial Review which claims that when patrons of a Brisbane restaurant are presented with their lunch bills, the charges are designated `seminar'? Will the Minister have this practice investigated in order to ensure that such apparently phoney schemes are prevented from mushrooming as a new form of tax evasion? I remind the Minister that some creative but unscrupulous and dishonest minds in business might succumb to the temptation to embark on an extensive round of Christmas seminars in the next few weeks. Senator WALSH —It is not for me to pass judgment on whether these functions are in fact in breach of the law. That is a matter for the police and the Australian Taxation Office initially, and later the courts. However, arranging to have seminars around Christmas time would lead a reasonable man to be somewhat suspicious. I will certainly ask the Treasurer to have the matter investigated. It is not for me to pass judgment, but it is appropriate for me to point to the penalties for the sorts of practices alleged in that Australian Financial Review article. Section 8T of the Taxation Administration Act provides that it is an offence to keep accounting records which are defined to include receipts and invoices which do not correctly record or explain the matters to which they relate. Where there is any intention to deceive or mislead the Commissioner of Taxation or to defeat the purposes of a taxation law, the penalty for a first offence is a maximum fine of $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment and for subsequent offences a fine of $10,000 and two years imprisonment. Senator CHIPP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. On 12 September this year in answer to a question, Senator Gietzelt said that the Minister for Defence had `assessed Jervis Bay as suitable on environmental and safety grounds for visits by nuclear powered warships'. Since then the Democrats have asked twice, and now I ask for the third time: When was this assessment made? Is there a report or a statement? Will it be made publicly available? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Minister for Defence that assessments were made in 1976 and 1983 by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and Defence officials, acting jointly, for short term visits by the USS Truxtun and the USS Sea Dragon respectively. Documents and other information relating to these assessments are being compiled in response to Senator Vigor's letter to Mr Beazley of 18 September and these will be released to him as soon as possible. Steps are being taken to establish whether material that was classified at that time by the AAEC for national security purposes might now be declassified. This process has been largely responsible for the delays in responding to Senator Vigor. Senator COLSTON —My question is dircted to the Minister for Education and relates to the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts entitled `Towards a National Language Policy'. When this matter was last raised in the Senate, the Minister stated that a response was expected in October. In the light of considerable public interest in the report and in the Government's anticipated response, can the Minister now advise when that response will be presented to the Senate? Senator RYAN —A great deal of work has been done through my portfolio in developing and co-ordinating a response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on a national language policy. Certainly a first draft of the response was prepared through the portfolio by October, but when I studied it carefully I decided that it was not a specific enough response to meet the aspirations of those very many individuals and organisations throughout the community who are looking now for a very clear development of policy in this area. So I have asked the portfolio to undertake more work in refining this policy and I am also having the report studied for advice by the National Multicultural Advisory Education Committee, which is very expert and hard working. I hope that early in the new year a more developed and more precise draft will be available for decision and later presentation to the community. I should point out that it is a complicated and very sensitive task to develop such a policy. The Senate Committee's report was very comprehensive and made some 117 recommendations, some of which would be appropriate for Commonwealth action and some of which would need to be taken up by the States. The matter of co-ordinating a response to this report is certainly not one that can be rushed or done in a superficial fashion. Because of the sensitivity of language policy matters in our multicultural community, it is also very important that all groups that are committed to the expansion of the teaching of minority languages in Australia have an opportunity to be involved in the development of the policy. A few months work is still to be done before the Government can make a decision about the policy. I assure Senator Colston that continuous work has been done in relation to this matter since the report was received. Programs under the Commonwealth Schools Commission which assist in the development of languages other than English throughout our community have been maintained and, in some cases, increased. The matter is well in hand and I hope that we will have an effective policy approach in national language matters early in the new year. Senator KNOWLES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In the light of the Government's intention to legislate for the quarantining of farm losses from tax deductibility against off-farm income, can the Minister inform the Senate what will be the tax treatment for a farmer who, while operating his own property, obtains additional off-farm income by planting and growing crops on leased farm land? Has the Commissioner of Taxation informed the accountancy profession as to whether such income will be regarded as part of general farm income or included as off-farm income that will be subject to the quarantining provisions, as is currently being asserted by some accountants? Senator WALSH —My understanding is that in those circumstances it would be regarded as farm income, but I will have that checked with the Treasurer and the Australian Taxation Office. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs entitled `Conscientious objection to conscripted military service' was tabled on 28 May 1985? Is it also a fact that the six senators on that Committee unanimously recommended that the scope of conscientious belief which should gain exemption should be enlarged and tested in a less adversarial forum than was the case during the Vietnam war? As six months has elapsed without a Government response, can the Minister inform the Senate why the Government has not managed to assess and respond to the unanimous view of the Committee? Senator BUTTON —Senator Tate with his customary astuteness is three-quarters of an hour ahead of me. At the end of Question Time I propose to table the Government responses to parliamentary committee reports. However, in respect of the particular report which Senator Tate asked about-that relating to conscientious objection to conscripted military service-at this stage the Government is still examining the complex questions raised in this report. It is examining such central issues and questions as what constitutes conscientious objection, whether conscientious objection to a particular conflict should be a basis for exemption from conscription to that conflict, who decides, and how the adoption of that approach would affect defence planning. The Senate would appreciate the complexity of the moral, legal and practical issues raised in traversing this ground. The report's recommendations invoke fundamental questions of principle regarding the coercive power of the state. The recommendations raise practical questions regarding the ability of the Defence Force to carry out the wishes of an elected government through military action. I add in my own defence that the answer supplied is from the Department of Defence. Senator VANSTONE —I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. I refer the Minister to the article in Tuesday's Adelaide Advertiser headed `Sex bias claim goes to Ombudsman', which article detailed the position of Dr Christopher Farmer, who was formerly employed by the Adelaide University in a health service and who claims that the Adelaide University has discriminated against him on grounds of sex. If Dr Farmer's claim that the university clearly had decided before calling applications that only a woman would be chosen for the job is true, does that not represent a discriminatory policy determination and one that does not serve the legitimate aspirations and opportunities for both men and women? Senator RYAN —Mr Deputy President, perhaps I should draw your attention to the fact that Senator Vanstone's question really takes the form of asking me for my opinion on a matter of State legislation. I would think the case that the honourable senator referred to would have been taken under State anti-discrimination legislation since it went to the State Ombudsman for investigation. I do not know anything about it. I have not seen the article in the Adelaide Advertiser so I really would not like to comment on it. I would just like to say in respect of the Federal Government that there are some exemptions in the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act under which it is possible to advertise specifically for a male or a female. I cannot recall what all of those exemptions are, but I refer Senator Vanstone to the Act. However, for general purposes advertisements should not specify gender but should simply specify the qualifications and experience needed for the job in question. I think that is the only helpful information I can give to Senator Vanstone. If the case to which Senator Vanstone refers was being pursued under the Federal Act, which I doubt from the way she has described it, I could seek further information from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has proposed that Australia send observers to monitor the forthcoming presidential elections in the Philippines? Has the Minister also seen reports that the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, has called for the West to send observers to monitor the conduct of the poll and that the United States Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Paul Wolfowitz, has stated that the United States will do whatever it reasonably and appropriately can to help achieve free and fair elections in the Philippines? Can the Minister indicate whether the Government will support the observer proposals? Senator GARETH EVANS —President Marcos has indicated his willingness to see foreign observers at the proposed presidential elections. While the Press reports that a bipartisan group of United States election experts, sanctioned by the United States Congress, will visit the Philippines to observe preparations for the elections, the United States Government has not yet made a decision on whether to send observers to the elections, nor has it indicated to the Australian Government any wish that Australia do so. We have noted Press reports that the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, has proposed an international observer team. As the Philippines Government has not invited the Australian Government to provide observers at the elections, it would not be appropriate to comment at this stage on this possibility. The Philippines Commission on Elections, COMELEC, is responsible for ensuring the proper conduct of elections as provided for by Philippines law. As was said in response to a question on 14 November, the Australian Government, of course, looks forward to fair elections whenever held. We will also follow with the interest the issue of the accreditation to COMELEC of the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections, NAMFREL, which did make a positive contribution to the conduct of the 1984 National Assembly elections. Perhaps I should add that I am also aware of a letter written to Mr Hayden from Senator Sibraa in his capacity as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Philippines of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence proposing that Australia send observers to monitor the conduct of the proposed presidential elections in the Philippines. I note Senator Sibraa's advice, as Chairman, that a number of members of the Sub-Committee would be prepared to participate. I will ensure that Mr Hayden addresses that question in due course. Senator MacGIBBON —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to the release by the Government of plans from the Department of Defence giving up the defence of Australia except for that area south and east of a line from Newcastle to Geelong. Mindful that a previous Labor Government took a similar defeatist position under Mr Curtin in 1942 with the infamous Brisbane line- Government members interjecting- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr Deputy President, in case honourable senators opposite did not hear what I said, I will repeat that sentence. Mindful that a previous Labor government took a similar defeatist position under Mr Curtin in 1942 with the infamous Brisbane line, how does the Government square the development of these plans with its much trumpeted no-threat doctrine and the low level contingency strategies? Why does not the Government take the obvious step and provide adequate resources for the Australian defence forces so that invasion does not occur? Finally, even if there is some merit in this defeatist planning, what possible advantage or good comes from making it public? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator MacGibbon is perpetuating in his question what he well knows to be a grotesque beat-up and he deserves no credit for attempting to score cheap and nasty political points. The information provided to me by the Minister for Defence on this subject is in the following terms: The Army Development Guide has been developed since 1980 by the Army as an in-service guidance document. It has not been endorsed by the Australian Defence Force as a whole, or by the Minister for Defence. Media publicity has misrepresented the discussion of key areas in the Army Development Guide. The Guide does not define or refer to a Newcastle line. The key areas identified include the major population and resource development centres, including off-shore areas of the north-west of Australia. It also identifies key road and rail links between the key areas. There is no similarity between the purpose of this identification and the so-called Brisbane line of World War II folklore. The policy of the Australian Government is, of course, that all of Australia will be defended. Australian strategic assessments have for decades recognised that a substantial attack on the island continent of Australia could be undertaken by only a very major world power. This geo-strategic advantage is strongly reinforced by Australia's friendly relations with neighbouring Association of South East Asian Nations and South Pacific countries, by our alliances and by the significant maritime surveillance and strike capabilities which Australia has and is now acquiring. The thrust of our planning is to be able to deploy a combination of our forces from the north to ensure the defeat of an enemy in the maritime approaches to Australia. This is the only policy consistent with a strategy of self-reliance. We are expecting to be able to develop this further in response to the Dibb report on force structure and capability. Senator ROBERT RAY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence seen the Press release issued on Monday by the Leader of the National Party of Australia and the Opposition spokesman on defence, Mr Ian Sinclair? I ask the Minister to comment on Mr Sinclair's observation when he said: The South Australians have put all their eggs in the Swedish tenderer's basket and from the beginning the Germans have been the preferred tenderer. It's odds-on that if this process continues the Germans will win and that the submarines will be built in New South Wales. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the Press release, not unexpectedly, from Mr Sinclair which fully meets the standards that this Parliament and the people have come to expect of Press releases from George. It has virtually no factual basis and is obviously crafted to mislead. Contrary to Mr Sinclair's claim that South Australia is likely to lose the contract because it has concentrated exclusively on the Swedish bid, the highly professional South Australian bid for the submarine contract, made in circumstances which I described earlier in the week in answer to Senator Jessop, had involved vigorous wooing of both tenderers. Indeed, the workyard of Eglo Engineering Pty Ltd, the Australian partners of IKL-HDW, is situated in Adelaide and was toured last Sunday by the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley. Thanks to the South Australian Government's efforts, South Australia has an excellent chance of building the Australian submarines no matter which of the two highly competitive contractors win. But, if anything, the connection between the German firm and South Australia is stronger than South Australia's links with the Swedes, because of the long-standing Eglo link with South Australia. Mr Sinclair apparently knows so little about the submarine project and particularly about the vital Australian industrial aspects of it, that he does not even know which tenderers have teamed up with which Australian companies. His claim that New South Wales will win if South Australia does not seems to be a straightforward assumption on his part and one that, certainly among other things, takes no account of the sensitivities of Mr Burke on this subject. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. As the Minister would be aware, 1986 has been declared International Year of Peace and the Federal Government is making funds available to community peace groups. Given that the Federal Government supports the maintenance and development of the joint defence facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar, will any attempt be made to ensure that funds will not be provided to organisations which have a record of interfering with and damaging the property of those facilities? What efforts will be made to ensure that funding will go to groups which are genuinely representative of the range of community opinion on peace issues and that it does not go merely to the left wing activists who, for instance, while condemning French nuclear tests in the Pacific and the testing of the MX missile by the United States of America, have remained silent on nuclear weapon testing in the Pacific conducted by the Soviets late last year? Senator WALSH —Strictly speaking, I do not think that grants-in-aid are the Treasurer's responsibility; it is the responsibility of the Special Minister of State, but I will see whether the Treasurer cares to respond to that question. I just want to make one other comment lest it be read into Senator Kilgariff's question-it may be done intentionally or it may be read into it-that there is a belief that grants-in-aid go only to left wing activists. For example, I think that the Australian Conservation Foundation got $150,000 last year and it received about that much again this year. The Foundation was buying newspaper space for advertisements to advocate a vote for the Australian Democrats. So if there is any suggestion of political favouritism in the making of these grants, it is without substance. This draws attention to another problem. I think it is highly undesirable that there is a belief that groups are going to be punished by any government, or could be seen to be punished by any government for their political activities. Senator AULICH —Is the Minister for Community Services aware that a federally funded family day care service in Launceston has refused to employ a carer who is registered by the State Government in Tasmania, the refusal ostensibly being based on the scurrilous rumours that she is a prostitute? Is there any truth in these rumours? If not, what can the Minister do about the service? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware of the situation referred to by Senator Aulich. It has been brought to my attention as Minister for Community Services and, therefore, Minister responsible for the funding of children's services and also in my capacity as a senator for Tasmania who happens to live in Launceston. It is an unfortunate situation. I know that family day care centres have to be careful of the people they employ as carers. Therefore, they have to investigate the background of those who are carers. In this unfortunate case, the young woman is registered as a carer by the children's services section of the State Department of Health and her background has been investigated both by the State Department and the Federal Department of Community Services. As a senator for the area, I have made my own inquiries, and there is absolutely no evidence for the scurrilous rumours which were apparently given to the family day care centre by people for reasons known or unknown. What is more, there is every bit of evidence that she is a person of good character and a person certainly suitable to be employed in this way. I have approached the Family Day Care Committee to ask it to reconsider this situation. At the moment, it has decided not to do so, I understand, although I hope the members are considering the question again. It seems to me, in this case, as I think Senator Aulich suspects, that there is a matter of personalities and a determination by certain firm personalities on the Committee that they have made a decision and they will not make a change to that decision even if they are shown to be wrong. I suppose one could make out a case for Federal funding to be removed because of this incident. That would penalise a large number of families and children in the Launceston area who are being provided with good quality care by this family day care scheme. I have approached the members of this Committee to see whether they will change their mind and, indeed, I believe they should apologise to the young woman concerned. If they will not do so, I think the best and most democratic method of changing this situation would be to change the committee and the officers of that family day care scheme. I dare say some steps will be taken to do that. I would prefer to see that done than for me to use any ministerial power I have to interfere in this area. Senator TOWNLEY —Does the Minister for Resources and Energy acknowledge that fast breeder reactors produce considerably more plutonium than the more standard nuclear power reactors? Does he agree that if countries cannot be guaranteed a reasonable supply of uranium, they will be forced to consider building fast breeder reactors, experimental models of which are now operating in several countries including Russia, India and France? Does the Minister agree that it is therefore in the interests of the world for Australia to become a reliable supplier of nuclear fuel? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is my understanding that fast breeder reactors do produce more plutonium than other forms of power generation sources and that there is an argument current to the effect that if uranium supplies dry up, that would be an incentive to develop such reactors in a greater scale than would otherwise be the case. It is also my understanding that fast breeder reactors operate effectively only as part of a cycle of energy production in which they operate closely in conjunction with conventional nuclear reactors and, as such, there could reasonably be expected to be, even in the context of the development of fast breeder reactors, a significant continuing demand for uranium. I am not sure that the premise on which the question is founded is in fact accurate, but insofar as the thrust of the question is to suggest that Australia should abandon its present cautious policy on the supply of uranium to the world, and get in there helter-skelter in order to avoid the miscellany of gloomy results of the kind that Senator Townley paints, might I suggest to him there is simply no foundation for that. At the moment, the supply of uranium around the world well and truly exceeds the available demand. That situation is likely to change to some extent by the mid 1990s, but by that time it is fully expected, of course, that as far as the Australian uranium is concerned, the Roxby Downs or Olympic Dam mine will be in full production and will create a situation in which Australia will be producing-- Senator MacGibbon —That is good. Senator Chipp —Aren't you worried that he is agreeing with you? Senator GARETH EVANS —That does give me considerable cause for pause. There are occasions when, given enough monkeys typing on enough typewriters, they can produce a sonnet. I suspect that the law of averages does produce some odd conjunctions. The reality of the matter is that Australia's present uranium policy will ensure that Australia becomes a significant supplier on the world stage. That, of course, is appropriate in turn because Australia runs a much tighter and more comprehensive safeguards regime in relation to its supply of uranium than just about anyone else around the world. As such, by contributing to the world's needs which will undoubtedly exist for uranium, by our supplying it rather than anyone else, we will be contributing far more to securing a nuclear safe future than would be the case if we shoved our head in the sand. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that the Queensland Government has refused to match skills in demand training grants available from the Federal Government for the retraining of nurses? How much money has been allocated to this program in other States, and have other States accepted this money? Has the Minister any suggestions for Queensland nurses trying to gain access to this program to assist in the overall upgrading of nurse education and their professional status? Senator WALSH —Yes, the Queensland Government, as Senator Reynolds said, has refused to match the Commonwealth funding for skills in demand training. It is the only State or Territory which has done so. Queensland stands alone yet again. About $3m of Commonwealth money has already been allocated to the other States and shortly it is expected that an allocation will be made to Tasmania. In the four States which have already had funding, the money has provided for the retraining of some 1,400 nurses. Queensland's excuse for not participating is that there is no shortage of nurses in that State; an assertion which is not verified by the Commonwealth Employment Service data and other experience. Also, Queensland is said to doubt its ability to put up the money. In other words, Queensland has welshed on its joint responsibility to do something about nurse training, just as it welshed on its joint responsibility to do something about the sugar industry. As for what Queensland nurses can do, I can only suggest-this will be extremely difficult because it has been taken care of in other ways-that they try to get rid of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney- General. I refer to reports that have been attributed to a spokesperson for the Attorney-General that the Government has decided on the membership of the commission to prepare a new Constitution for Australia, presumably by 1988. Is the chairman of the Commission Sir Maurice Byers, the former Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth? Will other members of the commission include, among others, former Prime Minister Whitlam and the former Premier of Victoria, Sir Rupert Hamer? Can the Minister say who would be the greater proponent for increased power for the Commonwealth at the expense of the States, Mr Whitlam or Sir Maurice Byers? Has Sir Rupert Hamer been selected as the sole representative of the interests of the States on this commission? Will the product of this commission, whatever it comes up with, be referred to the Australian Constitutional Convention, directly to the people or just to the waste paper basket? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer Senator Durack's question to the Attorney-General, with reference to the constructive and enthusiastic approach to constitutional reform that the Opposition once again brings to this task. Senator ELSTOB —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen a recent report that there are some thousands of serious acquired immune deficiency syndrome cases throughout the country? Can the Minister say whether the rate of this disease is increasing in Australia in the way it has in the United States? Does the Government accept Professor Penington's claim that AIDS can be spread by contact with saliva during deep kissing? When will a comprehensive educational program be in place so that hysteria associated with this disease can be avoided? Senator GRIMES —I did see the article in the Australian which referred to comments by Professor Penington. Professor Penington referred to the fact that for something like 12 months or so we have known that the AIDS virus has been found in the saliva of a percentage of those suffering from AIDS and, therefore, obviously it can be transmitted in that way, although, in view of the difficulty of transmission generally, it is only likely to occur if there are other lesions in the mouth of one or other of the people who are indulging in the kissing. I think it is important to remember that Professor Penington at the same time pointed out that the transmission and the epidemiological details of AIDS as it has developed so far certainly do not indicate that it is spread in the same way as other diseases which are well known to be spread by kissing, such as glandular fever and infected mononeucleosis. As for the first part of Senator Elstob's question, the increase in the number of cases of AIDS in Australia is less than was anticipated when AIDS was first detected here. The figures that were used then were based on the increase in the number of cases in the United States, but there has been a lower rate of increase than was anticipated. I think from memory, it was anticipated that by the end of next year there would be 600 cases; there will probably be about 400 cases. This could be due to a blip in the statistics or it could also be due to the fact that we do not have the extent of transmission that there is in America, particularly in the eastern States, from intravenous drug users. Our health authorities, both State and Federal, were fortunate enough to become aware of the potential epidemic very early in the piece, unlike those in the United States. The measures that have been taken in Australia, with the co-operation of the gay community and the medical community and with the considerable co-operation between State and Federal governments, and the measures taken to ensure as much as possible that AIDS is not transmitted through blood transfusions, are likely to be the reason why the spread has not been as great as perhaps was anticipated. I would have thought that the efforts of the committees headed by Professor Penington and Ms Ita Buttrose, in providing education to the communities that are most likely to be affected and to the general community, and the responsible attitudes of most of the Press and the politicians in this community have resulted in a consistent lack of hysteria which has surrounded the publicity of this disease in, say, the United States and Europe. I hope that this situation continues. I have said before in this place that I think everyone, except a few silly people, firmly believes that as this is a public health problem it should be treated as a public health problem, not as some visitation from on high. We will always have the Reverend Niles, Betty Hockings and others who will try to stir up hysteria about this, but I have a belief in the general good sense of the Australian people and the Australian media in this regard. Therefore, I believe that the education and health campaigns that we have conducted will result in containing this very serious epidemic as much as it can be, so that in future, at a time when more effective preventative and treatment measures are developed, we will be in a very good position in this country to cope with this disease-in a much better position than some other countries. Senator PETER RAE —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Is it a fact that the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority disclosed in its report of 30 June 1985 that 60 per cent of its expenditure goes on the payment of interest on loans? Is it also a fact that the report showed that the weighted average interest rate on its $908m of outstanding debt to the Commonwealth was 8.5 per cent? Is it a further fact that new loans obtained by the Authority last year on Commonwealth guarantee were at the rate of just on 14 per cent; two loans of just under and just over 14 per cent respectively? Will the Government make substantial increases in the interst rates on the Authority's debt to the Commonwealth to increase them to current rates? If so, will the Australian Capital Territory consumers and others inevitably be required to pay very considerably increased electricity rates, or will the Government leave the situation as one where the taxpayers generally will have to subsidise those consumers to pay for the record high interest rates which this Government has created? Senator WALSH —The assertion right at the end of that question is, of course, false. The record interest rates in this country were those over which Mr Howard presided in 1982 when the 90-day bank bills rate hit 22 1/2 per cent. That is the record interest rate. On the other questions, I have not seen the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority report but I find the things that Senator Peter Rae said about its content quite credible and unsurprising. I am not sure what the legal situation is regarding the suggestion that the Commonwealth should increase the interest rate on the long term borrowings of the Authority which are at 8 1/2 per cent. However, I will ask the Treasurer for a response. I do want to make one additional point. Given that the HEA committed itself to repay those loans at an interest rate comparable to the borrowings undertaken by the Government at that time I think it is arguable whether the Snowy Mountains HEA should have then to pay a higher interest rate if interest rates rise because it could equally be argued that if interest rates fell on present levels authorities presently undertaking repayment obligations on loans at present interest rates should be entitled to have that debt refinanced at lower interest rates as well. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. What initiatives has the Commonwealth undertaken to address the problem of water supply, particularly the water South Australia uses from the River Murray? Senator GARETH EVANS —Under the Hawke Government the Commonwealth has provided significant financial assistance to the water filtration plants which the South Australian Government is installing to improve the quality of South Australia's water supply. These include the Morgan filtration plant, which will be commissioned ahead of schedule in July 1986, to provide filtered water to the northern provincial cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie. A further water filtration plant with a capacity to serve 40 per cent of Adelaide's population is being constructed at Happy Valley in order to substantially complete the provision of filtered water to the people of Adelaide. For most South Australians, particularly during poor seasons, the River Murray is an essential source of water and it is therefore of very great concern to them that water from the Murray-Darling basin system has been slowly deteriorating in quality. That is a long term problem which cannot be rectified quickly nor by simple engineering works alone. It does require a new, comprehensive approach to integrated land use and water management. That is why I was delighted to be able to chair the Murray-Darling Basin management ministerial meeting in Adelaide last month, which was called on the initiative of the South Australian Premier, Mr John Bannon, together with the Victorian Premier, Mr John Cain. That meeting of agriculture, environment and water Ministers from four Labor governments agreed to establish the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, a revolutionary step, to develop effective strategies for addressing the problems of the basin from an integrated basin-wide perspective. As an immediate response, the governments agreed that a $500,000 investigation and design program to be undertaken by the River Murray Commission to reduce salinity in the River Murray should proceed urgently this year. The Commonwealth also announced that it will provide $1m in the next financial year for an upgraded and co-ordinated program of water and water related research for the Murray-Darling basin in accordance with the recommendations of the Australian Water Research Advisory Council. Following that ministerial meeting, fully five working groups have been established to undertake a benchmark environmental study of the Murray-Darling basin. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. I thought I would give the Minister a chance to catch his breath. Not even the Minister is taking this answer seriously. I suggest that he either answer the question, sit down, shut up or incorporate it. He has those choices. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. It is not a requirement of the Standing Orders that a question and answer be taken seriously, but I would give the Minister some advice. There is an old proverb-it is a good answer which knows when to stop. Senator GARETH EVANS —The second of the five working groups is to examine proposals for salt interception works with the value of up to $55m in relation to alternative options for salinity reduction. The third one will examine potential for approved on-farm use of irrigation water. The fourth will examine the scope for improvements in the delivery of irrigation water to farms and the final one will review appropriate structures and processes for community participation in the work of the Council. Over the next year that body will also be examining possible changes to the future role of the River Murray Commission. There is a great deal more that we have been doing in the water area, which I am only too delighted to inform the Senate about, but perhaps under the circumstances a little of the flavour of our initiatives here will have been communicated. Senator FOREMAN —I have a supplementary question. Can the Minister tell us how much Whyalla will benefit from these initiatives? Senator GARETH EVANS —It all depends on what happens to Mr Blevins tomorrow. It is proposed that the Morgan filtration plant will be commissioned ahead of schedule in July 1986 to provided filtered water to the northern provincial cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie. Provided this plan goes ahead under the joint dynamic leadership and teamwork that we have established between ourselves and the South Australian Government, the people of Whyalla can expect to have newly filtered water by about that time. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is neither a dorothy dixer nor a rhetorical question, but one attempting to elicit intelligent information. I refer the Minister to a question that was raised with him yesterday by Senator McIntosh in respect of the Antarctic Treaty. That question related to consideration in the United Nations of the Antarctic Treaty and a number of resolutions that were carried-three, as I recall. As I recall the answer to the question by Senator Evans it was that the Government was satisfied with the resolutions that were carried in the United Nations. One of those was that South Africa be excluded from the Antarctic meetings. I ask: Was that one of the resolutions that he found satisfactory? If so, does he not agree that the role of South Africa, in view of its financial and physical participation in the Antarctic region and particularly in view of the minerals regime, the environmental considerations and all other activities being undertaken by the consultative members, is intrinsic and vital to ensuring a proper resolution in the Antarctic to matters such as the minerals regime and environmental considerations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think Mr Hayden has already received that question from the South African Embassy, but I am not sure. I will check with him and ensure that Senator Crichton-Browne gets an answer as soon as possible. Senator COOK —My question is a Christmas question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that on the most recent broadcast of the Channel 9 Sunday program, the Bulletin journalist Mr David Barnett claimed that the Australian economy is in a `parlous state'? Did Mr Barnett offer any real evidence to support this allegation? What are the facts of the matter? Is it true that Mr David Barnett is a constant and carping critic of the Government's economic and tax reform policies? Senator WALSH —I did see that program and I indeed saw Mr Barnett assert that the economy was in a parlous state. Of course, he produced no evidence to support that assertion, nor could he have done so, unless he regards an economy which displays these attributes as being in a parlous state: Three years of real gross domestic product growth of around 5 per cent; the inflation rate almost halved; unemployment reduced by 3 per cent; half a million additional jobs; the lowest level of industrial disputation for 17 years; the lowest real labour unit costs since the late 1960s and the highest profit share since the late 1960s; and $6 1/2 billion added to corporate profits. Mr Barnett is also a carping critic of the Government's general economic and tax policies. He has two obsessions about the tax policies. One is about the abolition of the farm tax shelter. I suggest in this context that somebody should have a good look at the Australian Journalists Association's code of ethics-article 5, I think it is, concerning the non-disclosure of a journalist's vested interest when he purports to be making objective comments on public policy. The other obsession is, of course, the free lunch, to which he referred on the Sunday program in these terms: Well you know, one might also say that the tax free lunch is not abolished. See the tax free lunch continues in factories. That's simple, just eating a meal in a factory canteen the tax concession remains. But for a couple of blokes who want to do business over a meal the deductibility of that expense is ended. It just seems to be ironical and hypocritical. In that statement Mr Barnett is equating the meat pie and Coke, which thousands or even millions of ordinary workers might have, with the caviar and champagne lunch which he is accustomed to having. Finally, despite his right wing rhetoric or perhaps because of it, Mr Barnett has long been accustomed to sticking his snout in the public trough. He stuck it in so far in the form of overtime payments when he was Mr Fraser's Press Secretary that the Fraser Government had to change the rules. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. There is no standing order which protects any private citizen from this sort of vulgar abuse. Only members of parliament are protected from the vulgarity of this Minister. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —As I was saying, Mr Barnett has long been accustomed to sticking his snout in the public trough. When he was Mr Fraser's Press Secretary, he stuck it in so far that the Fraser Government had to change the rules about overtime payments. In present value dollars, in the first year he was Mr Fraser's Press Secretary he took $38,743 as a salary and $63,584 in overtime payments. I repeat that that is in present values. He stuck his snout so far into the public trough that the Fraser Government had to change the rules and put all senior officials on a fixed overtime allowance, which is currently in the order of $8,000. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Government intend to amend the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) passed by the Senate yesterday to correct an anomaly with the in-house dining facilities which does not allow for mobile canteens? Does the Minister agree that this would cause a loss of deductibility through the provision of food by independent suppliers in remote area construction sites? Senator WALSH —I am not aware of any anomaly, but I will pass on the question to the Treasurer. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —In the course of the hearings of Estimates Committee E some questions were directed by Senator Sir John Carrick and others to the Minister for Defence. I have answers to those questions and I seek leave to have them incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 2 December Senator Vanstone asked me a question about housing in the Salisbury area of South Australia. I undertook to give an answer this week from the Minister for Defence. It is in the following terms: The Minister for Defence wrote to the South Australian Premier on 27 June 1985 about residential developments in areas beneath the main takeoff path south of the runway which are adversely affected by aircraft noise. Representatives of the Salisbury Council met with Department of Defence officials on 12 September 1985. Departmental officials did express the view at that meeting that further residential development in the vicinity of Royal Australian Air Force base Edinburgh should not proceed. The South Australian Premier replied to the Minister for Defence on 11 October. The Premier has made his letter available to the Press in South Australia. Both the Commonwealth and State positions on this matter have been fully explained to the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise and are a matter of public record. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Archer asked me a question about citizens of Griffith sending a petition to this Parliament. The answer from the Special Minister of State is as follows: The National Crime Authority is in touch directly with the Concerned Citizens of Griffith Committee and the Authority's investigations are proceeding. The Special Minister of State has previously notified the Authority of the request that it be granted a reference and in accordance with normal procedures the views of the Authority on the need for such a reference have been sought. The Authority has indicated that it considers that it would be premature to seek a reference at this stage. Senator GARETH EVANS —I was asked yesterday by Senator Michael Baume whether the Minister for Defence would table the Defence Facilities Policy Committee report on user requirements for the Army training facilities proposal recently released under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The Minister has unhesitatingly agreed to this report being tabled and I do so now. I understand that it has already been made available to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which is inquiring into this proposal. I emphasise that the views expressed in the paper were not accepted by the final committee to which it was presented, the Defence Force Development Committee. The arguments presented in the paper show that the Department of Defence was not treating the proposals lightly or superficially but was subjecting them to searching analysis. The types of issues covered in this report will be addressed in the environmental impact statements on this proposal. I hope that the release of the report will now give honourable senators some background to the proposal and assist them in their considerations of the environmental impact statements when they become available. Senator GIETZELT —Senator Watson asked me a question on 26 November in respect of sewerage problems in Launceston and I undertook to get an answer for him. I am advised that Mr Uren recently attended the International Malls Conference at Launceston and had discussions with the Mayor, the City Council officers and Alderman Barnard. Alderman Barnard later visited Mr Uren in Canberra. In discussions with Mr Barnard, Mr Uren has indicated that he is sympathetic to Launceston's sewerage problems and would give consideration to providing some Commonwealth assistance for a survey to determine the extent of upgrading required in the Launceston sewerage system. Consideration would be given under the local government development program, a program intended to develop the capacity and capability of local government, and it would be necessary for the proposal to fall within the program's guidelines. At this stage, however, no formal application for funds for the project under the program has been received by either Mr Uren or his Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. Under the local government development program it is normal practice with projects of this nature for consultations to occur with State officials before decisions are taken on allocation of funds. In the course of such consultations, the degree and nature of the Tasmanian Government's support for the proposal would of course be discussed. Nevertheless, the question of initiating an approach to the Tasmanian Government on this issue is a matter for the Launceston City Council. There is no program under which the Commonwealth can provide capital assistance for the rehabilitation of sewerage systems in the States. Senator GIETZELT —Senator Missen asked me a question on notice and I have a reply for him. I am advised that Qantas Airways Ltd has taken very significant steps to increase the level of direct international air services to Melbourne in response to a genuine growth of market demand. By mid-December Qantas will have increased capacity on the Melbourne gateway flights by a total of some 47 per cent over the five-year period since 1981. In comparison with all other international airlines it will have increased its gateway capacity by only 7 per cent in the same period. Qantas has recently introduced a range of new services to Melbourne including improved services to Europe, Asia and New Zealand. The introduction of B767s has given the company greater flexibility to improve services and frequencies. By mid-December Qantas will be able to offer Victorian travellers access to 20 overseas cities. The Government maintains a policy of leaving Qantas and other international airlines serving Australia as free as possible to set capacity in accordance with their commercial judgment and assessment of market demands. This is within the terms of Australia's bilateral agreements with other countries and is more conducive to competitive decision-making and in the interests of consumers generally. Senator GIETZELT —Yesterday Senator Walters asked a question of Senator Grimes, who was acting on my behalf. He undertook to supply an answer before Parliament adjourned. The answer is that it is true that some overseas-- Senator Gareth Evans —Incorporate it. Senator GIETZELT —I have been asked by honourable senators opposite that these matters be read out. I am responding to that request. Senator Chipp —We will give you leave to incorporate it. Senator GIETZELT —I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- It is true that some overseas owned freighter aircraft fly out of Australia without a full load. Consistent with their commercial rights under the applicable air services agreement, however, loadings achieved by scheduled carriers on their services to/from Australia are essentially a reflection of their commercial judgment and the market dynamics applying at the time. Scheduled freighter aircraft to which the honourable senator may be referring are operated by Air New Zealand, Lufthansa, Japan Airlines and Flying Tigers (Flying Tigers operates inbound only as a scheduled service). The outbound legs of Flying Tigers flights frequently operate as livestock charters to points in South East Asia. Far from being protected from these overseas operators referred to above, Qantas has in fact concluded commercial arrangements for its participation in the joint provision of dedicated freighter capacity with Lufthansa, Japan Airlines and Cathay Pacific. Qantas and Cathay Pacific provide the B747 freighter service from Australia to Hong Kong using a Lufthansa B747 freighter. Qantas has advised that its reservation system gives equal priority to Tasmanian origin cargo as to cargo from any other source. In addition, a revised freight charter policy has recently been announced that now permits operators of outbound charter flights carrying primary produce to carry consolidated general freight on the inbound leg of the flight. This is designed to provide an incentive for the carriage of primary produce by improving the viability of such flights. Of particular note is the new provision where primary produce exports can be picked up from more than one of Australia's `secondary gateways' (Cairns, Darwin, Hobart, Norfolk Island, Port Hedland and Townsville). It is now up to exporters and aircraft operators to take advantage of the revised policy. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Yesterday I tabled a report to the Senate on Government responses outstanding to parliamentary committee reports. That report indicated that there had been no Government response to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Jackson report on Australia's Overseas Aid Program. My attention has since been drawn to a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) which was tabled among Government papers last Tuesday. The Government regards that statement as being its formal response to both the Jackson report and the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a schedule in relation to the list of reports tabled by you in the Senate on 5 December 1985. Leave granted. The list read as follows- DEPUTY-PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Title of Report Date tabled Government response SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES Constitutional and Legal Affairs 1. Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings... 25.11.82 I: 2. 6.83 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 2. `Makarrata' between the Commonwealth and Aboriginal people... 13.9.83 I: 22.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 3. Conscientious Objection to Conscripted Military Service... 28.5.85 - 4. Commonwealth Law Making Power and the Privilege of Freedom of Speech in State Parliaments... 30.5.85 - Education and the Arts 1. Tenure of Employment of Academics... 9.9.82 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 2. A National Language Policy... 21.2.85 I: 28.5.85 I: 31.5.85 3. Examination of Annual Reports (Third Report) Children's Television Standards... 21.8.85 - Finance and Government Operations 1. Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth-5th Report... 16.9.82 I: 11.11.82 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 2. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation-Annual Reports 1980-81... 1.12.83 I: 22.10.84 3. Practical Operation of the Prescribed Payments System of Taxation... 4.9.84 I: 31. 5.85 4. Report on Policy Questions Underlying Division 312 of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84... 19.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 5. Report on Changes in the Presentation of the Appropriations and Departmental Explanatory Notes... 30.5.85 - 6. The Superannuation Fund Investment Trust... 21.8.85 - Foreign Affairs and Defence 1. Australia's Defence Co-operation with its Neighbours in the Asian-Pacific Region... 23.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 Industry and Trade 1. Development of the Australian Fishing Industry... 21.4.83 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 2. Australia-China Trade... 23.8.84 I: 31. 5.85 I: 11. 9.85 3. The Development of Closer Economic Relations between Australia and New Zealand (First Report)... 11.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 4. The Development of Closer Economic Relations between Australia and New Zealand (Second Report)... 20.8.85 - National Resources 1. Development of the bauxite, alumina and aluminium industries... 25.11.81 I: 15.12.83 I: 16.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 Science, Technology and the Environment 1. Land Use Policy in Australia... 21.2.85 I: 31. 5.85 2. Examination of Annual Reports. Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration... 21.8.85 - Social Welfare 1. Another side to the drug debate-a medicated society?... 14.5.81 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 2. Children in Institutional and Other Forms of Care. A National Perspective... 22.8.85 - SENATE SELECT COMMITTEES 1. The Future of the Government Clothing Factory at Coburg... 14.10.82 - 2. Statutory Authority Financing Vol. 1:... 8.9.83 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 Vol. 2:... 13.10.83 I: 15.12.83 I: 22.10.84 I: 31. 5.85 3. Allegations Concerning a Judge... 21.2.85 - 4. Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes in Australia... 21.2.85 I: 31. 5.85 I: 21. 8.85 5. Video Material... 28.3.85 I: 31. 5.85 6. Animal Welfare-Export of live sheep for Australia... 20.8.85 - JOINT COMMITTEES Australian Capital Territory 1. Planning in the ACT: procedures, processes and community involvement... 4.4.79 I: 9.10.79 2. Parliamentary Zone Draft Development Plan... 1.3.84 I: 31. 5.85 Foreign Affairs and Defence 1. Disarmament and Arms Control... 11.10.84 - 2. Report on the Jackson Report on Australia's Overseas Aid Program... 23.5.85 - Note-I: Interim response only, as at 3 December 1985. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —I present the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and seek leave to make a statement relating thereto and to incorporate the statement and response in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Report is the end-product of an exhaustive and thorough examination of the affairs, practices and administration of the Trust which was conducted by the Standing Committee over the best part of three years. During the time of that examination, the management and operations of the Trust have been the subject of a comprehensive process of review by the Government. Following the concerns expressed by the Auditor-General in his November 1983 reports on the Trust's financial statements for 1981-82, the Government instituted the inquiry into the management and operations of the Trust by Mr J. V. Monaghan. Mr Monaghan addressed both the specific matters raised by the Auditor-General and a range of more general concerns. Following receipt of the Monaghan Report the Government took prompt action to increase the staffing level within the Office of the Trust and established a working party to examine and consider a number of matters associated with the conclusions and recommendations of that Report. The working party comprised representatives drawn from the principal unions representing contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, the ACTU-Australian Government Employees' Section, the Trust, the Public Service Board and a firm of chartered accountants, as well as from the Department of Finance. Both the Monaghan Report and the report of the working party have been tabled in the Parliament. The final link in the review process was the Government's introduction of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 on 23 April 1985. In line with the board thrust of the Monaghan and working party reports, the Bill was aimed primarily at amending the Superannuation Act 1976 in respect of the structure, responsibilities and operations of the Trust. It provided for much needed changes to: strengthen the Trust's ability to manage and invest the Superannuation Fund in the most effective and efficient manner; enable the Trust to operate in competitive financial markets with the same freedom and flexibility as larger private sector superannuation funds; clearly define the objectives and duties of the Trust; and enhance the accountability of the Trust both to contributors and to the Parliament. On 15 May 1985, prior to the release of its Report on its inquiry into the affairs of the Trust, the Standing Committee reported to the Senate on the amending Bill. Apart from four matters, the Standing Committee approved of the provisions of the Bill. Of those four matters, the Government accepted the views of the Standing Committee on three, and moved appropriate amendments to the Bill. Nevertheless, despite acknowledging the pressing need for reform of legislation affecting SFIT, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats joined to defeat the Bill on 8 October 1985. They did so some six months after the Bill's introduction-not in disagreement with the Bill's provisions concerning the expansion of the Trust, or the increase in its investment powers, or the change in its staffing arrangements, but over the manner of nomination of members of the Trust. They did so even though they held diametrically opposed views on that issue and despite their representatives on the Standing Committee agreeing to the Government's proposals. They are answerable for their actions to the 308,000 Commonwealth employees whose funds are invested by the Trust. Honourable senators will recall that the `30/20' rule which required life assurance companies and superannuation funds to hold at least 30 per cent of their assets in public securities (and at least 20 per cent in Commonwealth securities) has been abolished with effect from the 1984-85 tax year. Amendments repealing the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 were assented to on 30 May 1985. The defeated Bill contained a provision that would have removed the equivalent of the `30/20' rule from the Superannuation Act 1976. The Government will repeal that provision (section 42 (4)) at the earliest opportunity and with effect from the 1985-86 fiscal year. Fortunately for contributors, legislation is not required to implement other aspects of necessary reforms. Decisions taken by the Government on a number of matters complementary to the provisions of the Bill have been advised to the Trust. For example, the accountability of the Trust to both contributors and to the Parliament has been stressed, as has the expectation that the Trust will endeavour to accommodate both the letter and the spirit of publicly stated Government policies bearing on its functions, within the confines of its responsibilities to contributors. In future, the Superannuation Fund will be assessed on a market valuation basis and the imputation of income in respect of properties during their development stage will cease. A clear picture of the actual value of the Fund, not distorted by the effect of particular accounting policies, will be presented. I wrote to the Trust before the Standing Committee's Report became available, stressing the need to comply with the provisions of the Superannuation Act and asking that comprehensive details of its plans for the rehabilitation of its systems and procedures be provided both to the Auditor-General and myself. I asked also that quarterly progress reports be provided by the Trust until such time as the Auditor-General is satisfied that the procedures are adequate. Let me make it clear that none of the legislative amendments which have been proposed, none of the Government's decisions conveyed to the Trust and none of my requests affects the continuing independence of the Trust from external direction. The Trust remains unfettered by external direction and continues to be free to make the commercial and other decisions required to manage and invest the Superannuation Fund in the most efficient and effective manner and in the interests of beneficiaries. However the Trust must, as a consequence of the Opposition and Democrats' action, now do so within the confines of restrictive legislation. In its Report, the Standing Committee criticises the Trust for failing, in the Committee's view, to appropriately discharge its duty to contributors by not finding a solution to the problem of accounting for the unrealised losses on the assets inherited in 1976 from the previous Superannuation Fund. The fact is that the decision to transfer assets from the old to the new Superannuation Fund on the basis of their historical cost was not one taken by the Trust. That decision was taken by the then-Treasurer, acting on the advice of a committee established for the purpose. Members of the committee included the contributor representative of the former Superannuation Board and an independent actuary commissioned by the then peak council of public service unions (CCPSO), as well as the Australian Government Actuary and other officials. It should also be pointed out that the move to account for equity investments on a market value basis, which was taken by the Trust in 1981, was an innovative step. At that time, most major public sector superannuation schemes accepted the long-standing view that assets should be accounted for on the basis of historical cost. Many still take that view. In the sixth and seventh chapters of its Report, the Standing Committee examines in some detail the actions of the selection committee which recommended the appointment of Mr Hammond to the previous Government, and the role played by the Department of Finance in relation to its responsibilities on matters within the scope of the Committee's inquiries. The Committee reaches a number of conclusions which are critical of the selection committee and the Department. Before responding to those criticisms, it is proper that I should make some general comments on the role of Committees of the Parliament in scrutinising the activities of the Executive Government. In its Report in 1976, the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration expressed the view that such authority as the Parliament has to scrutinise and control the activities of the executive government derives from the Parliament's primary function under the Constitution, which is to legislate. The Royal Commission noted that: ``Because the Constitution treats the legislative and executive powers of the government as different and separable, locating them in separate institutions, there is a point beyond which Parliament cannot go in its oversight of administration without arrogating to itself executive authority which the Constitution implicitly denies it.'' In its examination of the selection committee procedures and of the actions of the Department of Finance, the Standing Committee has extended its role of scrutiny beyond the administration of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust-which was, as the first sentence of the report states, the subject of its inquiry-into quite detailed aspects of the administration of a Ministerial Department. It has also, of course, extended its role beyond the area of possible legislative change into matters in respect of which the Committee's views-whatever their validity-have no legislative implications. Quite apart from the constitutional issue identified by the Royal Commission, there must be a question about whether it is practicable for a Committee of the Parliament to reach sound findings on complex and detailed matters which are outside the immediate scope of its inquiry, and about which expert evidence has not been sought or presented. For example, the section of the Committee's Report which deals with the appointment of Mr Hammond as Chairman of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust does not mention that the appointment was, and under the legislation had to be, made by the then-Government. It does not mention that the primary responsibility of a selection committee set up to recommend on an appointment by government must necessarily be to that Government, nor does it acknowledge that it is for the Government to prescribe and to pronounce upon the nature of the selection procedures it wishes its advisers to follow. The Committee apparently did not think it appropriate to call evidence on this point-for example, from Sir William Cole who had, as Secretary of the Department of Finance, specifically commended the work of the selection committee whose procedures the Standing Committee has criticised. Many other questions can be raised about the findings in Chapters 6 and 7 of the Committee's Report. I table a detailed commentary by the Department of Finance on those sections of the Report, which includes comments by the Chairman of the Public Service Board and the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department on aspects which are relevant to their respective area of responsibility. In the ninth chapter of its Report, the Standing Committee makes a number of recommendations that have relevance to the generality of statutory authorities. The Government has all aspects of policy in relation to statutory authorities under consideration and will be giving careful consideration to the matters raised by the Standing Committee. With respect to the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust itself, the Senate is aware that the Government has action in hand to remedy the problems identified by the former Auditor-General, investigated by the present Auditor-General before his appointment to that position, and examined with great thoroughness by the Standing Committee. It is naturally a matter for regret that the legislative changes supported unanimously by the Committee have been frustrated by the Opposition and the Democrats, but the Government will continue-as far as we are able-to move to strengthen the perceived weaknesses in the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and to effect the reforms recommended by the Standing Committee. REPORT FROM THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS ON THE SUPERANNUATION FUND INVESTMENT TRUST Response to Specific Recommendations RECOMMENDATION That the SFIT adopt the Joint Working Party recommendation that development stage projects be valued at market value during the course of their development as an alternative to imputation of income (paragraph 5.45). RESPONSE The Government has agreed that: imputation of income cease to be used as an accounting practice; and any appreciation in the value of properties concerned be limited to that indicated by a professional valuer. The Trust intends to introduce market value accounting for all assets of the Superannuation Fund with effect from the 1984-85 financial year. Cessation of imputation of income in respect of development stage properties and introduction of valuation by professional valuers will be a feature of the market value accounting policy. RECOMMENDATION That any selection procedures adopted to select a new principal member should include at least one person who either currently works in the investment and financial community or has considerable experience of the qualities required to manage a fund of the size and complexity of the Superannuation Fund, to provide the essential perspective which was lacking on the committee that selected Mr Hammond (paragraph 6.25). RESPONSE It is agreed that expertise and experience relating to investment and/or superannuation fund management is a necessary input into the selection process for a principal member of the Trust. The selection committee which advised on the appointment of the Chairman of the Trust announced on 1 October 1985 included a person with such expertise and experience. The implied criticism of the competent and experienced officers who comprised the selection committee which recommended Mr Hammond's appointment is not accepted. The Committee was assisted by the then-members of the SFIT and by a firm of consultants, and was well equipped to provide sound and balanced advice to the Government. RECOMMENDATION That the SFIT, as a matter of priority, in view of its wider investment powers, proceed with the implementation of its new financial management information system and with the review of the organisation and structure of the OSFIT (paragraph 8.15). RESPONSE Because of the defeat on 8 October 1985 of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, the Trust's investment powers remain restricted. The Trust is, however, proceeding with the implementation of an improved management information system and has advised that a computerised general ledger system, currently running in parallel with the existing accounting system, has been introduced. The system will produce quarterly accounts and should overcome concerns about accounting procedures and systems and internal controls. RECOMMENDATION That the conclusions and recommendations regarding subsidiaries of authorities in the Committee's Fifth Report on Statutory Authorities be addressed in the proposed White Paper on Commonwealth Statutory Authorities to be issued by the Government (paragraph 9.8). RESPONSE The forthcoming policy discussion paper on Commonwealth statutory authorities will have regard to the principal conclusions and recommendations of the Committee's Fifth Report regarding subsidiaries of authorities. RECOMMENDATION That the Acts Interpretation Act be amended to incorporate provisions to ensure that: a ministerial direction to an authority is reported to the Parliament by the Minister within 6 sitting days of its being made and by the authority in its next annual report; a statement of government policy forwarded to an authority is reported to the Parliament by the Minister within 15 sitting days and by the authority in its next annual report; and a response to a statement of government policy is reported by an authority in its next annual report (paragraph 9.15). RESPONSE All aspects of policy concerning the accountability of statutory authorities, including provisions where appropriate for Ministerial direction and policy guidance to such authorities, are under active consideration by the Government. The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, as amended, included provisions that: enabled the Minister to furnish to the Trust a statement of Government policy concerning any matter that was relevant to the performance of the functions of the Trust; required the Trust to give consideration to that policy; required a copy of a statement of policy to be laid before each House of the Parliament by the Minister within 15 sitting days of it being furnished to the Trust; and required the Trust to include particulars of any statement of policy furnished to it, the consideration given to the policy and the action taken (if any) as a result of that consideration in its annual report or any interim report. RECOMMENDATION That the Government give consideration to immediate amendment of the Acts Interpretation Act to ensure that the Auditor-General has the power to audit not only a statutory authority, but a subsidiary in which any authority has more than a specified minimum shareholding (paragraph 9.28). RESPONSE The Government will give consideration to amendment of the Acts Interpretation Act as recommended by the Committee. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.13) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In view of the time and the fact that I have not had time to read the whole of the response to that report, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think another speaker wishes to speak on the matter. It would be better to forgo your request, Senator Coates. Senator COATES —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks on another occasion because I do not think we have time to have a full debate on this occasion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There will not be a full debate, but Senator Short can speak to the motion if he wishes. It has not been adjourned yet. Senator COATES —I seek leave to continue my remarks later in order that I can give a considered reply to the response by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to the report. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Chaney —No. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It might help the Senate if it gave Senator Coates leave to speak on the understanding that Senator Short will get leave to make a statement. Senator Chaney —If there is a clear indication from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that leave will be granted, that is fine. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for Senator Coates to continue his remarks? There being no objection, leave is granted. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —by leave-Like Senator Coates, I have not had time to examine the Government's response fully, but my attention has been drawn to page 3 of the document Senator Walsh has tabled where there is criticism of the Opposition for having opposed the superannuation Bill. According to Senator Walsh, the Opposition is therefore disadvantaging 308,000 Commonwealth employees. On behalf of the Opposition I rebut that in the strongest possible terms. It is correct that the Opposition, with support from the Australian Democrats, voted against the Superannuation Amendment Bill for one reason and one reason only and that was in relation to the revised membership proposals of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. We agreed with every other proposition that was put forward by the Government, including the propositions that lead to a significant improvement in the Trust and its benefits for contributors. Had the Government been fair dinkum about wanting to help these 308,000 contributors it had a very simple expedient. It could have done all that while at the same time having another look, as we asked to be done, at the membership of the Trust. The reason why we objected to the Government's proposal to have five trustees was that four of those five trustees would either be Australian Council of Trade Union appointees or ACTU-involved appointees. Given the fact that less than 50 per cent of the contributors of the Trust are members of unions with the ACTU we objected to the proposal, as did many of the contributors. I want to set that record straight. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —I seek leave to make a statement about the superannuation liabilities of Commonwealth statutory authorities and to incorporate the statement and attached tables and notes in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- SUPERANNUATION LIABILITIES OF COMMONWEALTH STATUTORY AUTHORITIES I will not attempt to cover all relevant matters here as aspects of this matter have been taken up by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts and in recent reports of the Auditor-General. Senators will be aware that approximately half of the 307,000 contributors to the Comnmonwealth Superannuation Scheme are employed by Commonwealth statutory authorities and other independent employers. Benefits due to members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme are, in the main, paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Commonwealth recovers from those authorities and employers the appropriate share of the cost of providing superannuation benefits for their staff. Most authorities and employers pay a percentage of their employees' salaries to the Commonwealth each fortnight. The Australian Government Actuary was asked to review the percentage of salary contribution rates paid by 16 of the largest Commonwealth authorities and report on the adequacy of the superannuation contributions being paid. Together these 16 authorities employ approximately 88% of all the employees of Commonwealth authorities contributing to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. The results of the Actuary's reviews have been summarised in a table. The reviews showed that: Only minor adjustments were required in the ongoing contributions being paid at the time of the review by 11 of the 16 authorities examined; A substantial increase in ongoing contributions (from 15% of salaries to around 22% of salaries) was necessary in the case of 5 authorities; and In respect of the past employer contributions, ie. those paid prior to 1 July 1983, Australia Post, Telecom and the ACT Health Authority has surpluses of $101m, $358m and $5m respectively, eight authorities had deficiencies ranging from $2.2m to $54.7m and five authorities had neither a surplus nor a deficit. In the light of the Actuary's reports, action is being taken, where necessary, to adjust the ongoing contribution rates being paid by the authorities concerned. In all but three cases, the required adjustment has been made. Australia Post and the ACT Health Authority will be given the benefit of the surpluses in their past superannuation contributions in setting the level of their future superannuation payments to the Commonwealth. In Telecom's case, special arrangements have been made as the final step in the Government's initiatives to put the financial arrangements between Telecom and the Commonwealth on a more conventional footing. The initiatives have been taken to correct for the so-called ``loan-back'' scheme accepted by Mr Howard as Treasurer in the previous Government. Beginning in 1978-79 Mr Howard authorised loans from the Commonwealth for Telecom's capital works program. The conventional and honest way of providing those Commonwealth funds would have been an interest-bearing advance from the Budget, as was done in each of the three financial years immediately following Telecom's establishment in 1975. It would then appear as a Budget outlay and would increase the Budget deficit. But ever conscious of projecting his image of a practitioner of small government, Mr Howard decided to use mirrors to conceal the extra outlays on Telecom. He allowed Telecom to retain parts of its employer superannuation contributions-which ordinarily would be paid directly to the Commonwealth-to finance its capital works program. The consequent reductions in Telecom's superannuation contributions to the Commonwealth did not affect the receipts side of the Budget (so did not increase the officially recorded deficit) because these contributions are formally treated as Financing Transactions, not as Receipts. The convenient effect of this creative accounting was to conceal the true size of the Budget deficit from 1978-79 to 1982-83. If Mr Howard had instead followed the conventional procedure of making interest-bearing advances from the Budget, the Budget deficit over that period would have been $490m bigger. To achieve this cosmetic reduction in Commonwealth outlays and the deficit, Mr Howard set up an interest-free loan of nearly $500m which had no contractual basis, was not authorised by Parliament and placed no formal repayment obligation on Telecom. The Hawke Government moved to change this practice as soon as it took office. In 1983-84 it required Telecom to start paying interest of 13.54 per cent on the amount retained in that year. The next year it discontinued the ``loan-back'' arrangements altogether and required Telecom to pay interest on the sum of the total loans plus accrued interest-a total of $870.2m. After offsetting Telecom's employer superannuation contribution surplus of $357.2m identified by the Actuary, Telecom's outstanding ``loan'' liability at 30 June 1984 was $512.5m. Telecom is to repay this balance to the Commonwealth in 8 equal annual instalments. The first payment was made on 15 August 1985. Telecom will be required to pay interest at 13.47 per cent a year on the diminishing balance. Where deficits exist in past employer contributions of the other authorities, they have arisen largely because the contribution rates paid by the authorities at various times in the past did not: allow for the cost of indexing the pensions payable to the authority's former employees or their spouses; or make advance provision for expected future salary increases. Moreover, the interest rate chosen for crediting to the notional funds of the various authorities is the allocation rate of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, which is regarded as a realistic guide to the earnings that can be achieved on a large superannuation fund invested with expertise and extensive investment powers. It was not, however, a realistic guide in this respect before 1976, because the investment powers relating to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund under the Superannuation Act 1922 were very limited (for example, investment in shares and real property was permitted only after 1976. The Government has decided not to waive the deficits because, for the non-Budget-dependent authorities, it would involve transferring to the Commonwealth costs that are attributable to the past activities of the authorities. A precedent would also be created in the event of deficits being disclosed by subsequent investigations. The main objectives to be served in adjusting for past surpluses and deficits are to ensure that: authorities have the same incentive to control their superannuation costs as they have to control their other costs; the costs of superannuation provision are fully disclosed; and the authorities, rather than taxpayers generally, reap the benefit or bear the burden of any revealed overprovision or underprovision for superannuation in respect of the past service of their employees. Nevertheless, the Government believes that there is a number of reasons why it should not now seek to recover deficits that the Actuary has identified as arising from service before the revised Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme was introduced on 1 July 1976. These include: the effect of the pre-1976 limitations on the investment powers relating to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund referred to previously; the nature of the amendments to the Superannu- ation Act in 1973 providing for automatic indexation of Commonwealth scheme pensions; the amendments included the indexation of pensions accrued from prior service that, until the amendments were made, had been covered by contributions from the authorities concerned; and the fact that on the establishment of Telecom and Australia Post in 1975, deficiencies in respect of past service which were many times greater than those of all other Commonwealth authorities combined, were effectively waived at that time. The Government has decided that those authorities for which a deficit exists in past contributions will be required to make good only that part of the deficit that has arisen in respect of benefits accrued from service by staff since 1 July 1976. This will be done by the authority making additional contributions to the Commonwealth over and above its normal ongoing contribution rate. Where necessary the additional payments will be spread over a number of years. Two of the authorities are already paying additional contributions. Whereas the Actuary's investigations disclosed deficits totalling $139.6m, the Government's decision means that authorities will be required to pay off deficits of approximately $26.6m. The effect of the Government's decision will be most significant in the case of those authorities whose superannuation obligations extend back over a long period. For example, the Australian Shipping Commission's post 1976 deficit is $4.8m compared to a deficit of $54.7m for the whole period from 1956 to 1983; OTC has a post 1976 surplus of $2.6m compared to a deficit of $33.9m for the period 1950 to 1983. The following table sets out, for each of the authorities concerned, the impact of the Government's decision to require authorities to pay off only the post 1 July 1976 deficits. I stress that a deficit in an authority's past employer superannuation contributions will not affect the rights of employees of the authority to receive the benefits due under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. As mentioned previously, the superannuation benefits for individual members are met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and are guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The Actuary's reviews relate only to the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Authorities. Actuarial reviews of the percentage of salary contribution rate paid by other authorities will be undertaken progressively. Once the initial reviews have been completed it is proposed to undertake regular three-yearly reviews of the contribution rates paid by authorities. COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION SCHEME Summary of Actuary's Reports on Employer Superannuation Contributions Authority Ongoing employer contribution rate Rate being paid before review (% of salaries) Actuary's recommended rate (% of salaries) Employer Super- annuation obligation dates from At 30 June 1983 Value of past service benefits Balance in notional account Surplus (deficiency) Adjustment to employer contribution rate in Col. (3) needed to liquidate surplus/ deficiency over 20 years (% of salaries) ($m) ($m) ($m) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Australian Atomic Energy Commission... 20 20.7 1981 (a) 8.3 (a) - Australian Broadcasting Corporation... 20 20.7 1981 (a) 35.1 (a) - ACT Electricity Authority... 25 (b)...19.9 1963 12.8 9.3 (3.5) +2.7 Australian National Railways Commission... 15 21.4 1975 44.3 33.1 (11.2) +2.0 Australian Postal Commission... 20 19.7 1975 650.7 752.2 101.5 -1.2 Australian Shipping Commission... 15 22.7 1956 92.8 38.1 (54.7) (c) Australian Telecommunications Commission... 20 19.2 1975 1,839.6 2,197.3 (d)...357.7 -1.4 Canberra College of Advanced Education... 15 22.4 1967 12.2 8.0 (4.2) +2.6 Capital Territory Health Commission... 15 14.9 (e) 28.2 33.6 5.3 (e) Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd... 15 22.0 1977 (f)...8.0 5.8 (2.2) +2.6 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization... 20 20.5 1981 (a) 61.1 (a) - Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission... 21.5 20.5 1961 45.9 23.6 (22.3) +10.8 Health Insurance Commission (g)... 18 19.2 1974 14.0 - - - National Capital Development Commission... 20 21.4 1981 (a) 3.0 (a) - Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)... 16 17.3 1950 90.9 57.0 (33.9) +4.7 Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation... 15 21.9 1970 24.3 16.7 (7.6) +3.4 For notes see attached sheet. NOTES TO SUMMARY OF ACTUARY'S REPORTS ON EMPLOYER SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONS (a) Since the liability of these authorities commenced in 1981, the Actuary considered it unnecessary to split the costs of past and future service. The ongoing contribution rate was calculated to meet the difference between the balance in the notional account and the value of all benefits in respect of service after 1 July 1981. (b) The ACT Electricity Authority voluntarily increased its contribution rate from 15% of salaries to 25% of salaries with effect from 26 July 1984. (c) The Australian Shipping Commission established a separate superannuation scheme for its employees and closed entry to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) for new employees as from 1 October 1982. In view of this factor and the size of the deficiency, the Actuary considered it inappropriate to propose dealing with the deficiency by a contribution expressed as a percentage of salaries of members remaining in the CSS. (d) The Australian Telecommunications Commission maintains an internal provision (arising from the loan-backs of its superannuation payments) amounting to $664.5 million at 30 June 1983. This amount has been included in the balance of $2197.3 million shown for the notional account. (e) The Capital Territory Health Commission was established on 1 July 1975 but the actuarial investigation was confined to the payments and benefits accrued in respect of service after 1 July 1976. (f) Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd (then Commonwealth Hostels Ltd) made superannuation payments prior to 5 April 1977 in respect of some officers transferred to it from the Commonwealth. The Actuary's investigation did not extend to assessing the adequacy of the pre-1977 payments. (g) The Actuary was asked to assess the amount required to be paid to the Commonwealth from the Health Insurance Commission's internal provision to meet the outstanding liability for the period 1 July 1978 to 30 June 1983. This was $14.0 million at 30 June 1983 and the Commission has made special payments to discharge this liability. There have been significant changes to the staff profile of the Commission since the date at which the calculation of an ongoing rate of 19.2% of salaries was made. The Actuary, therefore, has suggested that the contribution rate of 18% of salaries be maintained until a further review, using the data at 30 June 1985, is undertaken. IMPACT OF DECISION THAT AUTHORITIES BE REQUIRED TO PAY OFF ONLY THE POST 1 JULY 1976 DEFICITS Authority Deficit reported by Actuary Post 1.7.1976 Deficit (Surplus) Difference $m $m $m ACT Electricity Authority... 3.5 0.3 3.2 Australian National Railways Commission... 11.2 9.2 2.0 Australian Shipping Commission... 54.7 4.8 49.9 Canberra College of Advanced Education... 4.2 2.2 2.0 Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd... 2.2 2.2 - Commonwealth Serum Laboratories... 22.3 3.4 18.9 Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)... 33.9 (2.6) 36.5 Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation... 7.6 4.1 3.5 Total Deficit... 139.6 26.2 Less: Surplus... - (2.6) Net... 139.6 23.6 116.0 Senator WALSH —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. I also say that if anybody else wants to make a short statement by leave, I certainly will not object to it. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-The statement which has just been incorporated involves at least one page of quite unnecessary pejorative attack on the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. The reason I respond to the statement is that it seemed inappropriate at this moment, as Parliament is drawing towards an end, that in a statement on such a serious matter which deserves the attention of the Senate the Minister should have retailed an attack, an alleged exposure, on the Leader of the Opposition that he made in the Senate on 14 October. After that attack the Leader of the Opposition asked the Government to provide details of the material relating to this matter. Senator Walsh —Debate this about Patrick Partners. We would be delighted to take you on. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am glad to hear that the Minister has nothing more to say than the usual personal abuse. It is his normal style in this place. I have learned to expect it. It has no impact in keeping me quiet. I will not be blackmailed or terrorised by that Minister. Senator Chipp —What did you do to Senator Foreman the other day-absolutely despicable? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Senate for its attention to this important matter and I thank the honourable senator for his interest, too. As I was endeavouring to say to a Senate which claims it is in a hurry, and which is endeavouring to disrupt my speech as much as possible, when this false accusation was first made by Senator Walsh, Mr Howard sought the release of the papers by the Government on 14 October. These papers, which are central to this issue, have not yet been released. Yet Senator Walsh retails this allegation again. I say with some vigour that the whole funding exercise that Senator Walsh then claimed to have exposed was fully disclosed in the Budget Papers of the time, on pages 105 and 106 of Budget Paper No. 1 of 1978-79, and in the Australian Telecommunications Service and Business Outlook for 1978-79 the details were fully disclosed. If Senator Walsh really wants to find a Budget fiddle he need look no further than his Government's actions in May 1983. At that time the Hawke Government put at least $300m into the last Fraser Government's Budget of 1982-83 by making capital advances to various statutory authorities in lieu of those authorities seeking funds in the subsequent Budgets. Senator Walsh was a party in that case to advancing at least $60m to Qantas Airways Ltd, $90m to Trans Australia Airlines, $85m to the Australian National Railways Commission and $90m to the Australian National Line in May-June 1983, the sole purpose of that action being to inflate the last Fraser Budget deficit and correspondingly decrease subsequent Hawke Government deficits. There is no doubt that Senator Walsh is an expert on fiddles, particularly Budget fiddles. Senator Gareth Evans —You are reading your speech, and you are reading it very badly. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am relying on notes. Some of them are copious, others are not. It is true that in fact I am reading at this point from the Budget Papers of 1978-79 at page 106, if that interests honourable senators opposite. There one can see that the Government agreed that Telecom Australia may retain in 1978-79 an amount of $122m, representing a portion of its superannuation provision-I stress the word `provision'. If Senator Walsh was in the real world and knew what provision meant in commercial terms, he would know that it does not mean expenditure on; it means making a provision for. In commercial areas provisions of this sort can be made and reinvested in normal operations of a corporation. That is the normal situation. It is one that Senator Walsh does not understand. It is grossly improper of Senator Walsh to retail his inaccurate, unreasonable and improper accusations, particularly in a document at this time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I present the Government's response to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence's report on Australia's defence co-operation with its neighbours in the Asian-Pacific region and seek leave to make a statement relating thereto and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I present the Government's response to the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the reference: `Australia's defence co-operation with its neighbours in the Asian-Pacific region, with particular reference to the present scope, purpose, effectiveness and flexibility of such co-operation.' The statement to the Parliament of 23 May 1985 which presented the Government's response to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on `The Australian Defence Force: Its Structure and Capabilities', outlined the changes over the last decade or so that had led to Australia adopting its independent defence posture and the importance of relationships with our regional neighbours in adopting that posture. The Government welcomes the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Report on Defence Cooperation which draws attention to elements of our defence relations with regional countries, all of which require careful monitoring and constant evaluation to permit soundly based judgements of their continuing relevance and effectiveness. The Report also highlights aspects of the management of regional defence relations that are only poorly understood by the community at large. At the same time, in focussing almost exclusively on one component of our regional defence co-operative activities-the Defence Co-operation Program or DCP-the Report could give the inattentive reader a wrong impression of the role and significance of the DCP in our bilateral relationships. In this response to the Committee's Report I would like to provide a balance for this unintentional emphasis given to the DCP, and to clarify the role of the DCP in the broader pattern of defence relations between Australia and our neighbours, setting it in the context of our broad defence planning and by-lateral defence relationships, and then deal in detail with the specific issues the Committee has raised. Finally, in these introductory observations, I make clear that the Government shares the Committee's concerns that the DCP should achieve its aims. On 28 March 1985 the Minister for Defence announced the appointment of a consultant to review the DCP, including the findings of Parliamentary Committees which have examined the DCP in recent times, and to report within 12 months. He is now at work. Regional Defence Objective and Priorities Our regional defence objectives are to contribute to the maintenance of regional stability, to consolidate acceptance of Australia as an obvious and legitimate participant in deliberations on issues that affect regional security and, as appropriate, to encourage and assist with the development of countries' defence self-reliance. Our partners in these defence co-operative arrangements range from the fifth largest country in the world to the micro-states of the South Pacific, some of which do not have defence forces. In meeting these objectives, the co-operative arrangements and activities are designed to: a. exchange and share knowledge, information and the benefit of experience in the development of military organisations, capabilities and skills; b. provide opportunities for the Australian Defence Force to gain experience in operating in the regional environment; c. provide opportunities for the Australian Defence Force and the defence and de- fence-related forces to partner countries to enhance their understanding of each other's military environment and organisations, and methods of operation, and to operate together; d. demonstrate the competence of the Australian Defence force to manage and operate modern military equipment; and e. develop an acceptance of Australia as a regional centre for, and source of, defence technological and industrial competence. The Place of the DCP Within Our National Defence Objectives The DCP is maintained to support Australian national defence objectives. There are no DCP objectives that stand in isolation from these broad defence objectives in our relations with participating countries. Correspondingly, there are no DCP activities that are conducted in isolation from the full range of Defence activities that comprise bi-lateral defence relationships and which include the posting of Australian defence personnel overseas under formal defence agreements, regular high level consultations by Ministers and senior officials, ship and aircraft visits and combined exercises involving the three Services. With some countries therefore, the DCP complements, and is complemented by, other forms of often extensive practical defence activities. In combination, all these elements together support shared objectives, thereby contributing to the overall furtherance of Australian strategic and defence interests. Some examples of major non-DCP activities help clarify this point: a. Malaysia-Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) (and land sea/air exercises under its umbrella); Butterworth, the Integrated Air Defence System (IADS), and Defence-to-Defence consultations; b. Singapore-FPDA, IADS, Army and Air Force training in Australia; c. Brunei-training in Australia; and d. PNG-the Supply Support Arrangement. The PNG Department of Defence may draw on the Australian Supply Support system to support defence equipment held in common. In other countries the DCP provides the major platform on which bi-lateral defence relationships are being progressively developed. Also outside the DCP, are a range of defence co-operative activities with the U.S. and N.Z., both of which share our interest in the maintenance of security, stability and peace in the region. I do not propose to detail these activities as they are already a matter of public record. It is sufficient to emphasise that these activities complement those with the other countries of the region. Our defence objectives, and our capacity to support them with DCP activities, vary significantly among countries and between regions, depending upon local culture and traditions; political systems; the role and significance of the military; the extent to which English is used or understood; the size and nature of previous military support programs; and the number, skills and energies of Australian defence personnel working in the countries concerned. In allocating financial and manpower resources to implement policies using the DCP, we have established priorities based on Australia's strategic and defence interests; participating countries' preferences; and the nature and scope of other bilateral defence co-operative activities outside the DCP; and where relevant, countries' capacity to absorb defence assistance and conduct mutually beneficial defence activities. The scope and variety in the DCP reflecting these elements is clearly reflected in the attachment to the detailed comments I will subsequently table. I draw honourable senator's attention specifically to the wide and diverse range of activities encompassed in any one year resulting from the inter-relationship between the needs of our partner countries and Australia's defence objectives. The DCP with PNG attracts the largest share of funds. By virtue of its location PNG is a major factor in Australia's long term defence planning. Use of PNG by a country hostile, or potentially hostile to Australia would greatly complicate the defence of Australia, particularly the north and east coast and adjacent maritime approaches. This first priority reflects Australia's historical ties with PNG and our continuing commitment to assist with the development of an effective PNG Defence Force that is capable of supporting national sovereignty and the task of nation building. This is achieved through the stationing of specialist ADF personnel and units in PNG to assist with national development; and the provision of military training and support for combined exercises and military exchanges. Indonesia also rates highly in the program. Its proximity to Australia, and its potential for long term defence power, mark it clearly as the most strategically significant nation to Australia among those in the archipelagos lying across our northern approaches. Indonesia has a pivotal role in the long term security and stability of the region. Both because of the interests we share, and because of Indonesia's strategic potential, Australia has an abiding interest in maintaining a constructive working relationship with the Indonesian defence organisation. While other avenues of bi-lateral defence contact with Indonesia are developing, the DCP is, and shall remain for the medium term, the predominant channel for bi-lateral defence activity. In the South West Pacific, the DCP is intended to encourage the strategic perspectives of independent states to accord with our own, and to reduce the potential for destabilising competition in the region by extra-regional powers. Through the DCP we encourage acceptance of Australian defence activities as a natural component of the Australian presence in the region; enable ADF personnel to gain broader working experience than is available to them in the Australian Service environments; and obtain information about conditions and developments in the region. The DCP is intended to complement and supplement the much larger civil aid program and is developed, in consultation with the Australian Development Assistance Bureau to assist, where appropriate, with the expansion of the national infrastructure with defence and national security applications in those countries. Other ASEAN countries-Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines and Brunei-account for most of the remainder of DCP resources, with Malaysia and Thailand the main partners in this group. In all five countries the DCP is directed towards achieving-to varying degrees-the objectives set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 above. Newly independent Brunei is now being included in the DCP in a small way. Outside our area of primary strategic interest, limited DCP resources are used to maintain defence contacts with India, Burma, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to support Australia's diplomatic and political interests. Officers of the Department of Defence have visited the Indian Ocean Island States of Mauritius, the Seychelles and the Maldives to examine options for establishing limited programs of defence co-operation with these countries, and are now preparing proposals for the Government to consider. In response to the Committee's request for more information on the DCP, I am tabling with this response details of the Program for the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985 and also details of defence co-operative activities conducted outside the DCP for the same period. As I said earlier, to appreciate fully the scope of the bilateral relationships in the defence field all Australia's defence co-operative activities in the region need to be taken into account. Against this background, I think honourable senators will recognise the difficulties of quantifying defence objectives in the region, or of quantifying to what extent DCP activities contribute to their achievement. In the management of the program, we ensure however that projects and activities undertaken under the DCP make a contribution towards meeting some or all of the objectives which I set out earlier. While we can and do measure the financial, materiel and human resources in those contributions it is difficult to conclude that such simple arithmetic is a totally accurate measure of achievement of policy objectives. Informed qualitative judgment is still required, both in determining what resources should be devoted towards meeting our policy objectives, and in assessing to what extent those resources contribute to the achievement of those objectives. That is not to say however, that we should dismiss quantification because it is too difficult. Scarce resources are involved. The Department of Defence is giving attention to developing methods to quantify more effectively the benefits of the DCP, to provide a more substantive basis for making qualitative judgements, and Mr Cooksey in his review, is also considering this matter. But the program is not a unilateral one: we could not seek to impose projects and activities on regional countries to meet our objectives to the exclusion of theirs. As the Program title states, the DCP is cooperative: the realisation of Australian defence policy objectives needs to be both sensitive and responsive to the policy objectives of the participating countries. Accordingly, machinery has been established, including annual DCP review conferences and day-to-day consultations between our defence representatives in the region and their hosts, to negotiate the selection of projects and activities for inclusion in the Program which meet the objectives of both regional countries and us. Through this machinery, proposals for new projects or activities are considered, accepted with or without amendment, or rejected. Comments on the LCP by other Recent Parliamentary Committees Before tabling the Government's detailed response to the criticisms in the Report, I would draw attention to comments on our defence cooperation by other Parliamentary Committees. The report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the `Australian Defence Force: Its Structure and Capabilities', tabled 23 May 1985 noted that the Committee considered that the current nature and level of Australia's defence commitments to its region of interest were satisfactory given the nature of our security interests and our limited capacity to influence military events or expectations. The Committee noted that Australia's present relatively low key approach to regional defence cooperation adequately demonstrated our interest in the region without attempting to impose on it our own solutions or values. It also served both Australia's interests and those of ASEAN nations. The Report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on `Australia and ASEAN: Challenges and Opportunities', tabled 9 October 1984 noted that the Committee considered there was value in continuing defence cooperation programs (with ASEAN states) provided they were monitored regularly to ensure that they served Australia's interests and fulfilled local defence requirements. I table the Government's response to the Committee's report. It is in the form of specific comments on the principal conclusions and observations of the Committee. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE 1. The Committee's Report acknowledges (page 5) the importance to Australia's security of South East Asia and the South Pacific. `. . . South East Asia and South West Pacific, is Australia's primary area of strategic interest. It is fundamental to Australia's interest that there be stability in both of these regions . . .' 2. The Committee also observes (page 27) that `Australia's principal strategic interest in the South Pacific is to ensure that our sea communications with Japan and the Americas remain open' (page 27) and that `the cornerstone of our strategic interests in South East Asia is support for ASEAN, which has been highly effective in enhancing regional stability and prosperity' (page 39). 3. The Government generally endorses these assessments except that it does not agree that regional stability should be considered ``fundamental'' to Australian security interests in the sense that the Committee intends. The obvious corollary is that should instability arise in the region then Australia's security would be directly threatened. The Government's assessment is that instability in the region would not, by itself, pose a direct threat, though it could provide the conditions for such a threat to emerge. Accordingly the Government's policies, and the resources allocated in support of those policies, reflect assessment that regional stability is important to Australia's strategic interests, to the enhancement of Australia's security, and creates and supports conditions for broad-based regional political, economic and cultural activity and co-operation, as well as defence co-operation. 4. The McIntosh Report is focusing on the DCP, reached the general conclusion that the Committee supported the concept of the DCP while being critical of some aspects of its management and effectiveness (page 72). 5. The Committee's criticism centred on its perception that Departments had not sufficiently explained the objectives of the DCP and the criteria for measuring the Program's effectiveness. These criticisms are set out and commented upon in the paragraphs that follow. 6. Evidence presented to the Committee was often inadequate. Departments did not fully grasp the opportunity of the Committee's hearing to provide information of the DCP and facilitate public debate (page 53). Response a. This point seems unfair and is difficult to reconcile with remarks made by the Committee Chairman to officials from both Defence and Foreign Affairs who were thanked for having answered all the questions and having been forthcoming with the information which they provided (Official Hansard Report, 23 Feb 84, pages 43, 44 and 74). b. In the light of the Chairman's comments and as the oral evidence provided by officials supplemented written Departmental submissions and as the Committee did not seek any additional information from either Defence or Foreign Affairs following the 23 February 1984 hearings, it is difficult to see how officials can fairly be blamed for not having fully grasped the opportunity to provide information on the DCP and facilitate public debate. 7. There was an appearance that the activities of the DCP were occuring in a policy vacuum (page 54). Response a. In addition to the written evidence of policy guidance provided for the development of the DCPs with participating countries, officials elaborated in oral evidence, noting the objectives of assisting relevant countries with developing defence self-reliance or, where appropriate, their national infrastructure. See in particular Defence officials' oral evidence (Official Hansard Report 23 February 1984-pages 5, 8, 10, 11, 18, 25) and Foreign Affairs officials' oral evidence (same Hansard Report-pages 47, 50). b. The Committee's view appears to have emerged from a lack of distinction between defence objectives as put by Defence Departmental submissions and oral evidence by officials, and flow-on benefits to Australia's foreign relations with the region as a whole as described by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The DCP is a vehicle of international defence policy which is in turn a component of Australia's foreign policy. The benefits of rounding out bi-lateral relations, promoting goodwill, and in some cases assisting social and economic development, generally flow from the establishment of sound de- fence relations, but are not primary objectives of defence policy, nor are they key criteria against which the DCP is developed or judged. 8. There was an over-dependence on a simplistic objective of assisting countries' `national independence' as a guiding principle for determining the content of the DCP (page 55). Response a. All countries participating in the DCP are independent. The issue of promoting their national independence in the sense of the Committee's view does not therefore arise. It is clear from a reading of the full evidence given to the Committee that `national independence' refers to the capacity of states to achieve defence self-reliance and independently to protect their sovereignty through such measures as suit their particular circumstances. 9. Human rights considerations could be a valid criterion in the assessment of DCPs and that these considerations should be explicit rather than implicit (page 58). Response a. As presented in evidence to the Committee, DCPs are established and maintained for defence purposes. Governments of the day establish policy guidelines for officials, and decide through Ministerial responses to recommendations from officials, how human rights considerations should be applied to particular projects and activities that are proposed for inclusion in the Programs. b. The Government's position on human rights abuses is public and clear: we do not condone them anywhere and would not accept any proposals under the DCP which threaten human rights. c. Proposals which relate to another country's defence capabilities, and which in no way raise obvious considerations of human rights, now or potentially, are considered and where consistent with our policy objectives, and feasible, are approved. Additionally, in the South Pacific the DCP has been used to provide training and equipment support for police and para military forces in the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Western Samoa and Kiribati. d. Proposals for activities under the DCP are considered by the Department of Defence in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs in the light of the prevailing human rights' situation in the country involved in the proposal, and the extent, if any, to which the assistance to be provided might be used in the abuse of human rights. If judged necessary the proposal is then referred for decision to the Minister for Defence as the responsible minister of the Government of the day, who may further consult other Ministers or Cabinet as he sees fit, before making a decision. e. In their deliberations, it is incumbent on Defence and Foreign Affairs officials to assess proposals on the basis of the policies and practices of the Australian and regional country governments of the day. These officers cannot make recommendations now about the possibility of a defence capability for a regional country being used at some unknown time in the future, for activities that the Australian Government at that time might not approve of, or that might be directed away from the primary purpose of de- fence to internal security and possible abuses of human rights. 10. The Committee lacked sufficient evidence to recommend whether the Department of De- fence or ADAB should have over-riding responsibility for civil projects in the South Pacific involving Defence personnel (page 59). Response a. Regular meetings are held between the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs to co-ordinate action under the Defence Co-operation Program and Bilateral (Civil) Aid Programs in the South Pacific. In general, and in keeping with policy objectives, Defence considers tasks which contribute to South Pacific countries' capacity to support their national sovereignty, which develop infrastructure with de- fence and national security applications, and which provide the ADF with opportunities to gain first hand experience of working in their countries. b. Australian defence contributions to national development projects in PNG and the South Pacific are a charge to the Defence vote. In these circumstances, and while ADAB has a role in the development of such projects, it is important that the Minister for Defence be seen to be in control of the use of manpower and funds that might otherwise be used for other Defence purposes. It is also preferable from a legal point of view and for morale and disciplinary reasons, that the Minister for Defence have over-riding responsibility for the deployment of Australian defence personnel overseas. c. It should also be noted that requests for the use of defence resources for national development projects in PNG and the South Pacific invariably pass through the central National Planning Office of the country concerned, and therefore reflect the participants' preferences for such requests to be met under the DCP. 11. The DCP was not a suitable means for promoting Australian defence industries (page 61). Response a. Any support for Australian de- fence industries that emerges from DCP activities does so as a secondary benefit, deriving from projects and activities conducted primarily for defence reasons, and through giving preference to Australian companies where equipment and technical expertise not available in the ADF is provided. An example of how this support might arise was given in Defence officials' oral evidence on page 21 of the Official Hansard Report of 23 February 1984. b. As a separate issue, the Government has been concerned for some time to improve the promotion and export of the products of the Australian defence industry. On 28 March this year a consultant, Mr R. Cooksey was appointed to review the current policy. 12. The provision of patrol boats to some South Pacific states seemed likely to cause long term budgetary problems (page 62). Response a. As was made clear in the statement by the Minister for Defence to the Parliament on 9 May 1985, the Government is very much aware of this possible problem. b. Potential budgetary problems in running craft such as patrol boats, has been a key factor in the development of the South Pacific Patrol Boat Project. It was precisely for this reason that the Government explored with all countries the longer term financial implication of such vessels, and with their agreement sought to develop a craft of commercial design. c. Pacific countries participating in the Project are fully aware of the need to take account of the likely operating costs of the vessel. Some smaller island countries have decided not to participate precisely because operation of the vessels would be too costly for them. 13. There was a lack of information on the DCP in the public arena for scrutiny by the Parliament and public. The Committee proposed that explanatory notes on the DCP for annual Estimates hearings be expanded to provide information on each activity under nine separate headings (pages 64-65). Response a. The Government welcomes informed debate about regional defence cooperative activities, including DCP, and as far as practicable, would be glad to have more publicity given to these activities and to the impressive role being played by ADF personnel overseas. Sympathetic consideration will therefore be given to any constructive suggestions in this direction which may emerge from the current consultancy study referred to earlier. b. Publication of the activities of the DCP in isolation from other activities could reinforce the misconception that the DCP represents the sum total of our co-operative activities with regional countries. Annex A (pages 16 to 24) to this response provides details of defence cooperative activities with regional countries, other than those conducted under the DCP but which are complemented and supplemented by the DCP. Annex B (pages 25 to 38) sets out the content of DCPs with all partner countries, covering the period 1 July 1984-30 June 1985. Future De- fence Reports will include the information covered by these pages, for the relevant year. In addition the information covered by Annex B (pages 25-36) will form part of the explanatory notes for the bi-annual Senate Estimates hearings. 14. There appeared to be no effective monitoring of the effectiveness of the DCP at the various stages of the Programs (page 72). Response a. The Committee does not make clear what it means by `effectiveness'. In one context effectiveness means fulfilling Australian defence objectives through the DCP; in this context the processes of development and monitoring are comprehensive and regular as follows: (i) Proposals for activities under the DCP are considered and approved against the defence policy objectives set out in the Ministerial statement. (ii) Programs are developed and monitored in annual detailed consultations with participating countries. (iii) Programs are monitored on a day-to-day basis by Australian Defence representatives in ASEAN countries, and PNG, and in the South Pacific by Australia's diplomatic representatives in collaboration with the Defence Adviser resident in Suva (see next point). (iv) Development and monitoring of DCPs with South Pacific countries has been extended by the appointment, in August 1984, of a Pacific Defence Adviser, resident in Fiji and accredited as well to other independent South Pacific countries, and by liaison between the Department of Defence and the newly established ADAB Pacific Regional Team of four civil aid experts, based in Sydney. (v) Within the Department of Defence, the objectives and performance of the Programs are under continual review, and are given particular attention in the preparation of the annual FYDP, the Draft Estimates and the Additional Estimates. b. In another context, effectiveness means the extent to which we fulfil the objectives of each project or activity. Here different processes of development and monitoring apply: (i) Objectives for each project and activity are set in consultation with participating countries. (ii) Those objectives range from major projects involving the development of a new capability or the enhancement of an existing capability, to the standard objectives of a training course run at an ADF school. (iii) With regard to courses, trainees from regional countries are assessed in the same way as ADF students, and course reports prepared accordingly. (iv) With regard to projects, subject to the agreement of the participating country, all endeavours are made to retain participation in the project until the objective is achieved. (v) The criteria applied for assessing whether the objective is achieved are the standards of the ADF (and Australian defence industry where applicable), with allowance made for the needs, environmental conditions and modes of military operations and management applying in participating countries. (vi) Projects are monitored by Defence and Foreign Affairs staffs in participating countries, and Defence personnel visiting the countries. (vii) Participating countries continue to express satisfaction with the DCP, and continue to look to Australia for training and co-operation in new projects under the Program. c. It needs to be emphasised that projects conducted in regional countries are properly controlled by those countries, but that their success depends on a high level of co-operation to achieve project objectives. Once achieved and Australian participation ceases, then the continuing effectiveness of the capability established or enhanced under the project, is the sole responsibility of the regional country. 15. It was incumbent upon Departments concerned to established a `more professional and consistent approach' to the delivery of defence co-operation with our neighbours, and to consult them frankly on their requirements (page 72). Response a. No evidence or argument was contained in the Committee's report that the Departments as a whole or the officials of the Departments and members of the Australian Defence Force are other than professional in their approach to the management of the DCP. b. As was pointed out in Department of De- fence written evidence, DCPs are developed to respond to the individual needs of participating states. As indicated above, annual meetings are held to discuss requirements and set priorities to the benefit of both parties. Frequent consultation takes place between Australian Defence and Foreign Affairs representatives and the countries, between these meetings. Other Matters 16. The Committee's report raises a number of other matters on which comment is made in the paragraphs that follow. A Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific 17. As a general comment the Report appears to be concerned with highlighting differences of opinion among the Pacific Forum members to the neglect of the achievements that have been made. In fact considerable progress has been made and a draft South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty was presented to the Forum meeting in Rarotonga in August 1985. 18. The Forum endorsed the text of the Treaty and opened it for signature. Heads of Government of Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, New Zealand, Nuie, Tuvalu and Western Samoa signed the Treaty at Raratonga, and PNG has since signed it. The Forum understood that other countries would be in a position to sign after they had subjected it to their normal constitutional processes. Indian Ocean 19. As noted in the Committee's report, the terms of reference did not include possible de- fence co-operation with Indian Ocean states. For that reason, no mention was made in the Departmental submission of matters concerning the Indian Ocean. 20. The Government is yet to consider ways in which the Australian Defence Force might contribute through the DCP to an enhanced Australian involvement in the Indian Ocean region. RAN ship visits took place over June/July this year and a Defence Team has recently visited the region on a feasibility study into possible activities under the DCP with Indian Ocean Island States of Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the Maldives. The results of this study, have yet to be considered, but the Government will take the views of the Committee into account in doing so. 21. A program with the Indian Ocean Island States could involve a re-ordering of priorities so that no additional funding would be required. 22. It is not correct to state, as the report does, that implementation of a program of de- fence assistance in the region would necessarily involve more expenditure on the DCP. Annexes: A. Defence Co-operation Activities with Regional Countries other than Defence Co-operation Programs 1 July 1984-30 June 1985 Annexes: B. Defence Co-operation Program (1 July 1984-30 June 1985) Annex A DEFENCE CO-OPERATION ACTIVITIES WITH REGIONAL COUNTRIES OTHER THAN DEFENCE CO-OPERATION PROGRAMS 1 JULY 1984-30 JUNE 1985 (a) Papua New Guinea (i) Defence Representation-Port Moresby, Canberra (ii) Senior Level Consultations- a. The Commander Papua New Guinea Defence Force and the Papua New Guinea Secretary for Defence visited Australia. b. The Chief of the General Staff visited PNG. (iii) Ship Visits- HMAS Supply-Lae HMAS Jervis Bay-Port Moresby HMAS Parramatta-Madang HMAS Torrens-Port Moresby HMAS Warrnambool-Madang HMAS Tarakan-Madang, Port Moresby HMAS Curlew-Port Moresby HMAS Dubbo-Port Moresby (iv) Aircraft Visits- a. RAAF long range maritime patrol flights were undertaken out of Port Moresby. b. Regular RAAF C130 flights were undertaken to Port Moresby; and short range transport deployments which included training flights within PNG. c. Ten Army Aircraft visited PNG for training. (b) Indonesia (i) Defence Representation-Jakarta, Canberra (ii) Senior Level Consultations- a. Secretary-General, Indonesia Department of Defence and Secretary visited Australia. b. Chief of the Naval Staff visited Indonesia. c. Deputy Secretary B and the Chief Defence Scientist of the Department of Defence visited Indonesia. (iii) Ship Visits/Exercises in Passing- a. HMAS Stalwart-Ujung Pandang, Jakarta, Surabaya. HMAS Vampire-Surabaya. HMAS Canberra-Ujung Pandang, Jakarta. HMAS Sydney-Ujung Pandang, Jakarta. HMAS Yarra-Surabaya. HMAS Stuart-Surabaya, Jakarta. HMAS Orion-Surabaya. HMAS Gawler-Surabaya, Ambon. HMAS Cessnock-Surabaya, Jakarta. HMAS Bendigo-Surabaya, Jakarta, Ujung Pandang. HMAS Balikpapan-Benoa. HMAS Assail-Benoa. HMAS Warrnambool-Sorong. b. Indonesian Navy ships Corvette ``KRI FATAHILLAH'', Destroyer Escort ``KRI NGURUHRAI'', Patrol ``KRI RENGKONG'', Patrol ``KRI KERIS'', Oiler ``KRI SAMBU'' visited Darwin. (iv) Maritime Exercises-Seven RAN ships, RAAF MIRAGE aircraft and five Indonesian Navy ships took part in Exercise NEW HORIZON 84 in Australian waters in November 1984. (v) Aircraft Visits- a. RAAF Mirage aircraft staged through Indonesia to and from Butterworth. b. Other RAAF aircraft staged through or visited Indonesia on several occasions. c. An Indonesian Air Force C130 aircraft visited Australia. (c) Malaysia (i) Defence Representation-Kuala Lumpur, Canberra (ii) Senior level Consultations- a. The Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of the Naval Staff and the Chief of the General Staff visited Malaysia. b. Dr Mahathir, Malaysia's Prime Minister and Minister for Defence visited Australia. c. The Deputy Secretary General (Development), Malaysian Ministry of Defence visited Australia. d. Senior level discussions were held on arrangements for future RAAF use of Air Base Butterworth. e. Defence-to-defence talks in Kuala Lumpur. (iii) Australian Presence at Butterworth- a. The Australian presence at Air Base Butterworth, comprised one Mirage Squadron; two P3 Orion long range maritime patrol aircraft; ancillary units; and an infantry company on rotation. (iv) Ship Visits/Exercises in Passing- a. HMAS Vampire-Kuantab, Lumut HMAS STUART-Kuantan. (v) Maritime Exercise-Three RAN ships participated in Exercise STARFISH 85, hosted by Malaysia under the Five Power Defence Arrangements. (vi) Land Exercises- a. Australia and Malaysia participated in Exercises SOUTHERN SAFARI and PLATYPUS under the Five Power Defence Arrangements. b. The Australian Rifle Company based at Butterworth participated in the ground force exercises, Exercise HARINGAROO, in Malaysia with the Malaysian Army. (vii) Aircraft Visits-RAAF aircraft made frequent visits to Malaysia. (viii) Air Defence Exercises-Australia and Malaysia participated in two major and two minor Air Defence exercises under the Five Power Defence Arrangements. (d) Singapore (i) `Defence Representation-Singapore, Canberra (ii) Senior Level Consultations- a. The Chief of Defence Force, the Chief of the Naval Staff, and the Chief of the General Staff visited Singapore. b. The Singapore Chief of the General Staff visited Australia. c. Defence-to-defence talks in Singapore. (iii) Ship Visits/Exercises in Passing- a. Visits were made to Singapaore by HMA ships STALWART, VAMPIRE, BALIKPAPAN, GAWLER, CESSNOCK, BENDIGO, ADELAIDE, STUART, OTWAY, WARRNAMBOOL, COOK, SYDNEY, ORION, BRISBANE, CANBERRA, and JERVIS BAY. b. Two Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) Tank Landing Ships visited Australia. (iv) Maritime Exercises-RAN and RSN ships participated in Exercise STARFISH 85 hosted by Malaysia under the Five Power Defence Arrangements. (v) Land Exercises a. Australia and Singapore participated in Exercises SOUTHERN SAFARI and PLATYPUS under the Five Power Defence Arrangements. b. Singapore Army units conducted training at Shoalwater Bay Queensland in the period September to November 1984. (vi) Aircraft Deployments and Visits- a. In addition to the periodic deployments of Mirage aircraft to Paya Lebar, RAAF aircraft regularly transmitted through and visited Singapore. b. Forty seven Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) aircraft visited Australia. (vii) Aircraft Exercises- a. Australia and Singapore participated in two major and two minor air de- fence exercises under the Five Power Defence Arrangements. b. RSAF aircraft and supporting personnel and units conducted further unilateral training at RAAF Williamstown. (e) Thailand (i) Defence Representation-Bangkok, Canberra (ii) Senior Level Consultations- a. The Chief of the General Staff visited Thailand. b. The Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Royal Thai Air Force visited Australia. (iii) Ship Visits/Exercises in passing-HMA Ships YARRA and STUART visited Bangkok. (iv) Aircraft Visits-Occasional visits to Thailand were made by RAAF aircraft. One Royal Thai Air Force aircraft visited Australia. (f) Philippines (i) Defence Representation-Manila (ii) Ship Visits-HMA Ships, STALWART, CANBERRA, SYDNEY, YARRA, STUART and ORION visited Manila. HMAS ORION also visited Subic Bay. (iii) Aircraft Visits-Occasional visits were made by RAAF aircraft. (g) Brunei (i) Defence Representation-From Kuala Lumpur (ii) Senior Level Consultations- a. The Chief of the General Staff visited Brunei (iii) Ship Visits/Exercises in Passing-HMA Ships STUART, WARRNAMBOOL and CESSNOCK visited Muara. (iv) Land Force Training- a. Two companies of the Royal Brunei Armed Forces conducted training at the Land Warfare Centre, Canungra. (h) South Pacific (i) Defence Representation-From Suva (ii) Ship Visits- HMAS SUPPLY-Tarawa (Kiribati) HMAS JERVIS BAY-Vila (Vanuatu), Lautoka (Fiji). HMAS ADELAIDE-Honiara (Solomon Is). HMAS PARRAMATTA-Tarawa (Kiribati). HMAS OXLEY-Apia (Western Samoa). HMAS TOBRUK-Vila (Vanuatu), Funafuti (Tuvalu). HMAS PERTH-Honiara (Solomon Is), Vila (Vanuatu), Suva (Fiji). HMAS CANBERRA-Suva (Fiji), Nuku'alofa (Tonga), Apia (Western Samoa). (iii) Ships Visits/Exercises in Passing-HMA Ships STUART, WARRNAMBOOL and CESSNOCK visited Muara. (iv) Land Force Training- a. Two companies of the Royal Brunei Armed Forces conducted training at the Land Warfare Centre, Canungra. (i) South Pacific (i) Defence Representation-From Suva (ii) Ship Visits- HMAS SUPPLY-Tarawa (Kiribati) HMAS JERVIS BAY-Vila (Vanuatu), Lautoka (Fiji). HMAS ADELAIDE-Honiara (Solomon Is). HMAS PARRAMATTA-Tarawa (Kiribati). HMAS OXLEY-Apia (Western Samoa). HMAS TOBRUK-Vila (Vanuatu), Funafuti (Tuvalu). HMAS PERTH-Honiara (Solomon Is), Vila (Vanuatu), Suva (Fiji). HMAS CANBERRA-Suva (Fiji), Nuku'alofa (Tonga), Apia (Western Samoa). HMAS FREMANTLE-Suva (Fiji), Apia (Western Samoa), Funafuti (Tuvalu), Honiara, Gizo, Vanikoro Island, Na One Islet (Solomon Island). HMAS GEELONG-Suva (Fiji), Apia (Western Samoa), Tarawa (Kiribati), Honiara (Solomon Island). HMAS WEWAK-Honiara (Solomon Island). HMAS FLINDERS-Vila (Vanuatu). HMAS LAUNCESTON-Vila (Vanuatu). (iii) Aircraft Visits- a. Five RAAF aircraft undertook long range maritime patrols calling at Vila, Funafuti and Nadi. b. Occasional RAAF C130 flights were undertaken during the year. These included several cyclone relief flights to Fiji and Vanuatu. c. Two RAAF Iroquois helicopters were based in Vanuatu during cyclone relief operations. Annex B DEFENCE CO-OPERATION PROGRAM 1 JULY 1984-30 JUNE 1985 (Expenditure shown in brackets) (a) Papua New Guinea ($16.031m) (i) Loan Personnel. Salary for 77 Australian Defence personnel on loan to the PNG Defence Force and administrative costs for all ADF DCP personnel in PNG. ($8.568m) (ii) Australian Training and Technical Support Unit (ATTSU). Specialist advisory assistance to the PNGDF in the development of training systems and programs. (Seven personnel.) ($0.370m) (iii) Southern Highlands Provincial Engineers. An Australian Army formed unit plans and supervises the province public works. (23 personnel.) ($1.441m) (iv) Survey Assistance. Six Australian Army Survey personnel provide technical advice to the PNG National Mapping Bureau. ($0.372m) (v) Weapons Refurbishment. The repair in PNG and the rebuild in Australia of unserviceable PNGDF rifles. ($0.149m) (vi) Communications Terminals. Provision of a field mobile, telex system for the PNGDF. ($0.603m) (vii) Nomad Project. Maintenance and spares associated with provision of Nomad aircraft to the PNGDF. ($0.492m) (viii) Ambulances. Ten specially designed field ambulances for the PNGDF. ($0.165m) (ix) Equipment Project. Including replacement of engineer plant, mine detectors, and medical and water purification equipment for the PNGDF. ($0.326m) (x) Pacific Patrol Boat. Provision to cover initial expenditure on craft to be provided to the PNGDF. ($0.044m) (xi) Oakey Nomad Maintenance. Maintenance of the two Nomad aircraft used for training PNGDF pilots at the Army Aviation Centre, Oakey, Qld. ($0.355m) (xii) Other. Assistance including technical advice to the police in communications, RAAF transport, manpower and supply studies, and hydrography; and the annual DCP Review Conference in Port Moresby. ($0.285m) (xiii) Combined Exercises. Participation by a PNGDF infantry company in an annual Exercise Wantok Warrior with Australian Army units in Queensland. ($0.167m) (xiv) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 273 PNG personnel including Joint and Single Service Staff Colleges; Navy Executive Officer and other professional officer, apprentice and trade courses; Army officer and NCO corps training, officer cadet, pilot conversion and technical trade training; Air Force pilot and flying instructor training, technical aircraft trade training; and visits to Australia by six officers to observe exercises and attend seminars, including the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar. ($2.694m) (b) Indonesia ($9.629m) (i) Nomad Maintenance. The attachment of two civilian aeronautical engineers, a visit by three officers of the Australian Defence Force, and the provision of maintenance equipment, all as part of a joint project to develop maintenance self-sufficiency for the 17 Nomad aircraft operated by the Indonesian Navy. ($0.429m) (ii) Topographic Survey. Towards the production of up-to-date maps, a joint Australian Army/Indonesian Army operation in the island chain west of Sumatra to acquire survey control; and aerial photography by RAAF in Irian Jaya. In addition, one Australian Army officer is attached to the Indonesian Armed Forces Survey Headquarters in Jakarta, and four Indonesian Army personnel undertook training in Australia. ($2.003m) (iii) Patrol Boats. Provision of three ex-RAN Attack Class Patrol Boats to the Indonesian Navy for coastal surveillance of the Archipelago, and an exchange of visits on supply and support. Two of the Patrol Boats have been delivered to Indonesia and the third will be delivered in early 1986. ($4.708m) (iv) C130 (Hercules) Engine Overhaul. The attachment of an aeronautical engineer and an equipment officer (both RAAF) in Indonesia, and an exchange of visits between Qantas and the Indonesian Air Force, towards the development of a joint project to enhance the Indonesian Air Force's capability to overhaul the engines of its Hercules aircraft. Four Indonesian Air Force personnel undertook training at Qantas. ($0.016m) (v) English Language. An exchange of English language instructors, training of eight teachers of English-As-Second-Language at the Defence Cooperation Language School, and the provision of the Australian English Language Course for use in the language schools of the Indonesian Armed Forces. ($0.414m) (vi) Communications Maintenance. A visit to Australia by an Indonesian Army team and the provision of field communications test equipment towards a joint project to upgrade the Indonesian Army's capability to repair field communications equipment. ($0.063m) (vii) Sioux Helicopter. The attachment of an Army aeronautical engineer in Indonesia, the training of Indonesian Air Force technicians at the Army Aviation Centre, Oakey, and the provision of equipment under a joint project with the Indonesian Air Force to convert Sioux helicopters from piston to turbine power. Ten Indonesian Air Force personnel undertook training at the Army Aviation Centre, Oakey in Sept./Dec. 84; fifteen are currently undertaking English language training at RAAF LAVERTON and commence technical training at RAAF Wagga in August 1985. ($0.532m) (viii) Mobile Photographic Laboratory. Development of a joint project to enhance the capability of the Indonesian Air Force to process and interpret aerial photography. ($0.001m) (ix) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 36 personnel including officer staff training at the Joint Services, Navy, Army and Air Force Staff Colleges and RAAF Flying Instructor and Air Traffic Controller training. Visits by 19 Indonesian personnel to Australia to study ADF technical training systems, defence financial and budgetary systems, Army logistics, and to plan and observe exercises, as well as attending the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar. ($0.824m) (x) Group Training. Thirty junior Infantry officers of the Indonesian Army attended a Combat Instructors course at the Land Warfare Centre, Canungra, and fifteen members of the Indonesian Air Force are attending technical training at RAAF Wagga ($0.824m) (xi) Other. Visits and studies related to equipment trialling and development, hydrographic surveys, development of computer training courses, and helicopter maintenance; as well as the Annual DCP Review Conference. ($0.338m) (c) South Pacific ($5.860m) (i) Solomon Islands ($1.259m) a. Police Communications Project. Radio equipment, training and technical assistance to expand and upgrade the Solomon Islands Police Communications System. ($0.394m) b. Channel Clearance. Deployment of a RAN Landing Craft and a clearance diving team to Solomon Islands to clear shipping passages. ($0.569m) c. Coastal Hydrographic Unit. Attachment of a RAN Chief Petty Officer and the provision of equipment and training to assist the Solomon Islands to establish the capability to chart its inshore waters. ($0.077m) d. Bomb Disposal. RAAF transport and explosives for a UK Army bomb disposal team to clear an area for airport extensions. ($0.104m) e. Medical Program. Provision of short term medical assistance, specialist anti-malarial courses and a feasibility study for an anti-malarial drug trial. ($0.082m) f. Other. Includes survey computations costs as a result of previous surveys, mapping assistance; and visit for the DCP Review Conference. ($0.033m) (ii) Vanuatu ($1.434m) a. Field Engineering Project. Deployment of a troop of Royal Australian Engineers to remote Epi Island to construct a Regional Development Centre. ($0.317m) b. Operation ALGUM. Survey/mapping operation to enable definition of Vanuatu's Exclusive Economic Zone and provision of aerial photography. ($0.441m) c. Rural Water Supply. Three Australian Army Engineers, provide technical assistance on a project to ensure piped water supplies to every village. ($0.202m) d. Port Vila Fire Service. The provision of two fire tenders, the attachment of an Army Warrant Officer and training for the Vanuatu Mobile Force fire service in Vila. ($0.290m) e. Medical Program. Specialist village sanitation and anti-malarial courses run in Vanuatu. ($0.049m) f. Other. Includes survey computation costs from previous survey operations, specialists in-country courses, and final costs of Phase I of the police communications project, the catering project and the Hydrographic survey of Vanuatu waters; the DCP Review Conference. ($0.135m) (iii) Fiji ($0.776m) a. Maritime Advisory Assistance. Two RAN personnel assist the RFMF Naval Division in naval operations and maritime technical areas. ($0,121m) b. Rural Development Unit. The attachment of an Army Warrant Officer and provision of plant and workshop equipment to the RFMF Rural Development Unit. ($0.078m) c. Survey and Mapping Assistance. An Australian Army Survey Major posted to the Fiji Department of Lands and a combined RAAF/Army aerial photographic survey. ($0.247m) d. Combined Survey Operation. Costs of Fiji naval vessel support for a DCP survey operation in Kiribati. ($0.163m) e. Other. Including diving equipment for the Naval Division and final costs for communications and catering projects; the DCP Review Conference. ($0.167m) (iv) Kiribati ($0.687m) a. Operation ANON. Australian Army Survey assisting Kiribati to define its Exclusive Economic Zone. ($0.682m) b. Police Communications. Feasibility Study (0.005m) (v) Western Samoa ($0.373m) a. Police Communications. Equipment, technical assistance and training to expand and upgrade the Western Samoa police communications system. ($0.283m) b. Search and Rescue Project. Equipment, training and technical assistance to the Western Samoa police in setting up an emergency operations squad. ($0.088m) c. Hydrographic Survey. First half of an off-shore hydrographic survey of Western Samoan waters. ($0.001m) d. Other. Computation costs relating to previous survey; DCP Review Conference. ($0.001m) (vi) Tonga ($0.342) a. Trade Training. Four Senior NCO technical experts provide classroom and on-the-job training for the Tonga Defence Force Trade Training Unit. ($0.196m) b. Equipment for the Tonga Defence Force. Vehicles, maritime and fire fighting equipment. ($0.059m) c. Other. Including costs relating to completion of survey operations, provision of training material, assistance with construction projects and computer management; DCP Review Conference. ($0.087m) (vii) Other South Pacific ($0.457m) a. Tuvalu. Australian Army Survey assistance to Tuvalu to define its Exclusive Economic Zone. ($0.271m) b. Pacific Patrol Boat. Initial costs associated with the Pacific Patrol Boat Project. ($0.152m) c. Other. Minor freight costs and DCP Review Conference. (viii) South West Pacific Training a. Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 100 personnel from Fiji, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Kiribati and Western Samoa including the Australian Administrative Staff College, Mt Eliza; Navy Executive Officer and other professional officer courses, and hydrography, diving and underwater medicine training; Army officer and NCO corps training, officer cadet, survey and trade training. The Commander, Tonga Defence Service attended the 1984 DCP Regional Seminar. ($0.782m) (d) Malaysia ($5.613m) (i) Australian Army Advisory Team Malaysia. Ten Officers and four Warrant Officers in Malaysia participating with the Royal Malaysian Army in the development of tactics, logistics and training. ($1.638m) (ii) Computer/Logistics. One RAAF and one civilian officer of the Department of De- fence participating in Malaysia in the development of computer systems for the logistic support of the Malaysian Armed Forces. ($0.156m) (iii) Topographic Survey. One Australian Army officer is attached to the Directorate of National Mapping (Malaysia) on a project to computerise mapping. 16 Malaysian personnel attended training in Australia with the Royal Australian Army Survey Corps. ($0.178m) (iv) Work Study. Exchanges of Australian and Malaysian defence personnel on the application of work study techniques to management. Two Malaysian Army Work Study Instructors undertook training in Australia. ($0.086) (v) Defence Research. To facilitate the exchange of information on defence scientific and technological matters of mutual interest, an Australian Defence Scientist is attached to the Malaysian Defence Science and Technology Centre in Kuala Lumpur, and three Malaysian Defence Scientists undertook short attachments to Australian Defence research and development laboratories. ($0.116m) (vi) English Language. An exchange of visits, and Teaching-English-As-Second- Language training for six officers at the Defence Co-operation Language School, RAAF Laverton, for English Language teachers in the Malaysian Armed Forces; and the provision of a language laboratory. ($0.076m) (vii) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 276 personnel, including Joint and Single Service Staff Colleges; Navy apprentice, diving, hydrography and underwater medicine training; Army corps training for officers and NCOs; Air Force flying instructor. Visits to Australia by 18 officers to study management, defence equipment acquisition planning and procedures, army armoured doctrine, nuclear/biological/chemical defence training, and to attend the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar. ($3.347m) (viii) Other. Visits on Hydrography, Quality Assurance, Cataloguing and the annual DCP Review Conference. ($0.016m) (E) Thailand ($4.302m) (i) Navy NOMAD. An Army and a civilian engineer are attached to the Royal Thai Navy to support four NOMADs provided to enhance Thailand's capability for maritime surveillance. ($2.602m) (ii) Air Force NOMAD. Two civilian engineers are attached to the Royal Thai Air Force to support its 18 NOMAD aircraft. ($0.248m) (iii) English Language. An exchange of visits, the attachment of a Thai officer and teaching English-As-Second-Language training for eight Thai officers at the De- fence Co-operation Language School RAAF Laverton, and the provision of an Australian English Language Course for use in the language schools of the Royal Thai Armed Forces. ($0.212m) (iv) Defence Research. An Australian Def- ence Scientist is attached to the Thai Military Research and Development Centre Bangkok. ($0.109m) (v) Propellant Plant. Australian Defence officials provided advice to Thailand on the design and specifications of a propellant plant to be established in Bangkok. ($0.026m) (vi) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 56 personnel including Joint and Single Service Staff Colleges; Navy diving and underwater medicine training; Army Ordnance, Artillery and Infantry training; Air Force flying instructor and pilot conversion. Visits by 11 officers to study Reserve Management and Training, and to attend the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar. ($1.049m) (vii) Other. Minor activity in vehicle workshops, helicopter overhaul munitions production and project management; and the Annual DCP Review Conference. ($0.056m) (F) Singapore ($1.322m) (i) Flying Instructors. Three RAAF Flying Instructors are attached to the Singapore Air Force. ($0.314m) (ii) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 24 personnel including Army officer cadet, Navy diving and under- water medicine and Air Force pilot conversion training and attendance by four officers at the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar; visit to Singapore for Annual DCP Review Conference. ($1.008m) (G) Philippines ($1.356m) (i) NOMAD Maintenance. Three Army personnel and one civilian engineer were attached to the Philippines Air Force at Cebu on the development of maintenance and supply systems for NOMAD (The Army personnel returned to Australia in July 1985). Overhaul of six NOMAD engines in Australia. ($0.658m) (ii) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for 70 Filipino personnel including Joint and Single Service Staff Colleges; Navy officer and technical trade training; Army officer and NCO corps training; Air Force Air Traffic Controller training. Visits to Australia by six officers to observe exercises and attend the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar. ($0.680m) (iii) Other. DCP Review Conference. ($0.018m) (h) Brunei (Cost (minimal) included in Other Countries-Training) (i) Training and Study Visits. Provision of training for four Bruneian personnel at the Overseas Joint Warfare course, Williamtown, in May 1985, and assistance for four officers to attend the 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar. (i) Other countries ($0.497m) (i) Training and Study Visits. Training in Australia for nine personnel from India, Pakistan, and Burma including training at Joint and Single Service Staff Colleges; Army corps and officer cadet training; and a visit to Australia by three Burmese officers to study Army and Air Force light aircraft operations and support. (j) 1984 Annual DCP Regional Seminar (Costs included in individual country allocations). (i) thirty officers representing Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, Brunei and New Zealand attending the 1984 DCP Regional Seminar at the Land Warfare Centre, Canungra, in November 1984. The theme of the Seminar was ``Individual Training in the Armed Forces''. (k) DCP Training Support for Projects in Australia ($0.398m) (i) NOMAD Training Aircraft. Modification of aircraft and the construction of additional hangars for the two NOMAD aircraft stationed at the Army Aviation School, Oakey, for DCP training purposes. ($0.131m) (ii) Training Support Equipment. Provision of training aids and items of training equipment for Service schools in Australia in support of DCP training. ($0.254m) (iii) Defence Co-operation Language School. Construction of a storage facility to house equipment and materiel prepared in support of English language training projects in regional countries, and maintenance of the accommodation facility at the De- fence Co-operation Language School (DCLS) Laverton. ($0.013m). Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I give notice that, contingent upon the President proceeding to the placing of business on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Chipp moving a motion to give precedence over other business to the Order of the Day relating to the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Defence Co-operation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —As required by the resolutions agreed to by the Senate and the House of Representatives on 22 May 1980, I present a report showing the records and evidence of a Senate committee and certain joint committees of the Parliament which the President and the Speaker have authorised for release and the names of the persons to whom they were released during the period 18 November 1981 to 5 December 1985. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I present the fourth report on the examination of annual reports, dated December 1985, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I find it strange that thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours can be spent by a Senate standing committee on an inquiry only to have the Chairman of that committee seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a speech about the inquiry. Yet this is what I have been instructed to do. Thus I reluctantly seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I table the fourth report arising from the Committee's examination of annual reports. The Committee's first report on annual reports of government agencies dealt with the timeliness of reporting. The second considered standards of presentation and information which should be included in annual reports. The third report concentrated on children's television standards. This report deals with the 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. The committee considers that the Schools Authority's annual report is deficient in several respects, especially in regard to reporting on activities and operational problems. I should observe that the Authority does not agree with this view. It informed the Committee that the annual report is not the major way in which it communicates its views to the A.C.T. public. This is correct, but the Authority also has an obligation to report to the Parliament. The Committee expects that the Authority will in future produce annual reports that fulfil its obligation to report comprehensively to the Parliament. The bulk of the Committee's report deals with assessment in secondary colleges in the Australian Capital Territory. In the Committee's view, assessment procedures in secondary colleges were not treated adequately in the Schools Authority's 1983-84 annual report. They are a matter of public interest and are of vital importance to students and parents. External examinations at the year 12 level were abolished in the A.C.T. in 1977. Since that time, a system of continuous assessment has been used to assess students' performance in the final two years of secondary school. Most opponents of assessment in upper secondary education in the A.C.T. base their criticisms on the perceived disadvantages of continuous assessment as contrasted with external examinations. The Committee has noted that in Australia only the A.C.T. and Queensland rely entirely on continuous assessment to rank candidates for entry to tertiary education. Other States and the Northern Territory continue to rely mainly on external examinations, with an element of continuous assessment. Although the Committee found that the continuous assessment procedures used in the A.C.T. have limitations, other methods of assessment are also deficient in some respects. Nevertheless, based on the evidence before it, the Committee has a preference for an assessment system which combines continuous assessment and external examinations. It recognises that any change to the A.C.T. assessment system would involve additional expense and some initial disruption. Even so, the Committee considers that the A.C.T. Schools Authority should review the possibility of using external examinations as part of its assessment procedures in future. Assuming that the current system of continuous assessment will continue in the short term, the Committee considers that some refinements are necessary. These refinements should include some change in procedures for accrediting courses and possible adjustment of tertiary entrance scores for alleged sex bias. There was evidence of major differences of opinion between the A.N.U. and the secondary colleges about procedures for accrediting courses. The Committee therefore welcomes the Schools Authority's appointment of a committee to inquire into these procedures. It will take careful note of that committee's findings. Honourable senators will be aware that one of the most controversial issues in assessment in the A.C.T. is alleged sex bias in tertiary entrance scores. The evidence shows that there are systematic differences in the tertiary entrance scores obtained by students, depending on whether they attend co-educational or single-sex colleges. These differences appear to disadvantage girls attending single-sex colleges. The Committee considers that there are grounds for concern not only because the A.C.T. assessment system may discriminate against individuals in certain groups but also in relation to the effectiveness of the system. For these reasons, the Committee supports the recent establishment of an inquiry instituted by the A.C.T. Schools Authority, the A.N.U. and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. This inquiry is charged with determining whether there is evidence of systematic bias in the calculation of tertiary entrance scores and, if so, recommending changes to overcome any bias. There are three other issues on which I wish to comment. Firstly, there is an apparent widespread lack of understanding of the current assessment procedures among the public, and especially among employers. The Committee commends the efforts of the A.C.T. Schools Authority to educate the public about assessment procedures but considers that more could be done. Secondly, the Committee is concerned that the procedure most used or assessing students in small groups is inadequate. Small groups of students are usually amalgamated with larger classes or with several other small groups for the purposes of assessment. The committee doubts the validity of this approach. It supports a second approach which involves individual assessment. This approach, which was instituted in the A.C.T. in 1984, should replace the procedures involving the amalgamation of groups. Thirdly, the Committee supports the system of appeals available to A.C.T. students who are dissatisfied with assessment given by their teachers. However, no appeal is allowed against the external elements of the assessment procedures. For example, there is no right of appeal against the score obtained on the Australian scholastic aptitude test. The Committee understands the reasons for this. It nevertheless considers that, in the event of exceptional circumstances, there should be some avenue of appeal against the external elements of the assessment procedures. In conclusion, I wish to thank the past chairman and officers of the A.C.T. Schools Authority for their co-operation. The Committee was particularly grateful for the help given to it by the students and teachers at Hawker and Narrabundah colleges. I also thank those who contributed to the inquiry through written submissions or oral evidence. The Committee's special thanks are extended to the Committee secretary. Mr Terry Brown, to the Committee's research officers, Dr Roslyn Kelleher and Mr Neil Bessell, and to the Committee's steno- secretary, Mrs Maresa Laird. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator COLSTON —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I present a report on in vitro fertilisation and the legal status of children. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Along with Senator Colston, I reluctantly seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I present the report entitled IVF and the Status of Children, sub-titled `National Uniformity in Laws Relating to the Status of Children Born through the Use of In Vitro Fertilization'. If the issues dealt with in this report are fairly narrow and specific the Committee nonetheless believes that they are important issues. The number of children born through in vitro fertilization whose legal status requires specific legislative provision is as yet small. It is only where donated genetic material is used that such provision is required. The most recent statistics show that from the birth in 1980 of the first child as a result of IVF in Australia until September 1985 almost 500 children have been born as a result of IVF in Australia. of these only two children have been born through IVF using donor ova and 27 using donor sperm. But the Committee is firmly of the view that legal problems will arise unless legislative action is taken now to bring about uniformity. The Committee is strongly in view that a child's legal status should not vary from one part of Australia to another, depending upon where its parents happen to have been domiciled at the time the child was born. There should be uniformity both in substance and in wording of all legislation addressing the status of children born through the use of IVF procedures. Therefore the Committee regards the present position as unsatisfactory. `Status' refers to the question of who in law are the mother and father of a child and the related question of whether or not the child is a child of a marriage. It is important to know whom the law regards as the parents of a child because the law attaches a range of consequences to child-parent status. For example questions of nationality, citizenship, domicile, inheritance, succession, custody, obligations to support a child, entitlement to social security benefits and the law of incest and marriage within prohibited degrees, may depend on whom the law regards as the child's mother and father. The long term goal should be uniformity in consolidated legislation dealing with the status of all children, whether born through the application of reproductive technology or entirely naturally. Such a move could assist in preventing any stigma from attaching to children born through applications of reproductive technology. Any departure from nationwide uniformity in status law-whether at the level of substance or at the level of wording and/or structure-frustrates the principle of simplicity and clarity and increases the prospect of children finding themselves entangled in complex litigation to determine familiar status. Once the preconditions in the legislation are met, all the IVF status Acts operate to make the social father the father for all purposes of law. There is some variation in the wording used to achieve this: irrebuttably `presumed' to be the father for all purposes; `shall' for all purposes, be conclusively presumed to be the father of the State; or, in Commonwealth legislation, is `deemed' to be the father for the purposes of the legislation. All these forms of wording arguably establish a `fiction' that the social father is the genetic father. In contrast the Status of Children Act 1974 (Tas) s. 10C (1) requires that for legal purposes the social father shall `be treated as if he were the father'. This makes it clearer that the relationship being established for legal purposes is not necessarily the true genetic relationship. There are also a number of points upon which uniformity does not exist. There are three major causes of this. First there is the absence of specific IVF status legislation in Queensland and the External Territories. This results in the sperm donor, not the social father, being the legal father. It is unclear whether the law in Queensland and the External Territories would regard the ova donor or the woman who gives birth as the legal mother. Second, the Artificial Conception Act 1984 (NSW) does not create any presumptions of paternity or maternity where donor ova are used. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s. 5A and the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) s. 5 (6) do not create presumptions of maternity where donor ova are used. This has serious consequences. A child born through IVF using donor ova to a married couple with the husband's consent will be the child of that couple under the law of all States and Territories except New South Wales, Queensland and the External Territories. But the child will not be treated as a child of the marriage for Family Law Act purposes nor a child of its social mother for citizenship purposes unless the presently unclear position at common law is resolved in favour of treating the woman who gives birth, not the ova donor, as the legal mother. The Committee regards this lack of uniformity as both serious and unacceptable. The third major point upon which uniformity is lacking arises because the Status of Children Act 1974 (Tas), the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s. 5A and the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) s. 5 (6) do not treat de facto couples as married couples for the purposes of the IVF provisions in the respective Acts. The legal status of a child is determined by the law of the place where its parents are domiciled at the time of its birth. The lack of uniformity on status law within Australia may give rise to difficult choice of law problems where, for example; a couple domiciled in one State enter an IVF program in another State using donor sperm and ova. Even if these problems can be avoided and application of choice of law rules gives a clear result the result may not be appropriate. For example, if a couple domiciled in Queensland enter an IVF program in Victoria involving the use of donor ova and sperm, the status of a child born as a result will be determined under Queensland law. At present under this law the sperm donor, not the social father, will be the legal father. It is not clear if the legal mother will be the mother or a donor or the woman who gives birth. Yet presumably the couple entering the program would have wanted to be the legal parents, as they would have been if Victorian law applied. Clearly there would be much to be said for a choice of law rule that selected as the relevant law for the determination of status and law of the place where the IVF procedure occurred rather than the law of the domicile of origin. For the policy of those directing IVF programs is to permit donor gametes to be used, de facto couples to enter the program, etc., only where the local law makes adequate and appropriate provision for the status of any resulting child. However this is not the choice of law rule which operates in Australia at present. The Committee is united in the view that the question of the collection of and acess to information on gamete donors is one which needs to be addressed. It is a central issue if a workable legal regime for artificial reproduction using donor gametes is to be developed. The Committee accepts that it is desirable to keep information on donors in case such information is needed in the future to assist with diagnosis and/or treatment of medical problems of the donors' genetic children. Full information should be accessible to medical practitioners. But apart from situations of medical need there is a difference of views within the Committee on the more general question of whether, and if so under what conditions, a child should have access to information and whether that information should include information which would identify the gamete donor. Some members of the Committee hold the view that a person has a right to the fullest information about his or her genetic ancestry. If there is thought to be a conflict between the interests of donors, social parents and children born through a process involving the use of donated genetic material, the rights of a party who gave no consent to the process ought to prevail over the rights of those who by agreement contrived to bring the child into the world. On this view the child should be recognised as an independent human being who should not ultimately and forever be subjected to such constraints on knowledge of his or her origins as may be determined in the interests of others. Other members of the Committee think that release of donor information could be extremely upsetting and disruptive, not only for the social parents but also for the donor and his/her family. These members of the Committee do not agree that the right of a child to access to information concerning its genetic ancestry should prevail over the decision of the gamete donors and social parents to keep such ancestry a secret. These members agree with the policy, central to nearly all the recent IVF status legislation, that informed and consenting donors and social parents should be able to participate in an IVF program without having to reveal the identity of the donor(s) to any child born as a result. The recommendations of the report are: RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The long term goal should be uniformity in consolidated legislation dealing with the status of all children, whether born through the application of reproductive technology or entirely naturally (paragraph 1.27). 2. It is highly desirable that there be uniformity, both in substance and in wording and/or legal structures, in the law relating to the status of children born through the application of IVF procedures (paragraph 2.10). 3. The Attorney-General should give consideration to the possibility of enacting uniform choice of law rules under s. 51 (xxv) of the Constitution (paragraph 6.46). 4. The basic uniform rule should be that a consenting married couple entering an IVF program involving donor gametes should be the legal parents for all purposes of any child born as a result (paragraph 7.5). 5. Consideration should be given to whether legal links with the genetic parents should be retained for the limited purposes of the criminal law on incest and for the prohibition of marriage within the prohibited relationships (paragraph 7.10). 6. Subject to constitutional constraints on the Commonwealth all legislation dealing with the status of children born through IVF should treat an unmarried man and woman living together on a genuine domestic basis on the same footing as a married couple for the purpose of determining status (paragraph 7.14). 7. Appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that the status of children born through all methods of artificial reproduction involving donor genetic material is resolved in a unform way by legislation (paragraph 7.17). 8. In order to avoid status legislation being overtaken by scientific developments such legislation should focus on status issues arising out of the use of donor genetic material, independently of any specific method of achieving artificial reproduction (paragraph 7.20). 9. It should be uniformly provided explicitly that in all cases the woman who gives birth to a child is its legal mother (paragraph 7.24). 10. The Commonwealth should seek to obtain from the States the power to enact legislation to deal with all issues of the status of children in law (paragraph 7.35). 11. As an interim solution the Attorney-General should attempt to secure, as a matter of priority, to SCAGS the functions of monitoring the impact on status law of scientific developments and of attempting to achieve a greater degree of uniformity in that law (paragraph 7.40). 12. As part of an interim solution the Commonwealth should: (a) enact legislation for the External Territories to deal with status issues arising from artificial reproduction; (b) amend the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s. 5A and the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) s. 5 (6)-(8) so as to deal with maternity issues where donor female genetic material has been used; and (c) amend these same two provisions so that the consent of a husband to his wife's participation in an artificial reproduction program is rebut- tably presumed to have been given, in the same way as is done in all State and Territory IVF status legislation (paragraph 7.42). 13. Pending the possible establishment of a permanent monitoring body such as the proposed National Council on Reproductive Technology, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General should consider the question of record keeping and access to information relating to the donors of gametes, and should monitor the operation of any regime adopted (paragraph 8.18). Senator TATE —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Tate)-by leave-agreed to: That the submissions received by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in relation to its inquiry into in vitro fertilisation be referred to the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 for consideration. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present the second report on changes in the presentation of the appropriations and departmental explanatory notes. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I very quickly draw attention to the fact that we are seeking comment on the method of operation of Estimates committees with the introduction of program budgeting. I urge anyone interested to respond to the Committee. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present report 242 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts entitled `Government Aircraft Factories-Response', which considers the Department of Finance Minute on the Committee's 198th report. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a tabling statement. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Report 242 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts is entitled `Government Aircraft Factories-Response'. This Report considers the Department of Finance Minute relating to the Committee's 198th Report on the Government Aircraft Factories. There have been significant changes in relation to the Government Aircraft Factories in recent times. The Factories are now the responsibility of the Department of Defence and have a new General Manager and Finance Manager. The production program of the Factories has also changed considerably in recent times. Production of the Nomad has ceased with 22 Nomads unsold and stored as at June 1984. The Government Aircraft Factories have now moved into a phase where they are heavily involved in assembling the new F/A-18 fighter aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force. Management Reviews Since the Committee prepared its Report there has been a series of reviews focusing on various aspects of the Government Aircraft Factories. In August 1983 the then Minister for Defence Support established a Recovery Plan Taskforce to look at ways of avoiding retrenchments and means by which the Government Aircraft Factories might become more competitive and cost effective. The Taskforce consisting of representatives from the unions, factory management and external experts presented a report to the Minister in June 1984. Following the series of reviews and the many recommendations, the Factories are now moving into an implementation phase. Some positive steps have already been taken to improve the Factories management and performance. The target established by the management of the Factories is to cut out all Government subsidies by the end of the 1989-90 financial year. In view of the substantial changes of the Factory the Committee decided to seek current information on a number of matters. The Committee first sought to gain information in writing. However, the Committee found that the answers to these questions were not consistent with information coming from the Factories on levels of productivity. As a result, the Committee held a public hearing on 13 November 1985 to gain evidence from the General Manager and Finance Manager of the Factories and Representatives of the Department of Defence. At that hearing a paper from the Factories management to the Recovery Plan Implementation Steering Committee was tabled indicating serious production problems at the Factories. The Factories were found to be falling significantly behind on their targets and were well behind schedule on most of their projects. Major problems are occurring with the production of F/A-18 Flap and Shroud Offsets for the McDonnel Douglas Company in the United States. Deliveries of completed assemblies of Flaps and Shrouds are seven sets or ten weeks behind schedule. This means that these Offsets are now being air-freighted to the United States at a cost of $4,000 per set because the Factories are running behind schedule. As a result of the Government Aircraft Factories running so far behind schedule, they may have to procure ten sets of Flaps and Shrouds from McDonnell Douglas at a cost of $3.15m which is made up of $1.41m lost income and a premium of $1.74m for a special batch at short notice. There is a risk that these problems with the F/A-18 offsets may cause the Factories to lose credibility with the United States Department of Defense and the Royal Australian Air Force. This would be unfortunate as the F/A-18 Offsets form the major identified workload for the Bond Shop employing fifty-eight people with the potential of over $100m in future work. When the management of the factories were questioned at the hearing on the reasons for the factories' recent poor performance they indicated that it was predominantly due to an industrial dispute during August and September of 1985. They indicated that such a problem would not reoccur as an accord had been signed by management and representatives of unions at the factories on 30 October 1985 that would resolve matters before an industrial dispute occurred. Because of the nature of this new evidence, the Committee decided to seek the views of union representatives from the factories at a further public hearing which was held on 18 November 1985. Two of the union representatives were from the Joint Union Group at the factories. The union representatives were asked to give their views on why the factories' utilisation rate was falling and why the factories were so far behind schedule on most of their projects. They dismissed the effect of the industrial dispute in August and September claiming that only four hundred hours were lost making it a very small scale dispute with a minimal effect on production. The unions had a very different explanation of why the factories were running late with their projects. They claimed in relation to the F/A-18 that every major item of tooling sent from McDonnel Douglas in the United States in early 1985 had faults. The master tooling and master references were both deficient for the radome for the F/A-18. Parts sent from the United States were also faulty and would not fit the jig that had been received previously. Parts that should have taken two hours to make were taking up to twenty hours because of these problems. Kits were sent with only half the required number of parts and materials were out of life. The jig for the flaps and shrouds was also faulty. According to the union representatives these problems persisted for three to four months causing the factories to run considerably behind schedule. The union representatives indicated that management began to draw people from other projects onto the F/A-18 project. As a result, other projects at the factories started to fall behind schedule. A union representative indicated that a committee had been set up in the factories to document the problem and make a claim against the McDonnell Douglas Company. The Committee feels that it has once again been misled by the factories' management and the Department of Defence who failed to disclose these problems when the lateness of the F/A-18 project was discussed. The Committee suggests that the Department of Finance become involved in examining these claims on McDonnell Douglas and in ensuring that McDonnell Douglas do not demand penalty payments for problems that were initially caused by that company. Turning to other matters, the Committee re- iterates its previous recommendation that the Government Aircraft Factories should report annually to Parliament. The Committee also notes that the Auditor-General has repeatedly referred to the unsatisfactory nature of the factories financial statements and the lateness of these statements. The factories financial statements do not comply with current commercial accounting standards. Further they do not comply with the `Guidelines for the Form and Standard of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertaking' issued by the Department of Finance. The Committee notes that the factories have introduced a large number of computer software packages in an attempt to overcome their financial accounting and management problems. The report makes a number of warnings in relation to this exercise. Industrial Relations In its 198th Report the Committee indicated that there was considerable scope for improvement in the area of industrial relations at the Government Aircraft Factories where morale appeared to be extremely low. Since then, to the credit of present management at the factories, there has been considerable improvement in industrial relations. An Industrial Relations Manager has been appointed and a Joint Consultation Forum established. This Forum has brought together unionists, management and external experts to consider important issues affecting the factories. This has resulted in a better flow of information to the employees. The accord between the management and the unions signed on 30 August 1985 is an innovative development in industrial relations and should lead to a situation where there are virtually no industrial disputes. All involved in the introduction of this accord deserve considerable praise. The Committee considers that the organisational structure of the Government Aircraft Factories should change. The factories must become a statutory corporation. The Committee goes further in claiming that the Government Aircraft Factories will only achieve commercial orientation, in addition to providing an efficient response to its Defence work, when it becomes a statutory authority. Only then will it be able to make the quick and decisive marketing decisions required and be able to manage its human and financial resources in an appropriate manner. In essence the Government Aircraft Factories are presently prevented from doing this by their organisational structure. Several other issues would have to be resolved if the Government Aircraft Factories are to become commercial operations. The factories are also going to have to become much leaner more efficient organisations. Presently only 45% of the factories employees are regarded as ``Direct Workers''. The rest are either involved in management and supervision or the inspection and testing of products. The factories should devise a plan to significantly reduce the number of its employees over a period of time by not replacing certain employees when they retire or leave the factories. Management will also need to substantially increase the workload of the factories. This can only be done by increasing the amount of commercial work done for customers other than the Commonwealth Government. The report goes on to say that the factories may not be able to continue the luxury of only seeking work in the aerospace industry as they have done in the past. The aerospace industry may be too restrictive in Australia and the factories may have to accept commercial work from other industries. In conclusion the Committee remains dissatisfied with the management practices of the Government Aircraft Factories. The Committee expects adherence to recognised approved Australian accounting standards and financial reporting procedures. The Committee believes that it has been misled on a number of issues relating to the factories. The Government Aircraft Factories must move towards being more commercially viable. In order to do this, urgent action is needed to form the factories into a statutory authority. In addition the factories need to obtain a higher level of commercial work and need to take steps towards rationalising their workforce. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator GEORGES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the eighth report of the Publications Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Assent to the following Bills reported: Companies Amendment Bill 1985 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985 Australia Bill 1985 Australia (Request and Consent) Bill 1985 Debate resumed. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.29) —The Australian Democrats approve the general intention of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Amendment Bill 1985 to clarify the laws which operate in the islands and to update Northern Territory law which applies in that area. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) stated in his second reading speech, that he would be recommending to the Governor- General a Territory ordinance specifying that certain Northern Territory laws shall not apply or are to be modified. The example given was a criminal code Act. We certainly agree that several aspects of this Act are obnoxious. However, we are particularly concerned at the omission of any reference to exemption or modification of the Northern Territory environment and conservation legislation as it would apply to Ashmore and Cartier Islands. The Northern Territory conservation laws are the worst and the weakest in Australia, falling far below the standard of Federal legislation to protect the environment. For instance, mining is permitted in national parks. I instance the Jabiru mine in the Kakadu National Park. Of course, this may result from the fact that the Northern Territory Minister responsible for the environment is also the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy. Mention was made in the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) of the petroleum and other exploration companies already active or examining possibilities in the area of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. I believe that this should set off a few alarm bells and alert us to the environmental damage already threatening these islands. Because of time restraints, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard three newspaper cuttings from the Northern Territory News, two dated 4 Febrauary 1984 and one dated 7 February 1984. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- GOVERNMENT HOPES DASHED OVER ISLAND CONTROL By Frank Alcorta A letter sent recently by Home Affairs and Environment Minister, Mr Barry Cohen to Territory MHR, Mr John Reeves, dashes all hope that the NT Government had to recover administrative control of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands. The two groups of islands have been the subject of controversy between the Territory and Federal Governments after Mr Everingham offered to include the Cocos (Keeling) Island within the Territory boundaries for voting purposes if Cartier and Ashmore were transferred to Territory control. The NT Government has also disagreed with the Federal Government's decision to exclude Territory fishermen from the newly-declared Ashmore National Park. In his letter to Mr Reeves, Mr Cohen says that the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier have been Commonwealth Territory since 1933 when it took control of the islands from the United Kingdom. ``For convenience, the Territory was administered together with the Northern Territory,'' Mr Cohen said. ``This arrangement ceased when the Northern Territory gained self-government on July 1, 1978, and the Territory is now administered by the Department of Territories and Local Government''. Mr Cohen said that on advice of the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor the three islands on Ashmore reef are owned by the Commonwealth and could therefore be declared a reserve under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1975. The Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve was proclaimed by the Federal Government on July 28, 1983. The reserve includes the whole Ashmore reef, the three islands on the reef and the surrounding waters to a depth of 50 metres. But the issue could be complicated by the Jabiru oil finds. Two days ago discussions over the potentially oil rich field between Australia and Indonesia began. Officials of the two countries will try to resolve where the sea border should be drawn. If the border is drawn on the basis agreed by the Indonesians in 1971 it will give Australia jurisdiction over 70 per cent of the sea-bed between Australia and Indonesia. But if the agreement is drawn along the basis discussed by the Portuguese before they surrendered their East Timorese colony to the Indonesians things are likely to be a lot tougher for Australia. In 1974-75 the Portuguese insisted that the sea-bed boundary should be drawn half-way between Timor and Australia which would put the Jabiru oil fields in Indonesian territory. Australian Government sources insist that the Jabiru oil field is not affected by the negotiations although they concede that the adjacent Kelp area is right in the middle of the Timor trough which is the subject of negotiations. The discussions are likely to be complicated by the fact that the Indonesians might try to reopen negotiations on the whole question of the boundary rather on filling the gaps. In the unlikely event that this happens, sovereignty over Jabiru and the whole oil field in Kelp will be thrown into question. ISLAND CONTROL NOT FOR NT Apparently the NT Government is not going to have a say in the future administrative control of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands. This is important because the islands are in the Jabiru oil zone, the source of Australia's petroleum needs in the immediate future. Although there is no suggestion that the islands and the surrounding sea area will be questioned by the Indonesians, there is a strong doubt that the Kelp region to the west of Cartier will be opened to BHP. The discussions between Indonesia and Australia are likely to be long and arduous. The issue is oil. Let us not make any mistake about it. This was the overriding concern of the Portuguese when they started negotiations with Australia in 1974. The negotiations were broken off after the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. The Indonesians were far more accommodating than the Portuguese because they wanted Australian consent, if not approval, of their take-over of East Timor. But now circumstances have changed. Australia has accepted a de-facto annexation of East Timor and the Indonesians no longer have to pander to world opinion for their action in Timor. There has also been a formidable bout of oil exploration activity in the surrounding seas. The activity resulted in the Jabiru find and in very optimistic forecasts in the Kelp region, just west of Jabiru. This is likely to influence the discussions on the sea boundary. Neither wants a brawl over vast empty expanses of sea. Neither would be interested in the ownership of a few desolate coral reefs. But the potential of oil riches makes these discussions different. Australia will argue that the Ashmore and Cartier Islands were ceded to the Commonwealth by the British Government through a treaty that had nothing to do with the Dutch colonies, namely Indonesia. Responsibilities The Indonesians will probably argue that the whole shelf between Australia and Timor should be negotiated and that Indonesia was not part of old colonial agreements negotiated by European powers. Australia must stick by its responsibilities to the Territories of Ashmore and Cartier as well as for its claim to the Kelp shelf. In exchange we should offer co-operation in exploration and exploitation of oil fields in Kelp. We should also offer the Indonesians a piece of the cake in the establishment of refinery facilities in Darwin. ISLANDS PARK BRAWL BREWS No Consultation-Tuxworth By Frank Alcorta A new brawl is developing between the Federal and Territory government over Canberra's intention to declare the Ashmore group of islands a national park under the control of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Services (ANPWS). The first intimation of the Federal Government's intentions came in May 1983 when Professor J D Ovington, ANPWS director, wrote to Mr B J Cameron, then NT Primary Production secretary. Professor Ovington said in his letter that under the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act 1975, he was required to prepare a Plan of Management for a reserve as soon as practicable. The plan would be designed to ``provide strict protection to the reef system.'' Professor Ovington at the time refused to give guarantees that commercial fishing would be allowed in the park area. In October 1983 Mr Ian Tuxworth, NT Primary Production Minister, wrote to Mr J Kerin, Federal Primary Industry Minister. Mr Tuxworth referred to the previous correspondence between his department and Professor Ovington and complained that the ANPWS had consulted only federal departments. ``I am very concerned'', Mr Tuxworth said, ``that not only was not my department consulted by your Fisheries Division but that the ANPWS also has made no attempt to discuss this matter with either my department or the NT fishing industry. He sought assurances that the NT Government and industry would be fully consulted in the development of a management plan for the Ashmore national park. Mr Kerin was not helpful in his answer. He said that the proclamation of a reserve in the Ashmore island was ``a matter for decision by the ANPWS only.'' The federal minister, however, did not rule out future fishing operations in the park area. Fisheries Division chief in the NT, Mr Dick Slack-Smith, said that he had been in contact with the ANPWS in relation to the development of a management plan. ``The future of fishing in that area should be taken into account,'' he said. The Ashmore and Cartier Islands recently became a matter of controversy between the Territory and Federal governments when it was suggested that the Cocos Islands should be included within the Territory boundaries for voting purposes. The Chief Minister, Mr Paul Everingham, said before Christmas that his government would consider the Cocos proposition if the Federal Government devolved control of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands to the Northern Territory. The two groups of islands are important not only for their fishing potential but because they are placed within the boundaries of the oil-rich Jabiru field. BHP, in charge of Jabiru, could not be contacted for comment this morning on the possible effects of the declaration of the park on future oil exploration. The Indonesian consulate in Darwin also refused to comment on the future of Indonesian fishermen who now used the islands as base for their operations. Senator VIGOR —Cartier Island is used by migratory birds which Australia has undertaken to protect. The agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan for the protection of migratory birds in danger of extinction and of their environment deserves to be looked at. This area needs better protection. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of that agreement, rather than discuss it. Leave granted. The agreement read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CANBERRA, A.C.T. AGREEMENT between the GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA and the GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN for the Protection of Migratory Birds in danger of extinction and their environment (Tokyo, 6 February 1974) Entry into force: 30 April 1981 TREATY SERIES 1981 No. 6 AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING SERVICE CANBERRA 1982 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN AND THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY BIRDS AND BIRDS IN DANGER OF EXTINCTION AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT The Government of Japan and the Government of Australia, Considering that birds constitute an important element in the natural environment and play an essential role in enriching the natural environment and that this role may be enhanced by proper management thereof, Recognising the special international concern, as expressed, for example, at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction, Noting the existence of bilateral and multilateral agreements for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction, Considering that many species of birds migrate between Japan and Australia and live seasonally in the respective countries and that there are certain species of birds which are in danger of extinction and also that co-operation between the two Governments is essential for the conservation of these birds, and Desiring to co-operate in taking measures for the management and protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction and also for the management and protection of their environments, Have agreed as follows: Article I 1. In this Agreement, the term `migratory birds' means: (a) the species of birds for which there is reliable evidence of migration between the two countries from the recovery of bands or other markers; and (b) the species of birds with subspecies common to both countries or, in the absence of subspecies, the species of birds common to both countries (excepting those whose non-migratory nature is biologically evident). The identification of these species and subspecies shall be based upon specimens, photographs or other reliable evidence. 2. (a) The list of the species defined as migratory birds in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article is contained in the Annex to this Agreement. (b) The competent authorities of the two Governments shall review from time to time the Annex and, if necessary, make recommendations to their respective Governments to amend it. (c) The Annex shall be considered amended three months after the date upon which the two Governments confirm, by an exchange of diplomatic notes, their respective acceptance of such recommendations. Article II 1. Each Government shall prohibit the taking of migratory birds or their eggs. However, exceptions to the prohibition of taking may be permitted in accordance with the laws and regulations in force in each country in the following cases: (a) for scientific, educational, propagative or other specific purposes not inconsistent with the objectives of this Agreement; (b) for the purpose of protecting persons and property; (c) during hunting seasons established in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article; and (d) to allow the hunting and gathering of specified birds or their eggs by the inhabitants of certain regions who have traditionally carried on such activities for their own food, clothing or cultural purposes, provided that the population of each species is maintained in optimum numbers and that adequate preservation of the species is not prejudiced. 2. Each Government shall prohibit any sale, purchase or exchange of migratory birds or their eggs, whether they are alive or dead, except those taken in accordance with the second sentence of paragraph 1 of this Article, or of the products thereof or their parts. 3. Each Government may establish seasons for hunting migratory birds taking into account the maintenance of normal reproduction of those birds. Article III 1. Each Government shall take special protective measures, as appropriate, for the preservation of species or subspecies of birds which are in danger of extinction. 2. Whenever either Government has determined the species or subspecies of birds which are in danger of extinction and taken special protective measures therefor, the Government shall inform the other Government of such determination and of any cancellation thereafter of such determination. 3. Each Government shall control the exportation or importation of such species or subspecies of birds as are determined in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, and of the products thereof. Article IV 1. The two Governments shall exchange data and publications regarding research on migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction. 2. Each Government shall encourage the formulation of joint research programs on migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction. 3. Each Government shall encourage the conservation of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction. Article V Each Government shall endeavour to establish sanctuaries and other facilities for the management and protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction and also of their environment. Article VI Each Government shall endeavour to take appropriate measures to preserve and enhance the environment of birds protected under the provisions of this Agreement. In particular, it shall: (a) seek means to prevent damage to such birds and their environment; (b) endeavour to take such measures as may be necessary to control the importation of animals and plants which it determines to be hazardous to the preservation of such birds; and (c) endeavour to take such measures as may be necessary to control the introduction of animals and plants which could disturb the ecosytems of unique island environments. Article VII Each Government agrees to take measures necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Article VIII Upon the request of either Government, the two Governments shall hold consultations regarding the operation of this Agreement. Article IX 1. This Agreement shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged at Canberra as soon as possible. 2. This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of the exchange of the instruments of ratification.1 It shall remain in force for fifteen years and shall continue in force thereafter until terminated as provided herein. 3. Either Government may, by giving one year's notice in writing, terminate this Agreement at the end of the initial fifteen year period or at any time thereafter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorised by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement. DONE in duplicate, in the English and Japanese languages, each text being equally authentic, at Tokyo, this sixth day of February, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-four. For the Government of Australia (signed) D. J. HORNE For the Government of Japan (signed) MASAYOSHI OHIRA 1 The Agreement entered into force on 30 April 1981. ANNEX Common Name Scientific Name 1 Streaked Shearwater Calonectris leucomellas 2 Wedge-tailed Shearwater Puffinus pacificus 3 Fleshy-footed Shearwater Puffinus carneipes 4 Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus 5 Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris 6 Wilson's Storm-petrel Oceanites oceanicus 7 Leach's Storm-petrel Oceanodroma Leucorhoa 8 White-tailed Tropic-bird Phaethon lepturus 9 Brown Booby Sula leucogaster 10 Masked Booby Sula dactylatra 11 Red-footed Booby Sula sula 12 Greater Frigate-bird Fregata minor 13 Lesser Frigate-bird Fregata ariel 14 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 15 White Egret Egretta alba 16 Garganey Teal Anas querquedula 17 Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula 18 Mongolian Sand-dotterel Charadrius mongolus 19 Large Sand-dotterel Charadrius leschenaultii 20 Oriental Dotterel Charadrius asiaticus 21 Eastern Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica 22 Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola 23 Turnstone Arenaria interpres 24 Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis 25 Long-toed Stint Calidris minutilla (including Calidris subminuta) 26 Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii 27 Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos 28 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata 29 Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea 30 Knot Calidris canutus 31 Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris 32 Sanderling Crocethia alba 33 Ruff (Reeve) Philomachus pugnax 34 Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis 35 Broad-billed Sandpiper Limicola falcinellus 36 Little Greenshank Tringa stagnatilis 37 Greenshank Tringa nebularia 38 Wood Sandpiper Tinga Glareola 39 Grey-tailed Tattler Tringa Brevipes 40 Wandering Tattler Tringa incana 41 Common Sandpiper Tringa hypoleucos 42 Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus 43 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa 44 Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica 45 Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascariensis 46 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 47 Little Whimbrell Numenius minutus 48 Pin-tailed Snipe Gallinago megala 49 Japanes Snipe Gallinago hardwickii 50 Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 51 Oriental Pratincole Galareola pratincola 52 South-polar Skua Stercorarius skua 53 Pomarine Skua Stercorarius pomarinus 54 Arctic Skua Stercorarius parasiticus 55 White-winged Black Tern Chlidonias leucoptera 56 Crested Tern Sterna bergii 57 Asiatic Common Tern Sterna hirundo 58 Black-naped Tern Sterna sumatrana 59 Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus 60 Little Tern Sterna albifrons 61 Noddy Anous stolidus 62 Oriental Cuckoo Cuculus saturatus 63 Spine-tailed Swift Chaetura caudacuta 64 Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus 65 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 66 Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava (Note from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Embassy of Japan, Canberra) CH103523 I The Department of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of Japan and has the honour to refer to the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment which was signed at Tokyo on 6 February 1974. In accordance with Article III (2) the Department wishes to inform the Embassy that the Government of Australia has determined that the species or subspecies of birds in the attached list are birds in danger of extinction. The Department of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of Japan the assurances of its highest consideration. CANBERRA, A.C.T. 30 April 1981 OFFICIAL LIST OF AUSTRALIAN ENDANGERED BIRDS (Dates shown in parentheses represent the date of the last authentic record of a taxon.) Scientific Names Common Names Procellariiformes Procellariidae Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera Goulds Petrel Pterodroma solandri Providence Petrel Puffinus carneipes hullianus Lord Howe Island Fleshy-footed Shearwater Pelecaniformes Sulidae Sula abbotti Abbott's Booby Fregatidae Fregata andrewsi Christmas Island Frigatebird Falconiformes Accipitridae Accipiter radiatus Red Goshawk Gruiformes Pedionomidae Pedionomus torquatus Plains Wanderer Rallidae Tricholimnas sylvestris Lord Howe Island Woodhen Charadriiformes Laridae Anous tenuirostris Lesser Noddy Psittaciformes Psittacidae Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae cookii Norfolk Island Parrot Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni Coxens Fig Parrot Geopsittacus occidentalis Night Parrot Neophema chrysogaster Orange-bellied Parrot Pezoporus wallicus Ground Parrot Polytelis alexandrae Princess Parrot Psephotus chrysop terygius Golden-shouldered Parrot Psephotus dissimilis Hooded Parrot Psephotus pulcherrimus (1922) Paradise Parrot Strigiformes Strigidae Ninox novaeseelandise royalla Norfolk Island Boobook Owl Ninox squamipila natalis Christmas Island Owl Caprimulgiformes Caprimulgidae Podargus ocellatus plumiferus Plumed Frogmouth Passeriformes Atrichornithidae Attrichornis clamosus Noisy Scrub Bird Maluridae Malurus coronatus Purple-crowned Wren Amytornis dorotheae Dorothys Grass-wren Amytornis textilis textilis Thick-billed Grass-wren Acanthizidae Dasyornis longirostris Western Bristlebird Dasyornis broadbenti littoralis (1940) Rufous Bristlebird Cracticidae Strepera graculina crissalis Lord Howe Island Currawong Timaliidae Psophodes nigrogularis Western Whipbird Pardalotidae Pardalotus quadragintus Forty-spotted Pardalote Zosteropidae Zosterops albogularis Norfolk Island Silvereye Meliphagidae Lichenostomus melanops cassidix Helmeted Honeyeater Manorina melanotis Black-eared Miner Turdidae Drymodes superciliaris colcloughi (1915) Northern Scrub Robin (Note from the Embassy of Japan, Canberra to the Department of Foreign Affairs) II EMBASSY OF JAPAN 112 Empire Circuit Yarralumla, A.C.T. 2600 No. 81-024 NOTE VERBALE The Embassy of Japan presents its compliments to the Department of Foreign Affairs and has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the latter's Note Verbale No. CH103523 dated 30 April 1981, informing the Embassy that the Government of Australia has determined the species or subspecies of birds in danger of extinction in accordance with the provisions of Article III (2) of the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment. The Embassy has further the honour to inform the Department that the Government of Japan has also determined the species or subspecies of birds in danger of extinction as listed in the enclosure, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Agreement. The Embassy of Japan avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Department of Foreign Affairs the assurances of its highest consideration. Canberra, A.C.T. 30 April, 1981 LIST OF ENDANGERED SPECIES OF BIRDS IN JAPAN Common Names Scientific Names Short-tailed Albatross Diomedea albatrus Oriental White Stork Ciconia ciconia boyciana Japanese Crested Ibis Nipponia nippon Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis leucopareia Bonin Buzzard Buteo buteo toyoshimai Japanese Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos japonica Ryukyu Serpent Eagle Spilornis cheela perplexus Volcano Islands Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus fruitii Japanese Ptarmigan Logopus mutus japonicus Japanese Crane Gurs japonensis Nordmann's Greenshank Tringa guttifer Stejneger's Wood Pigeon Columba janthina stejnegeri Red-headed Wood Pigeon Columba janthina nitens Blakiston's Fish-owl Ketupa blakistoni blakistoni Pryer's Woodpecker or Okinawa Woodpecker Sapheopipo noguchi Owston's White-backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos owstoni Inoue's Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus inouyei Lesser Chinese Bulbul Pycnonotus sinensis orii Borodino Wren Troglodytes troglodytes orii Ryukyu Robin Erithacus komadori komadori Stejneger's Ryukyu Robin Erithacus komadori namiyei Yaeyama Ryukyu Robin Erithacus komadori subrufa Amami Ground Thrush Turdus dauma amami Torishima Bushwarbler Cettia diphone panafidinicus Japanese Swampwarbler Megalurus pryeri pryeri Hahajima Honeyeater Apalopteron familiare hahasima Bonin Islands Japanese Greenfinch Carduelis sinica kittlitzi Lidth's Jay Garrulus lidthi Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The agreement with Japan recognises the importance of birds to our environment and it states that each government shall take measures to preserve and prevent damage to migratory birds. Surely we should be taking this commitment into consideration now that we are updating legislation covering Ashmore and Cartier Islands. We must take preventive measures before it is too late. A memorandum of understanding between the Australian and the Indonesian Governments signed by the Fisheries Division of the then Department of Agriculture and Indonesia's Director of Consumer Affairs in 1974 allows traditional fishermen to fish in the waters of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that short memorandum. Leave granted. The memorandum read as follows- MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA REGARDING THE OPERATIONS OF INDONESIAN TRADITIONAL FISHERMEN IN AREAS OF THE AUSTRALIAN EXCLUSIVE FISHING ZONE AND CONTINENTAL SHELF Following discussions held in Jakarta on 6 and 7 November, 1974, the representatives of the Government of Australia and of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia have agreed to record the following understandings. 1. These understandings shall apply to operations by Indonesian traditional fishermen in the exclusive fishing zone and over the continental shelf adjacent to the Australian mainland and offshore islands. By ``traditional fishermen'' is meant the fishermen who have traditionally taken fish and sedentary organisms in Australian waters by methods which have been the tradition over decades of time. By ``exclusive fishing zone'' is meant the zone of waters extending twelve miles seaward off the baseline from which the territorial sea of Australia is measured. 2. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia understands that in relation to fishing in the exclusive Australian fishing zone and the exploration for and exploitation of the living natural resources of the Australian continental shelf, in each case adjacent to: Ashmore Reef (Pulau Pasir) (Latitude 12* 15' South, Longitude 123* 03' East) Cartier Islet (Latitude 12* 32' South, Longitude 123* 33' East) Scott Reef (Latitude 14* 03' South, Longitude 121* 47' East) Seringapatam Reef (Pulau Datu) (Latitude 11* 37' South, Longitude 122* 03' East) Browse Islet (Latitude 14* 06' South, Longitude 123* 32' East). The Government of Australia will, subject to paragraph 8 of these understandings, refrain from applying its law regarding fisheries to Indonesian traditional fishermen who conduct their operations in accordance with these understandings. 3. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia understands that, in the part of the areas described in paragraph 2 of these understandings where the Government of Australia is authorised by international law to regulate fishing or exploitation for or exploitation of the living natural resources of the Australian continental shelf by foreign nationals, the Government of Australia will permit operations by Indonesian nationals subject to the following conditions: (a) Indonesian operations in the areas mentioned in paragraph 2 of the understandings shall be confined to traditional fishermen. (b) Landings by Indonesian traditional fishermen shall be confined to East Islet (Latitude 12* 15' South, Longitude 123* 07' East) and Middle Islet (Latitude 12* 15' South, Longitude 123* 03' East) of Ashmore Reef for the purpose of obtaining supplies of fresh water. (c) Traditional Indonesian fishing vessels may take shelter within the island groups described in paragraph 2 of these understandings but the person on board shall not go ashore except as allowed in (b) above. 4. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia understands, that the Indonesian fishermen will not be permitted to take turtles in Australian exclusive fishing zone. Trochus, beche de mer, abalone, green snail, sponges and all molluscs will not be taken from the seabed from high water marks to the edge of the continental shelf, except the seabed adjacent to Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Browse Islet and the Scott and Seringapatam Reef. 5. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia understands that the persons on board Indonesian fishing vessels engaging in fishing in the exclusive Australian fishing zone or exploring for or exploiting the living natural resources of the Australian continental shelf, in either case in areas other than those specified in paragraph 2 of these understandings, shall be subject to the provisions of Australian law. 6. The Government of Australia understands that the Government of the Republic of Indonesia will use its best endeavours to notify all Indonesian fishermen likely to operate in areas adjacent to Australia of the contents of these understandings. 7. Both Governments will facilitate the exchange of information concerning the activities of the traditional Indonesian fishing boats operating in the area west of the Timor Sea. 8. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia understands that the Government of Australia will, until the twenty-eighth day of February 1975, refrain from applying its laws relating to fisheries to Indonesian traditional fishermen in areas of the Australian exclusive fishing zone and continental shelf other than those specified in paragraph 2 of these understandings. Jakarta, November 7, 1974 First Assistant Secretary Fisheries Division Australian Department of Agriculture (A. G. Bollen) Director of Consular Affairs Department of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia (Agus Yaman) Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. Clause 3 (b) permits fishermen to land on Ashmore reef solely for the purpose of obtaining fresh water. Clause 4 prohibits the taking of turtles. Both clauses are regularly being broken. The National Parks and Wildlife Service believes that non-traditional Indonesian fishermen are entering the area and they are destroying bird and turtle life. The Service is unable to take effective action to protect the area against the damage caused by these fishermen. The agreement permits fishermen to enter the area. I bring to the notice of honourable senators the fact that the Customs Act, the Fisheries Act and the Quarantine Act are being broken. Cholera already exists on Ashmore Island and the Indonesian fishermen are the prime suspects for its introduction. For these reasons the Australian Democrats will be moving an amendment to this Bill to provide some protection for these islands which are nearer to Timor than they are to Australia. I believe we should note that tomorrow is the tenth anniversary of the invasion of East Timor. I bring that to the notice of the Senate. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.34) —The Government will not accept the amendment which is to be moved by the Australian Democrats. Both the Department of Territories and the National Parks and Wildlife Service do not favour the course of action suggested in Senator Vigor's amendment. We thank the Opposition for indicating that it will support the Ashmore and Cartier Island Acceptance Amendment Bill generally. The proposed amendment would be contrary to the spirit of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and we do not believe, therefore, that it would meet the objectives that Senator Vigor has in mind. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act already extends to the Territory. This Act provides for the declaration of nature reserves in Australia, which also includes the Territories of Australia. The Ashmore reef area, which includes islands within the reef, was declared a national parks nature reserve in 1983 in recognition of its nature conservation significance. Therefore, any declaration of new areas as nature reserves should be effected using the provisions in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act rather than by amending a piece of legislation such as the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act as has been suggested. We commend the Bill for the support of the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.36) —I move: Page 2, clause 6, proposed new section 8, at the end of the section, add the following sub-section: ``(3) The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 applies in respect of the Territory as if there were in force a proclamation made in accordance with section 7 of that Act- (a) declaring the whole of the area of the Territory to be a reserve; (b) assigning the name `Ashmore and Cartier Islands National Nature Reserve' to that reserve; and (c) specifying the depth of 200 metres for the purposes of paragraphs (6) (a) and (6) (c) of that section.''. This amendment is an interim measure intended to afford at least some protection to the Ashmore and Cartier Islands and the wildlife they sustain. It is very important that we should protect the birds and the turtles. That means that we have to protect both the islands and the oceans surrounding them. The provisions of the Northern Territory conservation laws are quite unacceptable in this case and they are quite as unacceptable as the criminal code I have already brought to the attention of honourable senators. We cannot stand by and watch this valuable natural habitat be swept thoughtlessly away by short-sighted profiteers and careless users of the islands. That is why we have moved this amendment. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(3.37) —The Opposition will not support the amendment because we think there are adequate procedures already available under existing legislation to take care of the problem. The national nature reserve can be extended should it ever be felt that it is desirable. In addition, the islands are already covered by the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. Islands within the Ashmore reef area were declared a national nature reserve in 1983. This recognises its importance as a conservationally significant area. On top of that, we in the Opposition feel that a declaration specifying a depth of 200 metres for the underwater area is excessive in view of developments that will take place. We also feel that more important action can be taken by the Government in order to preserve the islands which are uninhabited. The Commonwealth should first settle the boundary area with Indonesia. We should establish a presence in the area with visits at least every couple of months. I mentioned previously that there should be co-ordinated efforts between the Services, perhaps the Australian Customs Service, coastal patrols and air services. We should re-establish that freshwater source on Ashmore and we should police the Ashmore park so that it has a chance to function without the depredations of traditional fishermen in particular but also other fishermen who operate in the area. As I have mentioned, inspections should be instituted every couple of months. The main job that the Commonwealth can do at the moment is to ensure that no further damage occurs to the ecology on the islands to allow the islands, the trees and the reef to recover. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.39) —For the record I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document detailing the current boundaries of the Ashmore reef and the declaration of it as a natural reserve. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Ext. Terr. 4 Ashmore Reef State... Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands (Commonwealth External Territory). Name... Ashmore Reef. Designation... National nature reserve. Location number... 4. Date of declaration... 28 July 1983. Legislation under which area was declared... National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. Managing authority... Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Enforcement agency... To be determined. Enforcement agea... High Water Mark to the sea floor (includes 40m below the sea floor) at the designated superjacent waters. Position... 12*15'00''S, 123*05'00''E (approximately). Locality... Indian Ocean, off the North West coast of Australia. Map reference Size (hectares)... 58,300 (including cays). Proximity of major centre... 840km west from Darwin, 640km north-north-west of Broome. Primary purpose(s) of the protected area... Protection of marine and terrestrial fauna and flora, especially seabirds, turtles and seasnakes. Management feature... Conservation. Major habitat types... Coral reef; sandy cays; vegetated isles and lagoonal areas. Outstanding physical, biological or other features... Extensive seabird colonies; breeding areas for turtles; abundant and diverse species of sea-snakes. Known endangered species and known threats to area... Traditional use of seabirds and turtles breeding by Indonesian fishermen has occurred around the islands within the Reserve for many years and has become a problem since the mid 1970's, when the number of fishermen increased substantially. Threats include decimation of seabird and turtle populations; possible overfishing. Prohibited activities... To be determined in Management Plan and as prescribed in the NPWC Act and Regulations. Permitted activities Proposed by... Interdepartmental Committee on Destruction of Flora and Fauna on Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Novermber 1982. CONCOM workshop designation... To be determined. Other comments... This region is a major coral reef province: Ashmore Reef is representative of an oceanic, outer shelf reef and atoll which has arisen from the edge of the Sahul Shelf. A number of species of seabird present in the area are included in the Annex to the Japan-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement- Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. I point out that Cartier Island has no such protection and I believe that it should. Just to make my point very clear, I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an article from the Northern Territory News which is headed: `Fishing Ban on Ashmore' dated 23 January 1984. I think this makes out the case very strongly. Leave granted. The article read as follows- FISHING BAN ON ASHMORE Territory fishermen are likely to be banned from the recently declared Ashmore Island National Park area. Foreign Minister, Mr Bill Hayden, said this on Saturday during a brief stop-over in Darwin on his way to the Middle-East. The Ashmore group of islands was declared a national park last August. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Services (ANPWS) was to draw a management plan for the park which did not exclude the possibility of commercial fishing operations in the area. In October the NT Primary Production Minister, Mr Ian Tuxworth, sought assurances from his federal counterpart, Mr John Kerin, that the Territory's fishing industry would not suffer as a consequence of the declaration of the national park. Talks between the NT Fisheries division and the ANPWS have been going on since then. While Australian commerical operations are likely to be excluded, Indonesian fishermen continue to use the Ashmore reef. They are also allowed to land on the island for fresh supplies of water. Permit When asked why the Indonesians were allowed to fish in Australian waters but Australians were not, Mr Hayden said the same situation existed in the Torres Strait islands. ``Traditional Torres Strait Islanders and Papuans can fish there but we do not permit commercial fishing,'' he said. ``It is the same with Ashmore. Traditional Indonesian fishermen have been using those waters for generations. So when the park was declared in August we decided to continue with the arrangement. ``It was an arrangement signed in 1974 with the Indonesian Government.'' Mr Hayden admitted it would be difficult to ensure the Indonesians were bona-fide traditional fishermen and not commercial operators. He said when the decision to establish a national park was taken by the Federal Government the Indonesians had been informed but, Mr Hayden added: ``I am not sure that they answered.'' ``In any case it's our territory. There is no doubt about that,'' he said. The news is likely to cause consternation in the Territory's fishing industry which is now undergoing profound structural changes to gear for deep-water fishing. Mr Tuxworth was not available for comment. In a related development, sources quoting from confidential documents said the Federal Government was likely to declare a moratorium on Indonesian fishing operations. Slaughter This was because the Indonesians have engaged in the wholesale slaughter of rare birds and protected marine life such as turtles and clams. Although the Australian Navy patrols the area regularly and the matter has been raised with the Indonesian Government, it has not stopped the fishermen from destroying Ashmore's flora and fauna. Under an agreement with Japan, Australia is obliged to protect migratory bird species that use the Ashmore and Cartier Islands as sanctuaries. The Indonesians have apparently also introduced cholera in the island making it dangerous for Australian seismic crews who use Ashmore to monitor earthquakes in the region. The Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Mochtar, has been contacted for his reaction to the possible exclusion of Indonesian fishermen from the Ashmore National Park, but so far, there has been no reply. Discuss Immediately after his return from the Middle East and Africa, Mr Hayden will attend the February ASEAN conference in Jakarta. There is no doubt the Indonesians will discuss the matter then. Mr Hayden said the NT government would be kept informed of the progress on the border talks between Indonesia and Australia. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.40) —The Government, the Opposition and in fact all honourable senators share the concern expressed by the Australian Democrats, but we do not believe as I stressed earlier in the second reading debate that the objectives will be reached by the amendment. The Government accepts its responsibilities in regard to the areas mentioned by Senator Vigor and we ask that the Government be given the opportunity to show its concern that all aspects of the environment will be adequately covered by the adoption of this legislation. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Vigor's amendment) be added. A division having been called for and bells being rung- Senator Chipp —I raise a point of order. To facilitate matters I would be happy to seek leave to call off the division if all seven Democrats have their names recorded as voting for this amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Is leave granted to call off the division if the names of the Democrats are recorded? Leave granted. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a third time. Consideration resumed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(3.42) —This matter was delayed from the extra session we had in the lunch hour because there were to be no divisions in that lunch hour. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) who was in charge at the time put the view that we should divide. I ask Senator Evans to consider seriously whether he really needs a division or whether he could not use the same procedure used by the Australian Democrats on the previous piece of legislation. As he is Minister in charge of the Bill, I would not consider acting in a dictatorial way. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.43) —I am a reasonable person and if it is sufficiently evident that the numbers are against us on Senator Durack's amendment and Hansard can so record, it is the case that the Government is not acceding to this but is simply being outvoted by a combination of the forces of darkness opposite in combination with the Australian Democrats. In those circumstances we will yield as gracefully as we can. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I seek leave to move a motion for the discharge from the Notice Paper of the order of the day relating to a Bill which I introduced and to incorporate a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator VIGOR —I move: That General Business Order of the Day No. 109 relating to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Tribunal's Powers) Bill 1985 be discharged from the Notice Paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. The statement read as follows- I am withdrawing my Bill, the Broadcasting and Television Act (Tribunal's Powers) Bill 1985. Today's passage of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill No. 2 means that the previously perceived powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will be restored. The Minister for Communications foreshadowed this in a press release of 14 February this year. Amendments were read in May, but were pulled out at the last moment from the eighth or ninth draft of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. I need to correct an error in the Second Reading Speech of the Minister over the timing of this withdrawal. The speech states that it occurred after the High Court's decision in `Herald-Sun TV Pty. Ltd. vs. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal'. In fact, the Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 15 May 1985. The High Court heard the children's television case on 21 May 1985, six days later. The judges noted the fact that broadcasting legislation was still before the Parliament on the morning that they sat. They gave an oral decision on that very day. Two days later on 23 May, I introduced my Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Tribunal's Powers) Bill 1985, as an interim measure to uphold the position of our children's television and advertising industries. There was a lot of uncertainty at the time, and strong pressures were bought to bear on the Government to drop its proposals. The Government has now acted. With the time and resources available to it, it has restored the powers in question in the High Court case and has gone further than my Bill. I applaud that fact. That is why I am now seeking to withdraw my Bill. I think it important that the powers and resources of the Tribunal be properly addressed. I bring to the notice of the Senate paragraphs 125 and 126 below from the Administrative Review Council's 1981 Review of Tribunal operations. 125. It was suggested to the Council that the Tribunal's renewal hearings also showed a defect in the Act in that it did not provide the Tribunal with an effective range of sanctions against proven breaches of broadcasting standards. The absence of this was pointed to as the cause of a `credibility gap', which led to disillusion with the concept of public participation. This was because the Tribunal was seen to renew licences, while making no response to demonstrated incidents of breaches of standards or of the broadcasting behaviour expected by the public. It was suggested that under the present Act the Tribunal's armoury for regulating broadcasting is too limited, and that it should be supplemented by powers to comment adversely, to reprimand, to order `counter' advertisements or `on-air' apologies, to suspend the right to broadcast advertisements or to fine. Other proposals would establish procedures to warn licensees that their licence was being jeopardised, by having provisional licences or a `point system' of warning notices. The Council agrees that there seems to be a need for the Tribunal to have more realistic options for responding to activities by licensees which deserve varying degrees of disapproval. It recommends that this be done to the extent that legislation to effect it can be drafted consistently with the constitutional separation of judicial and administrative functions. 126. RECOMMENDATION 30 (a) the Act should be amended to include clear statements of the policy criteria seen by the Government as relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal's important powers. (b) the Act should be clarified in relation to the Tribunal's power to issue directions to particular licensees and to attach conditions relating to one, some or all aspects of their future broadcasting activities, and also in relation to its power at inquiries to investigate and comment upon matters connected with the past or future broadcasting practices of the licensees concerned. (c) The Act should confer upon the Tribunal a wider range of powers to respond to breaches of broadcasting standards, including power to reprimand or admonish and to direct the publication by the licensee concerned of such a reprimand or admonition, and power to impose temporary restrictions on advertising. I also include a short extract from the Tribunal's latest annual report. This deals with the Tribunal's inability to conclude various inquiries that were started in the discharge of its powers. I trust that the Government will provide sufficient funds and personnel to solve the problems which the Broadcasting Tribunal has brought to our notice. The Tribunal understands that government is constrained in the resources that it can allocate to organisations like the Tribunal. There is therefore a need to ensure that the organisation is structured and staffed in a way that best lends itself to the efficient performance of its functions. Mention has already been made of the fact that the Tribunal took over much of the structure and procedures of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which operated in a very different environment. The experience of the Tribunal, particularly in recent times, is that being structured and organised under the Public Service Act does not appear to allow it to be able to meet the demands and challenges which it now faces. Rather, such arrangements appear to be designed for a large government department; whereas the Tribunal is a small, specialist statutory authority with comparatively little processing type work. What the Tribunal needs is a flexible staff structure and operational environment which can respond to the demands of particular projects in an area of rapid technological, economic and legal change. Inevitably, this raises the issue of the extent to which the Tribunal should be governed by the Public Service Act and related requirements. It is an issue that warrants serious consideration. The demands and resource limitations have inevitably resulted in a number of problems. These have been exacerbated by the severe depletion in member and staff resources caused by the long-running Perth Inquiry. The following are some of the problems that have resulted: Decisions and reports often take months rather than weeks to be finalised after the completion of hearings. The Tribunal has been able to make little progress in its review of Television Advertising Time Standards following the release of a proposal in November 1983. The Tribunal has been able to make only limited progress on the review of the Television Program Standards which was commenced in 1981. This includes an identification of current standards that are clearly redundant or can be easily simplified or reduced without raising any serious policy changes. Hearings for the grant of new licences have had to be deferred for many months. The Tribunal has been able to make little progress in its review of the Australian content rules for television since the release of a discussion paper in 1983. Work on reorganisation of the Tribunal's staff structure and resources has proceeded very slowly. It has not been possible to establish an adequate system for performing the function conferred by s.16 (1) (h) of the Act namely the assembly and distribution of information relating to radio and television. Despite assistance from consultants only limited progress has been made in the review of the requirements relating to the provision by licensees of financial information regarding the operation of stations. Debate resumed from 4 December, on motion by Senator Robertson: That the Senate take note of the report. Upon which Senator Crichton-Browne had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after `That', insert `the Senate- (a) accepts the necessity for the interior finish of the Senate Chamber in the new Parliament House to maintain in suitable form the dignity and atmosphere of the present Chamber; (b) considers that it is appropriate for the new Chamber to have a basically wood-pannelled appearance, taking advantage of, and making use of the wide range of timbers to be found throughout Australia; and (c) rejects the proposal, recently revealed to Senators, for the walls of the new Chamber to be lined with fabric of varying colours, not consistent with the traditional red colour common to Westminster-style Upper Houses.'' Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.46) —The original question before the Senate was that the Senate take note of the report relating to the planning for the Senate and House of Representatives chambers to which my colleague Senator Crichton-Browne has moved: Leave out all words after `That', insert `the Senate- (a) accepts the necessity for the interior finish of the Senate Chamber in the New Parliament House to maintain in suitable form the dignity and atmosphere of the present Chamber; (b) considers that it is appropriate for the new Chamber to have a basically wood-pannelled appearance, taking advantage of, and making use of the wide range of timbers to be found throughout Australia; and (c) rejects the proposal, recently revealed to Senators, for the walls of the new Chamber to be lined with fabric of varying colours, not consistent with the traditional red colour common to Westminster-style Upper Houses.' I thank the Manager of Government Business (Senator Grimes) and the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) for allowing this matter to be brought on. I thank honourable senators for treating this matter as a matter of individual rather than party vote. I hope that as a result the Senate will be able to proceed to give consideration to this matter forthwith. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.47) —I understand that there is some suggestion that this matter is to proceed without debate, but given that this is to be a free vote I find that a rather remarkable arrangement. Senator Chipp —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. It was only because of our personal intervention that this matter was brought on with a clear understanding last Wednesday that it would be brought on today for a vote only on condition that there would be no debate. If the Liberal Party is to break those kinds of conventions and agreements, it will never get our support on anything else again. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Agreement of that sort cannot be enforced by the Chair. I so rule on the point of order. Senator REID —I would remind the Senate that this is a free vote. I was on the committee that chose the colours. I do not believe there has been any opportunity for that point of view to be adequately presented. I do not believe adequate consideration has been given to the implications of this decision. There was a shout a few moments ago that the vote has to be taken today. The mere fact that the vote has to be taken today gives some indication of what has occurred on this issue. We have to take into account the design of the building. It is not the Palace of Westminster, it is not a building like the building in Ottawa, both of which in common with this present building have the traditional colours and panelling. Most Australians were delighted when the design of the present building was chosen. They felt that it was innovative and relevant to the twentieth century and to Canberra as well as to the magnificent Burley Griffin design for the national capital. Having decided on a certain type of building and a certain style of architecture, I think that must flow through to the interior design and to the general decor of the building. If one takes into account the white and black marble floor of the entrance, the green and slightly pink marble of the pillars, the whole of the forecourt, as well as the Aboriginal design in the forecourt and all other aspects of the interior of the building, one also must look at the chambers in a totally different light from merely trying to impose a replica of Westminster in a building, the outside of which is not a replica of Westminster. I think we would find that in incorporating this design into the Parliament House aspects of lighting and acoustics have been taken into account. It was said during the debate that acoustics are not relevant in other parliaments which have carpets on their walls. That is true. However, in the interior of the new Parliament House the lighting and acoustics have been designed with the agreement of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. I will not take long on this matter today. I will not go into aspects of the debate in the way in which I believe ought to be done by this chamber because I realise that great pressure is being brought to bear on us. However, to proceed on a matter as important as this in such a hasty fashion and without having a statement from the architects as to the implications of what in fact was decided more than, I think, 12 months ago is extremely foolish. I wish also to ask another question. What is to happen in regard to the House of Representatives? Is that to proceed as has been determined? Are the two chambers to be so different that one chamber may be similar to the Senate's interior design while the other will be left as was determined; or are they both to be changed? Is it a question just for the Senate or is it a matter for the Parliament? What are the implications of any change of decision in regard to the time in which the building will be completed? My other question which, I agree, is perhaps secondary, is that if the design is really fundamental have we seen a financial statement on the implications arising from the cost of this decision? Do we know the delay involved in completing the building if in fact the whole of the interior of the Senate-factors such as acoustics, lighting and everything else-has to be redesigned? I am not a raving trendy who wants to throw out anything traditional; quite the reverse. Any honourable senator who suggests that perhaps does not know me very well. However, I have been on the committee and I have been following the design. I like the building that is being developed on the hill. I believe that the new interior is in keeping with the exterior and the rest of the decor of the building. I think that looking at the Senate just on its own is not considering the whole building, both inside and out. I leave my remarks at that. I am sorry if I have offended Senator Chipp by speaking today but as a member of the committee for some time now I felt I had to do so. Senator Chipp —I am glad you did. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.53) —For all the reasons that have been advanced by Senator Reid I think it is appropriate that this Senate give substantial further consideration to this matter before voting on the substantive issue. There are questions of sensitive design values involved, of the kind articulated on numerous occasions by the architect to the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House. It is all very well to talk in terms of pillar-box or hanging judge red which we have here but when we spread it over the acres of expanse of carpet and so on involved in the new chamber there is a very real question as to whether the sort of thing that would be compelled by the passage of this resolution would be remotely appropriate in design terms, particularly in the context of the larger objectives which the architect and, indeed, the Joint Committee, have for the design of the building. There are questions of acoustic viability, of a scheme that is devised around wood panels rather than fabric walls. There are questions about the interrelationship of the building as a whole. For all those reasons I believe it is appropriate that the debate be adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Evans, having spoken you can seek leave to continue your remarks but you may not move the adjournment. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to continue my remarks, on the assumption that common sense and the majority feeling-it is a free vote matter in this chamber-will prevail and the matter will be held over until early in the new year. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for Senator Evans to continue his remarks? Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, that adjourns the debate, does it not? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It will adjourn the debate, but one voice is sufficient to stop it. Leave not granted. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.55) —I want to get one fact clarified by a question to the Government which would assist honourable senators in determining whether they should agree with the view put about a delay. I seek leave to ask a question. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You are entitled to speak without leave. Senator CHANEY —Can the Government clarify the point, which seems to be under some doubt, about whether a decision is required today if the Senate is to have any influence on the matter? I understand that the architects have given certain advice, namely, that the matter is too far advanced. On the other hand, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has indicated, I understand to Senator Crichton-Browne, that it is not at a point of final decision and that we could consider the matter next year. I think clearly if we had an assurance that the design would not be finalised and that we would be in a position to have an influence on that design when we return that would be a much more satisfactory position. I wonder whether any honourable senator is in a position to clarify that for us. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.57) —I am not in a position to clarify it to that extent. What I have been informed by the Clerks and others is that this motion in fact is an advisory motion. It is a motion which expresses a view. That view has been expressed in previous debate by many honourable senators. In fact, all honourable senators, but one, were in favour of that view. If the motion is passed it is just an expression of view which is given to the architects. That is all it is. That view has already been given. I would not like to give the impression that the architects and the builders have to cease and start doing things again because of a motion like that expressed in the way it has been expressed, without the knowledge and experience that the members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the New Parliament House have had. I expressed the view beforehand that I thought this was an appalling way for the Senate to proceed. I gave leave for the motion to come on again only because I was told it would come on by resolution of the Opposition parties if I did not do so. I think the sensible thing to do is to take the very good advice of Senator Reid and in fact accept that we have not debated this properly, accept that we have not considered it properly and, in fact, adjourn the debate. Senator Peter Baume —Can you answer the question? Senator GRIMES —I cannot answer the question. What I can say is that if this motion is passed and the architects and builders care to ignore that and the Committee cares to ignore it-as I believe it would-then it will make no difference to what happens in that chamber. There is no point in carrying on and having debates on this sort of motion. Therefore, I intend, having answered the question of Senator Chaney and having made my position clear-Senator Evans assures me he cannot add anything to that-to move that this debate be now adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes, you cannot do that. You must seek leave to continue your remarks at a later time. Senator GRIMES —Mr Deputy President, I am sorry; but I was answering a question by leave. I have answered that question by leave and I believe that I can now move that the debate be now adjourned. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(3.59) —Mr Deputy President, to make it easier, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Senator Walters —Mr Deputy President, I was on my feet to speak before Senator Grimes sat down. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters, the motion has been moved. Question put: That the motion (Senator Robertson's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D.Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Morris, J.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M.Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K.Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Missen, A. J.Baume, Michael Parer,W. R.Baume, Peter Puplick, C. J. G.Boswell, R. L. D. Rae, PeterCarrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Collard, S. J. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tate, M. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Townley, M.Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E.Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.MacGibbon, D. J. Coleman, R. M. Lewis, A. W. R.McClelland, Douglas Brownhill, D. G. C.Siddons, J. R. Withers, R. G.Button, J. N. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(4.04) —I move: That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of General Business, notice of motion No. 89, standing in the name of Senator Macklin relating to a reference to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. and move: That the question be now put. Senator Chaney —I do not rise to speak to the motion because debate is not permitted on it, but I think that to bring on that motion at five minutes past four on the last day without permitting debate is an abuse of the procedures of this place. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Referral to Committee Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.05) —I move: That the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1985 be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform for inquiry and report. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the question be now put. Question put. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Short, J. R.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Coleman, R. N. Lewis, A. W. R.McClelland, Douglas Brownhill, D. G. C.Siddons, J. R. Withers, R. G.Button, J. N. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Senator Macklin's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A.Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Short, J. R.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Coleman, R. N. Lewis, A. W. R.McClelland, Douglas Brownhill, D. G. C.Siddons, J. R. Withers, R. G.Mason, C. V. J. Messner, A. J.Button, J. N. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(4.14) —I move: That the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 11 February 1986, at 2 p.m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President; and that the day and/or hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.15) —I move: At end of motion, add ``: Provided that the President, upon a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator. For these purposes a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall be deemed to be a request by every Senator of the Opposition and a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Australian Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat Senator. Provided further that the request or requests may be made to the President by leaving the same with, or delivering the same to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy-President, or, should he be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this Resolution''. Amendment agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(4.17) —I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. In moving that motion, I take the opportunity to thank honourable senators for their co- operation in achieving the Government's program this week. I cannot say that I bestow those thanks with ecumenical enthusiasm to all senators, but to the Senate as a whole I say `thank you very much' for that. It has enabled the Government's program to be largely implemented as required in this session without the somewhat onerous anticipation of a further week of sitting. I also take this opportunity to wish every senator a happy and successful Christmas and new year and a refreshing break before the battle resumes on 11 February 1986. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.18) —I join with the Leader of the Government (Senator Button) in wishing a happy Christmas to all honourable senators and those who serve in this place. However, I leave with a feeling of deep regret about the Christmas present that was given to us by the Australian Democrats, who have consistently voted against every committee reference over the past week or more and who today gagged us in respect of a committee reference which they sought and on which they voted with the Government. I think that was a very unfortunate end to the session and certainly it will be a day or two before I regain my Christmas cheer. This is not the time to air that further, Mr Deputy President, and I thank you for looking after the chamber in the absence of the President. I extend to the President on behalf of the Opposition our continued good wishes for his speedy recovery. We regret the fact that he has been absent, and we hope that he will have a very cheerful and restful Christmas and an early return to full duties. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.19) —I regret that my friend Senator Chaney saw fit to make his last speech of the year in the chamber on a discordant note. I defend our actions entirely. We will do virtually anything to stop this most outrageous attack on civil rights in Queensland, brought about by this gerrymander in which a political party can be returned to government with only 35 per cent of the vote. I make no apologies for that. I wish all honourable senators a happy and holy Christmas. I wish the President a speedy recovery. I spoke to him today and I was informed that his reports are very favourable. I want to thank the Clerks for the magnificent service they have given to all honourable senators, particularly to my Party. I also thank their assistants, the Hansard staff, the dining room staff, the attendants and everybody else in this building who makes the difficult life that we lead more agreeable and more efficient. I would also like to express my compliments to you, Mr Deputy President, for the way in which you have conducted this chamber in the absence of the President. You have been impeccable as always. I wish you too a happy and holy Christmas. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.21) —I would also like to express my congratulations and best wishes to everybody. I will not enter the debate on electoral systems, although I am very much tempted to do so. I simply say that I concur with the remarks that were put down by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). This is neither the time nor the place to take that matter further. This place is certainly not a Sunday school forum. It is the national Parliament and things get a little rough at times. Nonetheless, we get an appreciation of each other's qualities across the chamber. In that spirit, I wish not only those on this side of the Senate but also those on the Government benches all the best for the Christmas season and the New Year. Mr Deputy President, I thank you for the way you have filled the breach and carried out your duties while the President has been away. I also thank all officers and staff of the Senate for the sacrifices that they make in keeping this place operating. I have already spoken to the President. However, if he is listening to this debate, I certainly wish him all the best from me and from the National Party of Australia. As Senator Chipp has said, all the reports that we get indicate that he is coming along fine. As a matter of fact, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation announced yesterday morning that you, Sir, were taking the Chair because Senator McClelland was ill. The President indicated to me that within five minutes of that announcement being made he had 10 phone calls from his friends wanting to know what was wrong with him. He said: `I feel a bit of a fraud because I am not all that bad'. I said: `Well, Doug, sit back and enjoy it-it is not too often that you get a chance to get looked after and feel as well as you say you are'. Having said that, sir, I extend the best wishes of the National Party to all involved in this place and to my colleagues on both sides of the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I should like first of all to express my regret that the President, Senator Douglas McClelland, cannot be here today to give you his Christmas greetings. I am sure I am speaking for all senators and Senate staff in sending such greetings to him and our hopes for his early return to the Senate. He assures me that he will be back on duty next week. On his behalf, I would like to thank all of those who make this Senate function-the Temporary Chairmen, the Clerks and staff of the Department of the Senate, the Joint House Department, the Parliamentary Library, Hansard, the parliamentary refreshment rooms, the attendants, the police and security officers and, last but by no means least, the transport officers who not only meticulously arrange our transport but also are an infallible guide to when the Senate is actually going to rise. I thank them all for their efforts and wish them a happy festive season. On their behalf, I thank all honourable senators who have paid tribute to them. One of the frustrations of being Acting President is that one sees debates go by without being able to make any contribution to them. I, like every other senator, always believe my contributions to be especially helpful and incisive. This is my only opportunity to make a speech, and I intend to make full use of it. I did not know what the circumstances would be when I came to make my speech today. As a precaution I prepared two speeches-a short one and a long one. I am finding speech making so pleasant and the atmosphere so festive that I have decided to give both of them-the short one and the long one. I will give honourable senators the short one first-Merry Christmas; and the long one second-Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.25 p.m., until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 February 1986, unless otherwise called together in accordance with the resolution passed earlier this day. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 113) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) How many industrial disputes within Australia Post's New South Wales operations lasted at least three hours in the period between 1 September 1984 and 28 February 1985; and in each case: (a) at what time of the day did the dispute first arise; (b) what was the most senior rank among management personnel present in the area or available for immediate contact; (c) what steps were taken to settle the matter in its first three hours of currency; and (d) how long was it before work resumed as usual. (2) What proportion of the labour costs in each State have been due to overtime approved by Australia Post for each of the last three financial years. (3) When new mail centres have opened as part of the decentralisation process in New South Wales, on what basis has their initial allocation of staff been made; and in each case: (a) what adjustments have been needed in the first six months of operation; (b) what proportion of labour costs has been due to overtime worked at each centre in the first six months of operation; and (c) what has been the average throughput each day at such centres in the first six months of operation and for what portion of the time has there been a backlog of at least one-quarter of that amount. (4) What detailed information is provided to postmasters when there is a backlog at any mail centre or an industrial dispute is current; and have there been any changes in practice regarding the provision of this information since 1 September 1984. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, from advice provided by Australia Post: (1) 33. It should be noted that while a number of industrial disputes endured for several weeks, these disputes almost always involved work bans of a minor nature which did not affect the mail service. In each case: (a) (b) (c) (d) 10.9.84 10 p.m. Mail Centre Manager (Rushcutters Bay) In the first three hours, the steps taken to resolve a dispute depended on the time of day it commenced, the cause and the nature of the dispute. In most cases, initial discussions were held with local APTU staff representatives. In some instances, discussions also took place with State Branch officials of the union and/or the matter was referred to management in the State administration. 10.2.85 2 p.m. 12.9.84 10.15 a.m. Mail Centre Manager (Leightonfield) 12.9.84 1.15 p.m. 13.9.84 3.45 p.m. Mail Centre Manager (Leightonfield) 9.10.84 3 p.m. 20.9.84 8.30 a.m. Divisional Manager (Sydney City) 28.9.84 6.30 p.m. 3.10.84 10.50 p.m. Transport Overseer and Supervisor Postal (Grade 1) (St Leonards) 4.10.84 3.50 p.m. 15.10.84 2 p.m. Supervisor (Postal) Grade 3 to Mail Centre Manager (Rushcutters Bay) 6.12.84 9 a.m. 16.10.84 12 noon Mail Centre Manager (Rushcutters Bay) 17.10.84 9 a.m. 22.10.84 2 a.m. Assistant Divisional Manager (Sydney South West) 10 a.m. 24.10.84 2.43 p.m. Supervisor (Postal) Grade 2 to Mail Centre Manager (Rushcutters Bay) 25.10.84 5.51 a.m. 31.10.84 12.27 a.m. Supervisor (Postal) Grade 1 to Mail Centre Manager (Rushcutters Bay) 31.10.84 5.17 a.m. 1.11.84 10.45 p.m. Supervisor (Postal) Grade 1 to Mail Centre Manager (St Leonards) 3.11.84 10.45 p.m. 9.11.84 12.45 a.m. Supervisor (Postal) Grade 1 to Mail Centre manager (Leightonfield) 9.11.84 8.06 a.m. 12.11.84 noon Divisional Manager (Hunter) 12.11.84 10 p.m. 16.11.84 1.02 a.m. Supervisor (Postal) Grade 1 to Mail Centre Manager (Leightonfield) 16.11.84 5.21 a.m. 19.11.84 10 a.m. Divisional Manager (Sydney City) 23.11.84 Noon 19.11.84 9 a.m. Divisional Managers (All Divisions) 30.11.84 9 a.m. 21.11.84 6 a.m. Divisional Manager (Sydney City) 14.12.84 11.30 a.m. 23.11.84 8. 15 a.m. Supervisor (Postal) Grade 2 to Mail Centre Manager (International) 23.11.84 12.45 p.m. 26.11.84 8 a.m. Divisional Manager (Sydney North) 26.11.84 Noon 6.12.84 1.20 a.m. Divisional Manager (Illawarra) 6.12.84 4.55 a.m. 7.12.84 11 a.m. Divisional Manager (Hunter) 7.12.84 2 p.m. 8.12.84 10 p.m. Manager, Mail Processing and Transport Department (State Head Office) 9.12.84 9.51 p.m. 10.12.84 8.30 a.m. Various Departmental managers (State Head Office) 10.12.84 4.36 p.m. 27.12.84 10 p.m. Divisional Manager (Canberra) 28.12.84 8 a.m. 27.12.84 2 a.m. Supervisor (Postal) Grade 2 to Mail Centre Manager (Rushcutters Bay) 27.12.84 5.51 a.m. 2.1.85 10 a.m. Divisional Manager (Sydney West) 2.1.85 1.45 p.m. 16.1.85 11 a.m. Departmental Managers (State Head Office) 16.1.85 4.36 p.m. 24.1.85 10.15 p.m. Supervisor (Postal) Grade 1 to Mail Centre Manager (St Leonards) 25.1.85 10 p.m. 29.1.85 9 a.m. Postmasters and Divisional Managers 1.2.85 9 a.m. 31.1.85 8 a.m. Senior Postal Officer Grade 1 to Mail Sorting Office Manager (Waterloo) 31.1.85 3.30 p.m. 6.2.85 9.30 a.m. Assistant Divisional Manager (Sydney East) 25.2.85 9 a.m. 7.2.85 10 p.m. Supervisor (Postal) Grade 2 to Mail Centre Manager (Rushcutters Bay) 12.2.85 2 p.m. 18.2.85 8.45 a.m. Divisional Manager (Sydney South West) 18.2.85 5.30 p.m. (2) The approximate proportion of labour costs in each State due to approved overtime in each State, in each of the three financial years to 1983-84, follows: State 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 % % % New South Wales... 10 8 10 Victoria... 5 4 5 Queensland... 3 3 2 Western Australia... 6 6 6 South Australia... 3 3 4 Tasmania... 6 5 6 (3) The initial allocation of staff for each Sydney Suburban Mail Centre was made on the basis of transferring existing mail processing staff numbers from the Mail Sorting Offices in the region to the new building, together with extra staff necessary for additional functions at the new centre. The table below shows those new mail centres which opened and which became fully operational prior to 19 March 1985 (when the Honourable Senator asked this question) as part of the decentralisation of the New South Wales mail network. The date full operations commenced at the new Centres is shown and the answers to (a)-(c) relate to the 6 months from this date. Mail Centre and date Centre became fully operational (a) Adjustments to staffing (mail officer positions) -extra positions provided (b) Approximate proportion of labour costs due to overtime (c) Average daily throughput Approximate time there has been back-log of at least 1/4 of average daily throughput % % St Leonards 4.4.83... 27 22 806,000 4 Leightonfield 30.10.83... 23 21 343,000 64 State (Alexandria) 30.9.84... 26 32 435,000 44 Seven Hills 1.12.84... 23 33 328,000 83 (4) Postmasters receive, via their Managers, daily information bulletins concerning volumes of mail on hand at mail centres and details of industrial disputes, both internal and external, which impact on mail deliveries. Changes have been made to the format of the information which, prior to 26 November 1984, showed each mail centre in the State and the volume of delayed mail on hand at 6 a.m. for each Centre. Information now provided shows all mail centres where delivery delayed mail exceeds 15% of the average daily throughput, highlighting the degree of delay. (Question No. 637) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: Are reports of a proposed amalgamation by the Government of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), leading to the end of the SBS as a separate ethnic broadcasting service, accurate; if not, will the Government state what the options are for the future of ethnic broadcasting services for Australia. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. (1) The Government has decided to reject a merger of SBS and the ABC and will move to establish the Special Broadcasting Service as an independent statutory authority. (2) Now that this threshold decision has been resolved the Government will shortly consider the many detailed recommendations of the Connor Report. (Question No. 639) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 5 November 1985: (1) Is over $2m currently owed to the Commonwealth in overdue air navigation fees. (2) Have Department of Aviation staff responsible for collection of these moneys failed to act over a period of years. (3) Do the aircraft concerned continue to fly and use all airways and aerodrome facilities; if so, why. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) At 30 September 1985 overdue air navigationcharges amounted to just under $5m or 3.5 per cent of estimated revenue from Air Navigation Charges in 1985-86. (2) The Department of Aviation vigorously pursues all outstanding debts, taking debt recovery action including court action where appropriate. I would draw the honourable senator's attention to the Second Reading Speech for the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984 (Hansard of 8 October 1984) in which the Government drew attention to the need to strengthen the Commonwealth's ability to collect air navigation charges. It had become obvious that normal avenues for recovering moneys owed were inadequate, particularly since the Commonwealth for safety reasons is unable to effectively deny access to aviation facilities and services. The Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Act provides the discretionary power to create the statutory lien over an aircraft where other means of recovery have proven unsuccessful. The creation of the lien provides the Commonwealth with a secured claim on such aircraft and the ultimate ability to sell the aircraft to recover the outstanding amounts. This measure is very much a last resort. The liens arrangement provides for a balanced approach which provides the capacity to accommodate general difficulties faced by individual operators within an effective debt recovery procedure. These measures came into effect on 1 July 1985 and preliminary indications suggest that they are being effective. (3) Aircraft on which air navigation charges are outstanding and perhaps also subject to a statutory lien can continue to use avaition facilities and services. To prevent aircraft using facilities would effectively require the aircraft to be deregistered. Under the Air Navigation Regulations aircraft registration is concerned with the question of safety. However, where aircraft have been subject to the statutory lien for at least 6 months the Air Navigation (Charges) Act provides the discretionary power to deregister the aircraft concerned. This is a measure which would need to be carefully considered when that stage is reached. (Question No. 684) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister for Science had representation from the Director of the Antarctic Division for an airstrip to be constructed in the Antarctic for use by Australian expeditioners. (2) What action does the Government intend taking on the matter. (3) Will the Government also give consideration to the setting up in Hobart of an emergency facility which can be called on at short notice by any of the bases in the Antarctic Region with such facility having immediate access to a suitable aircraft. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) For some time the Antarctic Division has been studying ways in which transport could be used to deploy personnel and limited amounts of cargo to Australia's three stations in Antarctica-Casey, Davis and Mawson. The most recent study on air transport was a review of the various air transport options conducted by the National Materials Handling Bureau (NMHB). The principal findings of the study were that: The establishment of an airfield at Casey, for operation of intercontinental aircraft to and from Australia is technically feasible but operationally impractical because of the very adverse weather conditions at the site. A conventional hard-surfaced runway could be constructed at Davis at an estimated capital cost of $48.6m (1984 prices). The relatively favourable weather conditions would enable the reliable and safe operation of commercial-type jet aircraft services from Australia. Weather conditions at Mawson pose a significant element of risk to personnel, equipment and aircraft and make lengthy delays and a high proportion of aborted flights very likely. (2) Based on the findings of the NMHB report, the only operationally viable option for providing an air transport system would be to construct a conventional runway at Davis. However, taking account of interest, depreciation and running costs the Davis option represents an annual cost of some $8 to $10m and provides air transport to one station only. The Government recognises the importance of back up systems for emergency transport and would prefer not to have to seek the support of other nations. A projects group within the Antarctic Division is being assembled to examine a range of transport options, including the use of long range helicopters such as those used from ships by the South Africans in emergencies. (3) The Antarctic Division in Hobart co-ordinates operations from Australia in the event of an emergency at any of the stations. The recent air evacuation from Davis Station was carried out by a special long range ski-equipped Hercules aircraft of the US National Science Foundation. There are no suitable ski- equipped aircraft available in Australia. Senator Walsh —On 14 October 1985 (Hansard, page 1140) Senator Puplick asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the following question without notice: Has the Minister seen the text of a major address given by the Minister, Mr Duffy, to the Public Conference on the future of Australian Commercial Television on 30 September 1985? I ask whether, in that address, Mr Duffy stated: ``. . . the Government supports networking. We not only accept the ABT observation that `networks and networking are the heart and arteries of the commercial TV system', but we wish to do everything possible to encourage broadcasters to utilise satellite networking techniques . . .'' I note that the word `encourage' is underlined in the Minister's text. Does the Minister accept that this policy is fundamentally incompatible with any policy of localism? Is the Government now formally abandoning the principles laid down in the Oswin Inquiry and its own previous commitment to support of localism in commercial broadcasting? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I did use the words quoted by the honourable senator but he clearly has not understood them. The term `network' has a number of meanings. It can include any of: Co-operation for promotional purposes to increase audience and revenue by joint advertising of stations. Co-operation for acquisition of Australian and overseas programs. Co-operation for program production or distribution. Joint coverage of special events. In like fashion, `localism' can refer to local production, programs of local interest, local ownership or access to stations by local advertisers. In my speech I specifically mentioned `satellite networking techniques', that is, I was referring to co-operative distribution (or networking) of signals. There is no necessary adverse effect on local production, local content, local ownership, or local access, in distributing signals via a satellite. Adverse effects occur only if control of this satellite distribution system is used as a means of dominating receiving stations. As the Senator will be well aware, The Government which he supported was completely traumatised by the complexities of satellite distribution of signals and unable to come up with any policy at all. He will be pleased to learn that we have not been traumatised and that my previous statements on satellite-related matters-on Satellite Program Services (1983) and Remote Commercial Television Services (1984) will soon be followed by a comprehensive statement setting our policy on future developments for commercial television for the next ten years. It should also be noted that the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 was recently amended specifically to allow insertion of local program material at individual transmitters, including translators. That is, we have in place a licensing and regulatory framework which both allows broadcasters to provide local programs or advertising and requires them to meet the obligations set by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to provide adequate and comprehensive programming. Senator Walsh —On 11 September 1985 (Hansard, page 444) Senator McIntosh asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the following question without notice: (1) Arising out of the decision by the Minister for Communications to refuse an application by the Australian Coalition of East Timor for a licence to maintain two-way radio contact with Fretilin in East Timor, is the Minister aware of a report in the National Times of 23-29 August and a letter in the Age of 2 September, claiming that while facilities may exist, it is practically impossible for members of the Australian public, including East Timorese here with relatives in Timor, to ring East Timor? (2) Can the Minister confirm that there are difficulties in making ordinary telephone communication with East Timor? (3) If the Indonesian Government is restricting international access to Timor via telecommunications facilities, would this be inconsistent with international practice under the International Telecommunications Union Convention? (4) Will the Government seek from Indonesia an explanation for these restrictions and consider urging Indonesia to open up telecommunications with East Timor? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. At the time of my decision in July not to grant a licence to the Australian Coalition for East Timor, testing confirmed the availability of the automatic telex service, and the Indonesian manual assistance operators did not indicate any embargo on telephone connections. The precise date of cessation of telephone services to East Timor has not been able to be determined. Following OTC's enquiries in response to customer complaints, however, the Indonesian authorities advised on 19 August 1985 that, `. . . for the time being, communications from/to Dilli/East Timor is not permitted.' Recent enquiries by OTC to the Indonesian telecommunications administration have confirmed that the telephone communications with East Timor continue to be unavailable. (3) No. Although Article 23 of the International Telecommuncations Convention states that `Members shall take such steps as may be necessary to ensure the establishment . . . of international telecommunications,' the Preamble to the Convention also recognises `the sovereign right of each country to regulate its telecommunications.' (4) The Government's support for greater international access to East Timor has been made known directly to the Indonesian authorities on a number of occasions. As telecommunications are a potentially important means of improving access, the Government would hope that such facilities could be made available to the population of the province without undue restriction. (Question No. 399) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What has been the increase in staff in each level in the Department of Finance in each of the last 10 years. (2) How does this compare with staff increases in the Public Service in general. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) The attached table provides details of actual staff variations at each classification level in the Department of Finance as at 30 June for the years 1977 to 1985 and 31 December 1976. The Department of Finance came into existence in December 1976 when the Department of Treasury was split into two Departments (ie Treasury and Finance). The Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Australian Government Re-tirement Benefits Office are autonomous agencies within the Finance portfolio; figures for these and other sepa-rate agencies previously within the portfolio are not included. (2) The figures used for comparison purposes for the service as a whole were taken from the Public Service Board Statistical Year Books. However the only figures available by level for comparison were at 31 December of each year. Taken over the whole period, the figures show a decline of 0.1% (from 953 to 952) in the staff of the Department of Finance compared with an in-crease of 18.5% (from 117795 to 139644) in the staff of the Public Service in general. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Variation in Actual Staffing Levels by Classification-1976 to 1985 Comparison between Department of Finance and the Public Service in General Classification level 1976 DoF Service 1977 DoF Service 1978 DoF Service 1979 DoF Service 1980 DoF Service Senior Executive Service Level 6... 1 n.f.a. nil 12 nil 4 nil 3 nil6 Level 5... 0 n.f.a. nil 2 nil 1 nil 1 nil 12 Level 4... 4 n.f.a. 1 88 nil 13 nil 12 nil -1 Level 3... 0 n.f.a. nil 234 nil 4 3 15 -1 -5 Level 2... 16 n.f.a. 1 202 nil 20 -1 44 nil 12 Level 1... 2 n.f.a. nil 663 nil 4 nil -1 -1 -7 Clerical Administrative Class 11... 48 834 4 6 1 85 1 69 2 104 Class 10... 4 1,001 nil 1 2 6 -2 24 -1 69 Class 9... 75 2,236 7 57 -5 187 4 165 5 199 Class 8... 57 3,309 -5 22 3 -8 -8 140 -2 190 Class 7... 43 2,891 -1 496 -4 50 6 127 -7 220 Class 6... 60 6,101 2 -377 -9 482 3 295 -1 184 Class 5... 43 5,493 -10 50 2 52 7 158 -4 196 Class 4... 62 6,920 9 261 -3 33 -13 532 4 120 Class 2/3... 86 7,655 2 -158 -2 265 nil -146 -2 226 Class 1... 33 11,168 13 -2,302 -9 567 -10 -96 -1 337 Cadet... 2 116 6 -24 -7 45 3 -35 -4 -58 Computer Systems Officer Grade 5... 1 n.f.a. 1 n.f.a. -1 n.f.a. nil 44 nil 30 Grade 4... 3 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. 2 n.f.a. -1 102 -1 33 Grade 3... 11 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. 1 n.f.a. 3 271 1 100 Grade 2... 7 n.f.a. 5 n.f.a. 11 n.f.a. 2 447 2 185 Grade 1... 11 n.f.a. 7 n.f.a. 8 n.f.a. 1 545 3 52 Clerical Assistant Grade 8... 0 14 nil nil nil 9 nil -1 nil 7 Grade 7... 2 91 nil -3 nil 10 nil 12 nil 5 Grade 6... 1 502 nil 28 1 21 nil 46 nil 30 Grade 5... 2 840 nil 31 nil 75 nil 70 nil 40 Grade 4... 10 3,173 -4 67 -1 199 2 214 1 141 Grade 3... 49 4,819 -1 38 -1 305 6 85 -5 254 Grade 2... 27 4,003 2 44 -9 -70 1 119 2 -8 Grade 1... 52 9,344 6 -1,370 -24 737 -5 -16 4 387 Keyboard Typist Controller, Grade 2... 1 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. Personal Secretary, Grade 2... 0 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. -1 n.f.a. Personal Secretary, Grade 1... 1 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. Steno-Secretary, Grade 2... 6 n.f.a. nil 455 nil 36 3 45 -1 30 Steno-Secretary, Grade 1... 19 n.f.a. nil 1,009 -1 18 nil 49 1 -4 WP Supervisor, Grade 2... 0 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. WP Supervisor, Grade 1... 0 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. WP Typist, Grade 2... 0 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. WP Typist, Grade 1... 0 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. Typist Supervisor, Grade 2... 2 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. -1 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. Typist Supervisor, Grade 1... 5 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. nil n.f.a. -4 n.f.a. nil n.f.a. Typist, Grade 2... 40 n.f.a. -9 1,471 -10 81 -3 117 nil -3 Typist, Grade 1... 31 n.f.a. -1 4,918 1 166 -19 78 2 93 Supervisor (DPO), Grade 2... 3 n.f.a. nil 36 1 nil -1 1 nil 4 Supervisor (DPO), Grade 1... 6 n.f.a. nil 77 -1 3 nil 11 nil 3 DPO, Grade 3... 13 n.f.a. nil 159 -1 4 3 -1 -1 7 DPO, Grade 2... 65 n.f.a. 2 1,121 2 47 10 107 -9 61 DPO, Grade 1... 21 n.f.a. -8 296 3 -34 -13 9 1 40 DPO-in-training... 2 n.f.a. 5 43 -5 -7 -2 33 1 -38 Computer Operator Senior, Grade 3... 2 n.f.a. nil 75 nil -2 1 nil nil 1 Senior, Grade 2... 1 n.f.a. nil 82 1 6 1 14 -1 -2 Senior, Grade 1... 1 n.f.a. nil 70 nil -2 1 8 nil 9 Grade 2... 1 n.f.a. 1 177 nil 7 nil -3 -2 2 Grade 1... 1 n.f.a. -1 125 nil -38 1 79 6 -34 In training... 2 n.f.a. nil 96 nil -38 1 -29 -1 nil Other... 18 47,285 -4 -9,174 -6 207 -2 -1,848 nil -814 Total... 953 117,795 30 -896 -60 3,550 -21 1,915 -11 2,415 n.f.a.= no figures available. Classification level 1981 DoF Service 1982 DoF Service 1983 DoF Service 1984 DoF Service 1985 DoF Service Senior Executive Service Level 6... nil -5 1 -2 nil 1 nil 2 nil 1 Level 5... nil 13 nil nil nil 4 nil 6 nil -4 Level 4... nil -8 nil -10 nil -8 1 14 1 8 Level 3... nil nil -1 1 1 2 1 7 nil 9 Level 2... nil 22 nil -20 -1 nil 4 17 3 45 Level 1... nil 8 nil -6 nil 16 4 5 -2 8 Clerical Administrative Class 11 1 nil 23 nil 84 4 162 13 256 Class 10 nil 71 nil 4 2 31 -2 66 3 43 Class 9 -1 176 4 16 9 172 6 322 16 543 Class 8 3 175 6 -16 -9 153 nil 357 10 401 Class 7 6 252 2 -38 nil 157 7 387 4 396 Class 6 -3 335 nil 9 -2 157 -1 497 nil 800 Class 5 9 45 1 -23 5 31 -5 788 -4 697 Class 4 1 436 4 -99 -6 -25 3 -293 -6 937 Class 2/3 -5 -7 -5 -165 5 198 -14 554 8 369 Class 1 -3 7 -3 -247 -1 796 -6 2,285 4 -1,199 Cadet nil 5 nil 40 nil -16 5 -22 -5 18 Computer Systems Officer Grade 5 nil -19 nil 4 2 14 1 2 1 10 Grade 4 nil 11 nil 8 4 28 1 12 -1 35 Grade 3 1 -33 1 37 5 65 -3 63 3 60 Grade 2 -1 -5 3 43 -1 48 -3 69 -4 73 Grade 1 -2 65 -4 65 -2 -22 -2 15 4 3 Clerical Assistant Grade 8 nil 5 nil -4 nil 8 nil 5 nil -5 Grade 7 -1 14 1 10 nil -4 nil 8 nil 79 Grade 6 -1 37 nil -13 nil 4 1 57 1 1 Grade 5 nil 80 nil 13 nil 76 nil 619 3 129 Grade 4 -2 159 2 -80 nil 77 -1 -177 1 230 Grade 3 nil 155 -4 -210 1 118 2 33 -1 152 Grade 2 -4 72 -3 -342 2 nil -3 194 -1 108 Grade 1 -13 291 -3 59 -5 621 nil 1,285 2 -358 Keyboard Typist Controller, Grade 2 nil 12 nil 16 nil -4 nil 4 nil 5 Personal Secretary, Grade 2 nil nil nil 23 nil 14 1 15 -1 7 Personal Secretary, Grade 1 1 nil 1 161 nil 9 nil -8 nil -62 Steno-secretary, Grade 2 -1 14 -1 -80 1 -11 3 16 -2 38 Steno-secretary, Grade 1 -2 25 nil -49 1 22 3 45 -1 24 WP Supervisor, Grade 2 1 3 nil 31 nil 9 nil 9 2 9 WP Supervisor, Grade 1 2 4 nil 27 nil 20 nil 18 nil 15 WP Typist, Grade 2 2 3 nil 42 -1 27 1 19 -2 35 WP Typist, Grade 1 4 45 2 316 1 175 nil 172 4 190 Typist Supervisor, Grade 2 -1 48 nil -13 nil -2 nil nil nil -4 Typist Supervisor, Grade 1 -2 452 nil -74 nil -29 nil -13 nil -32 Typist, Grade 2 -7 7 nil -232 -1 -3 -4 84 3 -122 Typist, Grade 1 -2 16 -4 -395 nil -332 2 265 -1 208 Supervisor (DPO), Grade 2 nil nil nil nil nil nil nil -1 -1 -2 Supervisor (DPO), Grade 1 6 15 3 1 nil -7 nil 6 -3 -4 DPO, Grade 3 -3 11 -3 -6 1 -4 -1 -16 -1 2 DPO, Grade 2 nil 44 -1 -4 6 15 -6 115 -6 -37 DPO, Grade 1 -2 -28 3 48 nil 102 5 111 8 -73 DPO-in-training 4 -1 -3 13 1 -19 -1 17 2 47 Computer Operator Senior, Grade 3 -1 12 nil -12 1 -4 -1 1 1 -1 Senior, Grade 2 1 10 -1 1 nil 2 nil -8 2 10 Senior, Grade 1 nil -2 nil 3 nil 5 nil 5 2 -3 Grade 2 3 nil 2 -9 nil -14 nil -13 -3 -22 Grade 1 -2 11 -3 16 -2 -6 4 -25 nil -50 In training -2 -15 4 -5 -1 -4 -3 -5 nil nil Other 2 -748 nil -271 nil 624 1 1,241 2 -2,905 Total -14 2,394 1 -1,395 16 3,371 4 9,383 54 1,112 (Question No. 405) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) How many items during the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985, were reported on Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) news or current affairs programs on: (a) television; and (b) radio, on the subject of the internal workings of, external relationships with, or `threats' to the ABC. (2) What proportion of the total air time of the programmes referred to in (1) above was allocated to this introspective reporting. (3) What other single subjects on such programs on radio and television had an equal or greater amount of air time allocated to it during the period 1 January 1985 to 30 June 1985. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (1) For the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985 the figures are, (a) television, 86 and (b) radio, 150. (2) For the same period the proportion of total air time given to the above programs was, (a) television, 0.4 per cent and (b) radio, impossible to ascertain accurately given the number of national, state and regional news bulletins and numerous current affairs programs. (3) The number of single subjects which occupied a greater share of ABC news and current affairs programs over the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985 would be too numerous to attempt to quantify. (Question No. 497) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Is the Attorney-General concerned by comments of experts on international terrorism, as quoted in Press reports which indicate that the large quantity of drugs recently seized by officers of the Australian Federal Police may have been supplied by a Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) group operating in the Bekaa Valley in Eastern Lebanon, and who have given evidence before the United States Senate of the potential for drug profits to be used by terrorist groups to destabilise legitimate governments and subordinate democratic processes. (2) Is the Attorney-General satisfied with the dismissal of such suggestions by Mr Ali Kazak, the PLO's representative in Australia, as ``. . . speculation without evidence''. (3) Will the Attorney-General be ensuring that the role of the PLO in this matter is fully investigated and if the charges are confirmed, what would be the attitude of the Australian Government towards the office of the PLO which is already established in Australia, and would members of the PLO be permitted to continue to visit Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I would, of course, be concerned at any suggestion that terrorist groups were financing their operations by trading in narcotics. However, I am advised that the Australian Federal Police has no evidence that the PLO is involved in supplying narcotics for importation to Australia. I should clarify that Mr Ali Kazak is an Australian citizen. He is not recognised by the Government as a representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, nor does the Government recognise his Palestine Information Office as a PLO office. Any views expressed by Mr Kazak are those of an Australian citizen. (Question No. 536) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) Is the Queensland office of the Human Rights Commission seriously understaffed, given the highly decentralised population of that State and the heavy workload prompted by a lack of comparable equal opportunity/civil liberties legislation at the State level. (2) Will the Attorney-General review staffing and travel requirements of the Queensland office to ensure maximum protection of human rights in that State. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Queensland office of the Human Rights Commission is at present comprised of the following eight persons: the Director, three Conciliation/Community Education Officers, an Aboriginal Field Officer, an Office Manager, and two Commonwealth Employment Program participants (whose employment/training with this office will be completed on 31 December 1985). In addition two officers of the Queensland Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation (CDEO) who perform related work are located in the Brisbane office of the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill currently before the Parliament provides for the absorption of the work of the National/State CDEOs into Human rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's functions. It is proposed that when that legislation is passed the Queensland Committee officers will become officers of the Commission in its Queensland office. In most States, arrangements have been made for functions of the Commission to be performed by State authorities. No such arrangements have been made with Queensland and the Commission has therefore established its own office in that State. The allocation of resources to the Queensland office of the Commission is a matter for the Commission to determine, having regard to the overall resources available to it. I am informed by the Commission that, while the Queensland office has a heavy workload (there being on average one new complaint each day), the staff have been able to cope. I am also informed that the Commission has examined its priorities and is unable to provide further resources to its Queensland office. The Commission endeavours to see that the resources of available staff and funds for travel are used in as efficient and effective a manner as is possible. (Question No. 547) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) To what extent are confidential records of government departments being destroyed by burial at public rubbish dumps. (2) Is it a breach of the Australian Archives Act for confidential records to be buried. (3) When will proper facilities be available in all Commonwealth Offices for the adequate destruction of confidential documents. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am unable to respond on behalf of all departments as my Department is responsible for only destruction of its own confidential records. Those records are destroyed only in accordance with methods recommended by the Australian Archives Office i.e. by shredding, pulping or burning. Burial of such material at rubbish dumps is not an acceptable method of disposal. (2) Records may be destroyed only if authorised under the Archives Act (1983); but the Act does not specify the means of destruction. The destruction of classified records by burial is, however, a breach of the Protective Security Manual. (3) My Department is adequately supplied with shredders and other required facilities for proper destruction of confidential documents. Again I cannot answer on behalf of other departments, although in some locations we would make these facilities available for use by other departments. (Question No. 573) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every statutory authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) by each and every statutory authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions (1) and (2). Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: $ (1) (a) Attorney-General's Department... 12,000 (b) Legal Aid Commission (Australian Capital Territory)... 804 Trade Practices Commission... 8,000 National Companies and Securities Commission... 10,600 Institute of Family Studies... 1,000 Human Rights Commission... 1,000 Australian Institute of Criminology... 3,000 Law Reform Commission... 700 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions... 8,000 High Court of Australia... 5,000 Office of Parliamentary Counsel... 1,500 (2) (a) and (b) The guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure on hospitality/entertainment are Section 13 of the Finance Directions (Expenditure on Hospitality) and Department of Finance Circular 1981/6 (Expenditure by Officials on Hospitality). (3) In accordance with Department of Finance Circular 1985/18 (Reform of the Australian Taxation System), all official entertainment expenses incurred on and from 20 September 1985, are being recorded and monitored to ensure that any retrospective tax liability adjustment that may be necessary can be made. (Question No. 575) Senator Withers asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every statutory authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every statutory authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions (1) and (2). Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) $10,000, (b) Not Applicable (2) The guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure on official entertainment were as stated in Finance Directions 13/1 and 13/2, and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. (3) Official entertainment expenses are being recorded and monitored so that when the rules governing the liability for the new tax are settled, the necessary transfer of funds to revenue can occur. (Question No. 588) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) $3,000. This includes provision for the office of the Commissioner for Commonwealth Government Employees Compensation. (2) These are contained in Finance Directions 13/1 and 2 and Guidelines 1-14 to Section 13 of those Directions. These are available from the Parliamentary Library for reference purposes. (3) The rules governing liability for the proposed new tax provisions have not been settled. Until this occurs the Department will record and monitor entertainment expenses so that appropriate action can be taken when required. (Question No. 604) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October: (1) Does the Government acknowledge that there has been a decrease in real terms in the level of overseas aid in the 1985-86 Budget. (2) How does the Government reconcile its stated objective of 0.7 per cent of GNP for overseas aid with the fact that for the second year in a row the Government has moved further away from that target. (3) Will the Government give an assurance that this negative trend will not continue next financial year. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The level of overseas aid provided for in the 1985-86 Budget represents a decrease of about 5% in real terms over the level of overseas aid provided in 1984-85. (2) and (3) In my ministerial statement to the Parliament on 28 November, I confirmed that the Government continues to accept the commitment to work towards achieving the allocation of 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) on official development assistance (ODA), despite the fact that we are enduring highly sensitive economic circumstances. I also emphasised the Government's overriding commitment to responsible domestic economic management and the inescapable need, in these economic circumstances, to keep Australia's overseas aid program within stringent limits. For these reasons, the aid program, in ODA/GNP terms, has suffered a decline in the past two financial years. Nevertheless, as I also announced to Parliament, the Government recently decided that the real level of overseas aid would rise each year in future. In implementing its decision in the context of annual budgets, the Government will take into account both the needs of developing countries and Australia's own economic circumstances and capacity to assist. (Question No. 646) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 6 November 1984: (1) Is the Australian Council of Furniture Manufacturers concerned that imported furniture and bedding is being undervalued for duty purposes. (2) Are small business furniture manufacturers unable to compete with importers who under-value their products. (3) Has it been suggested that overseas furniture manufacturers advise prospective customers that double invoicing arrangements can be entered into, thus minimising import duties, any uplift imposts and sales tax. (4) Has the Assistant Collector, Investigations, of the Australian Customs Service, Western Australia, contacted the Western Australian Guild of Furniture Manufacturers to obtain further details of the alleged undervaluations; if so, are investigations taking place with a view to protecting the Australian furniture manufacturers. Senator Button —The answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows: (1) Yes. The Australian Council of Furniture Manufacturers has written to the Australian Customs Service expressing concern over the stated values of imported furniture. (2) Competition from furniture imports, which enter Australia at unrealistically low prices, could cause injury to both small and large Australian manufacturers of furniture. The effect of the entry of undervalued imports is that the Government's intentions regarding the appropriate level of tariff assistance are undermined and the assistance provided by the tariff may be perceived to be inadequate. Of course anti-dumping legislation exists to help Australian producers to compete with goods which are exported at less than their normal value. This legislation has recently been revised by the Government to ensure that prompt action can be taken against dumped imports, which cause injury to Australian producers. (3) Yes, it has been suggested that foreign visitors to overseas furniture exhibitions have been told by exhibiting furniture manufacturers that double invoicing arrangements can be entered into, thus minimising import duties, any uplift imposts and sales tax in Australia. However, that suggestion is hearsay only, and has not been verified. (4) The Western Australian Guild of Furniture Manufacturers has been visited by Customs and certain information obtained. The information was of a background nature and no actual evidence was produced to support action against any particular importers or suppliers. In the normal processing of Customs import documentation, some monitoring of furniture values is being undertaken. (Question No. 651) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 November 1985: (1) Did Esmond Mooseek disappear while on bail in Victoria during committal hearings on serious drug trafficking charges against him. (2) Were these charges laid after 2 years of intensive investigation by the Customs Department and the Federal and Victorian police. (3) Did the police fear the Esmond Mooseek would abscond and sought to have his bail revoked on more than one occasion. (4) Will the Attorney-General undertake to discuss uniformity in laws affecting bail and the need for greater stringency of conditions under which bail is granted, with his State and Territory counterparts, as a matter of urgency to avoid a repetition of these circumstances. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. Committal proceedings in relation to a number of drug offences, including offences concerning trafficking, commenced against Esmond Mooseek on 18 October 1985. Mr Mooseek disappeared at approximately 8.00 p.m. on 30 October 1985 before those proceedings had been completed. (2) Esmond Mooseek was charged on 27 November 1984 after approximately 2 years of investigation by a joint Australian Federal Police and Victoria Police operation. (3) Mr Mooseek was initially released on bail in November 1984 after being charged. It is important to note that at that time the police did not oppose bail. On 4 July 1985 he was arrested pursuant to section 24 of the Bail Act of Victoria for breaking a condition of his bail concerning his residence and for the failure of his surety in that his wife sold a house property. A successful application by the Director of Public Pros- ecutions was made to have bail revoked in view of the breach of these conditions and because the police were concerned that Mooseek might abscond. However, despite the opposition of the Director of Public Prosecutions, fresh bail was then granted by the presiding stipendiary magistrate, on conditions that were somewhat more stringent than those applying previously. These included- one surety of $50,000; that he surrender all passports and not apply for any further passports; that he not leave the State of Victoria; that he reside at a particular address in Melbourne, and report to a specified police station on each of three days per week. On the advice of counsel, that there was doubt as to the prospects of success, the Director did not seek a review by the Supreme Court of Victoria of the magistrate's decision. On 18 October 1985, the first day of the committal proceedings, and again on 24 October 1985 the Director unsuccessfully sought to have Mooseek's bail revoked. (4) Legislation concerning bail and other matters of criminal procedure is primarily the responsibility of the State and Northern Territory governments. The Attorney-General will decide shortly, after considering all relevant matters, whether to raise for the consider- ation of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General the desirability of having uniformity in laws affecting bail and whether there is a need for greater stringency of conditions under which bail is granted. In this regard it is noted that a report by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics on a survey of the extent to which bail conditions are adhered to by persons charged in New South Wales with drug-related offences, including offences under Commonwealth legislation, is expected to be presented to the New South Wales Government and made available to the Commonwealth Government in January 1986. It should be borne in mind that unless the granting of bail to persons charged with specified drug offences were prohibited the existence of uniform legislation would not, of itself, result in uniform decisions being made by police and members of the judiciary, who have the discretion to grant bail. In Victoria there are no offences for which bail is unavailable, although a grant of bail may necessitate the making of an application to a Supreme Court Judge in cases such as murder or treason and is made only in exceptional circumstances in those cases. (Question No. 660) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 7 November 1985: (1) How many requests has the Australian Government received from Interpol to supply information during the financial years from July 1980 to June 1985. (2) What was the basic nature of these requests and was the information supplied: (a) to Interpol; or (b) to any Government or its representatives relating to the activities or personal information in respect to any Australian citizen. (3) Who is responsible in Australia for checking any information and facts given to Interpol. (4) To what extent are facts and other details checked before they are given to Interpol. (5) Does the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister monitor information that is given to Interpol. (6) How many requests has the Government made to Interpol during the financial years July 1980 to June 1985. (7) What was the basic nature of these requests and to what extent were they answered by Interpol. (8) Who currently represents Australia on the board of management or controlling body of Interpol. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. (1) The Australian National Central Bureau of the International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol) received 24,878 requests from the National Central Bureau of Member Nations during the period July 1980 to June 1985. (2) (a) and (b) Interpol's aims are outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution and are: (i) To ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (ii) To establish and develop all institutions likely to contribute effectively to the prevention and suppression of ordinary law crimes. Article 3 provides restrictions on matters to be handled by Interpol. It is strictly forbidden for the Organisation to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. All requests were in accordance with the Constitution and information, if available, was supplied to the National Central Bureau of member nations. (3) Where information is requested from an Australian authority, that authority has the responsibility of ensuring its correctness and the appropriateness of its dissemination. The Head of the Australian National Central Bureau must also be satisified that any information or facts provided to other National Central Bureaus falls within the guidelines of the Interpol Constitution. (4) The supplying authority of any information which has been requested by the Australian National Central Bureau is responsible for its accuracy. The staff of the Australian National Central Bureau then ensure that the information supplied may be disseminated under the terms of the Constitution. (5) No. The Commissioner, Australian Federal Police, is responsible for the administration of the Australian National Central Bureau of Interpol. The bureau is staffed by members of the Australian Federal Police and the Commissioner is briefed on individual operational matters where necessary. (6) The Australian National Central Bureau received 27,935 requests from Australian Police and Government Authorities seeking advice from member nations during the period July 1980 to June 1985. (7) The requests complied with Article 2 of the Interpol Constitution and were within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries. The information, if available, was supplied to the Australian National Central Bureau by member nations for dissemination to the requesting body. (8) The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Major General R. A. Grey AO, DSO, is the Australian Representative to the International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol). (Question No. 670) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 November 1985: (1) Did any Ministers of the Australian Government, who visited Singapore between 28 February 1968 and 8 March 1971, complain formally to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign affairs, or senior officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra, that staff of the Australian High Commission in Singapore rendered unsatisfactory or inadequate service during visits to that city; if so, what was the nature of the complaints, and to what specific incidents did they relate. (2) What action was taken in response to any such complaints. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Department of Foreign Affairs has no record of any formal complaints by Ministers of the Australian Government who visited Singapore between 28 February 1968 and 8 March 1971 of unsatisfactory or inadequate service by the staff of the High Commission. (Question No. 671) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 November 1985: What action is being taken to implement the following amendments to the Governor-General's Act as requested in a petition tabled in the Senate on 11 November 1981: (a) that section 4 of the Act be amended to prevent the indefinite transportability of pensions, and (b) that a work test and a means test be applied to vice-regal pensioners. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There is no action contemplated in regard to the matters raised by the honourable senator. (Question No. 676) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: Will the Special Minister of State investigate the allegations referred to in the Illawarra Mercury of 9 November 1985 that, because the ALP's Cunningham Federal Electorate Conference was `broke' and could not afford the stamps, the Minister for Housing, Mr Stewart West financed and distributed by mail from his parliamentary office in Wollongong a letter to 800 members of the Australian Labor Party in the Wollongong area outlining the reasons for the recent three months suspension of Mr Rex Connor Junior from the Labor Party, to establish whether stamps and stationery provided to Mr West for parliamentary purposes, were in fact diverted for use by the Minister to further the left faction's case in an internal Labor Party dispute against the right faction involving branch stacking and rule breaches. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No. Mr West has informed me that the allegations are not correct. (Question No. 682) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: When does the Attorney-General expect the fisheries section of the off-shore constitutional settlement or at least the Victorian/Tasmanian portion of it, will be enacted in view of the opposition to the re-opening of the scallop beds off the north-east coast of Tasmania. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commonwealth legislation giving effect to the fisheries elements of the `off-shore constitutional settlement' contained in the Fisheries Amendment Act 1980 entered into force on 14 February 1983. That legislation makes provision for joint Commonwealth/State authorities and authorises arrangements with the States for joint authorities, the Commonwealth or individual States to have the management of particular fisheries. The legislation has no application to specific fisheries unless and until arrangements covering those fisheries are negotiated between the Commonwealth Government and relevant State Governments. So far as the Commonwealth is concerned, negotiation of such arrangements is a matter for the Minister for Primary Industry. I understand negotiations are under way between the Commonwealth, Victoria and Tasmania in relation to the scallop beds off the north east coast of Tasmania. (Question No. 699) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) What is the total level of aid provided by the Federal Government to the victims of the volcanic eruption in Armero, Colombia, South America. (2) What are the Federal Government's guidelines for fixing financial amounts and the basis for decision making on the type and style of aid for foreign countries unfortunate enough to be involved in disaster situations. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) On 18 November 1985, the Prime Minister announced that Australia would provide $2 million towards emergency relief operations following the volcanic eruption in Colombia. (2) The Government bases its decisions on the level and nature of disaster relief to be provided on factors such as the location and magnitude of the devastation, the humanitarian requirements, responses of other donors, the potential effect of providing aid on Australia's relationship with the country affected, and the nature of the response which Australia is best placed to make keeping in mind the need to ensure that the aid is effective and reaches those for whom it is intended. (Question No. 712) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 November: (1) What action can be taken by the Australian Government to request the removal of death penalties on Raziyedden Taban, Anoushirvan Lotfi or any member of the Organisation of Iranian People's Fedaian (Majority) or of the People's Party of Iran (Tudeh). Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government is aware of reports, including in the most recent report of Amnesty International, of heavy penalties being imposed against members of political opposition parties in Iran. It views such reports with deep concern. The Australian Government has no direct knowledge of the two specific death penalties referred to by the honourable senator. The Australian Embassy in Tehran has been requested to seek information about these two people. The Australian Government takes a forthright stand on human rights violations wherever they occur. As a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Australia has supported resolutions expressing concern about human rights issues in Iran and encouraging the Government of Iran to co-operate with United Nations investigatory procedures. (Question No. 700) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs outline the present situation of political prisoners gaoled in East Timor by the Indonesian Government. (2) Are the results of a fifth inspection of their plight being made by the Red Cross yet available, if so, what are they; and if not, will the Minister make the facts available as quickly as possible. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Much of our information on the present situation of political prisoners in East Timor comes from the recent visit of Ambassador Morrison to East Timor. During the visit, the Chairman of the Court in Dili, Judge Siregar, handed him a series of documents which provided the names and personal details of all prisoners tried in East Timor for Fretilin-related offences between 16 December 1983 and 19 August 1985; the sections of the criminal code under which each has been charged; dates of sentence; and details of sentence. Judge Siregar also said that all prisoners on Fretilin-related charges had been tried, while Governor Carrascalao noted that, in addition to this, there might be `three or four' people still in detention awaiting the outcome of investigations before being formally charged or released. Mr Morrison also visited Comarca prison, where prisoners on Fretilin-related offences are held. He reported that conditions have improved markedly since the new prison in Dili has been opened and is housing all normal civil prisoners. He reported that the more than 100 inmates he saw in Comarca were dressed in clean shirts and T-shirts and shorts, and none showed signs of physical abuse. In making his report, Ambassador Morrison also took account of the access of the ICRC to the prison. Two other members of the Ambassador's party visited Atauro Island on 10 December 1985. The camp population was made up of 63 people from Manatuto area, 175 from the Same area, and 930 from the Viqueque area. It is planned to resettle those from Manatuto and Same back in their home area in the coming months. There are as yet no plans to resettle those from the Viqueque area. (2) The ICRC has had access over the past 18 months to detainees in East Timor. The ICRC, however, treats its assessments and recommendations as a matter of confidence between itself and the host government. It does respond to specific inquiries from relatives but does not pass information to other individuals, organisations or governments. My government respects the need of the ICRC for this confidentiality, if its work is to have maximum effect. The ICRC has told the Australian Embassy in Jakarta that it is confident that it has had access to the great majority of prisoners in East Timor. Interviews without witnesses, mail from families abroad and from groups such as Amnesty International provide a good cross-check of information provided by the Indonesian authorities. Senator Grimes —On 12 September 1985 (Hansard, page 507) Senator Knowles asked me the following question without notice: (1) Under what conditions emergency relief can be obtained from the Department of Social Security regional offices. (2) Can emergency relief be obtained for the payment of fines and court costs? I undertook to provide an answer to the second part of the honourable senator's question. The following information is now provided: Agencies distributing Commonwealth emergency relief funds are those which, traditionally, have provided such assistance to those in need. The Commonwealth provides these agencies with guidelines and conditions of grant, which allow agency staff to make their own assessments of client need, and, in no way attempt to impose a Commonwealth definition of such need. Point (a) of the `Conditions of Grant' specifically states: `The grant will be used only for the provision of emergency relief in the form of cash or the provison of a food voucher to a certain value . . .' It is possible, therefore, that a client could receive cash assistance which might be used to pay fines and/or court costs. Alternatively, a client who has depleted available financial resources, in the payment of such costs, might be provided with cash and/or a food voucher, in such an emergency. No statistics are available, on the extent to which cash assistance is used, directly or indirectly, to meet fines and court costs. It is unlikely that such statistics could be obtained without impinging upon the autonomy of the voluntary agency, or the right of clients to manage their own affairs to the best of their ability, Senator Grimes —On 17 October 1985 (Hansard, pages 1404-5) Senator Baume asked Senator Ryan, who was representing the Minister for Health on that day, a question without notice about the reasons why the Australian Institute of Health and its affiliate, the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, are excluded from receiving any AIDS research grant money. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: The Australian Institute of Health is administered by the Commonwealth Department of Health. Therefore its funding requirements are met directly, through the budgetary appropriation process (Division 326). My Department believed it would be administratively inefficient for the activities of the Institute to depend on competitive application for funds through a grant scheme administered by the same Department. However, I have taken note of the concerns expressed in the Senate on 14 November in relation to this matter, and I have asked the Director of the Institute to invite any of his staff who believe they have a strong case for additional support from the AIDS Research Grants scheme to contact the AIDS Coordinating Unit urgently. The expert committee (chaired by Professor Penington), which I have established to advise on the allocation of research funds, would then examine both the merit of the proposal itself and the question of whether funding from the AIDS Research allocation would be appropriate.