Thursday, 13 February 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the proposed Bill of Rights because it adversely affects areas of the liberty and freedom of Australians. It will operate against: The States and our Federal system of Government Criminal Justice The Police Education Families Employer/Employee relations It will remove the power of the people through Parliament, by giving power to a new more powerful Human Rights Commission which is not elected, but can act as a Star Chamber. We do most earnestly wish to keep our system of Common Law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 171 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Haines (from 83 citizens) and Jessop (from 195 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally: Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 123 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights will do nothing to advance the rights of Australians, because it is dangerously ambiguous and will cause confusion within the legal system; it endangers our Federal System; and, it is to be administered in an authoritarian manner inconsistent with the present legal rights of Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and all cognate Bills. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 37 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 2,464 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that woodchipping and clearfelling will destroy the Otway Forests, water catchments and jobs in tourism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will protect the Otway Forests for the future and refuse any licence to export woodchips from the Otways. (Quorum formed) by Senator Vallentine (by 21 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent on the moving of a motion to debate a matter of urgency under standing order 64, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) moving an amendment to the motion. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, nine sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Artificial Conception Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 57 of 1985, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. I seek leave, Mr President, to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —This Ordinance provides for a conclusive presumption of parenthood of a child born as a result of the new artificial conception techniques. The Ordinance is innovative in character and changes some fundamental common law rights of parents and children. It was made about a month before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs tabled its report on in vitro fertilisation and the status of children. The Committee requires time to examine the implications of the Ordinance, in particular whether the changes to the law are of such significance that they really warrant enactment in a Bill. Today is the last day on which notice of motion of disallowance can be given. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate take note of the Volatile Substances Fumes Select Committee Report tabled on 6 February 1986. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, four sitting days after today, I shall move: That regulation 2 of the Overseas Students Charge Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 352, and made under the Overseas Students Charge Act 1979, be disallowed. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the Federal Government's decision to withdraw Australian Federal Police (AFP) representation from Wollongong at a time when offences relating to drugs and other Commonwealth matters such as social security and sales tax fraud, illegal immigration and family law are showing no signs of diminishing, on the contrary, there have been very significant drug-related arrests in the area recently; (b) warns the Government that it would be directly responsible if the withdrawal of the AFP from Wollongong resulted in any serious increase in these problems in the Illawarra region; (c) requests the Government to retain this important service in Wollongong in line with the continued operation of the AFP post in Newcastle and to grant an immediate deferment of the closure date of 14 February while it re-examines the matter at the request of all local Federal politicians of all political parties, following the belated moves of local Labor Members of Parliament (MP), to support this protest that was initiated by Senator Michael Baume and backed by State MP and Lord Mayor, Frank Arkell and Federal MP for Gilmore, Mr John Sharp; and (d) requires an undertaking from this Government that there will be no reduction whatsoever in the AFP attention to Commonwealth offences in the Illawarra region in the event that the planned closure of the Wollongong AFP Office on 14 February 1986 does proceed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, nine sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Health Insurance Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 290, and made under the Health Insurance Act 1973, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The regulations add the Secretary of the Department of Social Security to the list of those to whom confidential information about persons may be given by the Health Insurance Commission. Important issues of confidentially of information have arisen. The Committee is concerned that sensitive personal medical information could circulate beyond the confines of the Health Insurance Commission. The Committee has written to the Minister for Health (Mr Blewett) and is awaiting an explanation of the need for these regulations. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, acknowledging- (a) the entitlement of the Australian people to a reduction in fuel prices, stemming from the fall in world oil prices; and (b) in particular, the benefit to rural and outback Australia, where the price of fuel and consequent high transportation costs results in a high cost of living and increased costs for the pastoral, agricultural, fishing, mining and tourism industries, calls upon the Federal Government to pass on the benefits of the fall in world oil prices to the Australian motorist and Australian industry. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that record high interest rates have caused nearly half the rise in the 1986 farm costs forecast by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE), that will cut average farm incomes by two thirds, push one third of farms into loss and result in three quarters of Australia's family farms earning less than the average weekly earnings of an employed male in a city job, despite their huge investment and increasing indebtedness which is rising towards $8,000m; (b) expresses its disappointment at the Federal Government's refusal to follow advice of November 1985 from the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr B. W. Fraser, that its reliance on high interest rate policies could not persist without damaging the economy; and (c) calls on the Federal Government urgently to introduce a mini-budget to substantially cut Government spending, fully discount wages for devaluation, reduce its excessive reliance on high interest rates to control the economy, fully pass on the lower world oil price to consumers, particularly in rural areas, and to accept last week's public plea from the Director of its own BAE , Dr Stoeckel, for policy initiatives to alleviate the `severe financial stress' now confronting the rural sector. Motion (by Senator Cooney) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name for this day, for the disallowance of the First Home Owners Regulations (Amendment), be postponed till nine sitting days after today. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave-I withdraw Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 2, 3 and 4, standing in my name for this day of sitting, for the disallowance of the Defence Determinations Nos 64 and 65, the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment) Ordinance 1985 and the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Regulations (Amendment). I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —These instruments gave rise to queries by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee concerning possible retrospective reductions in armed services benefits, the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the new blood donor declaration forms and the making of extradition regulations without lawful authority. Since giving notices of motion on 5 December, explanations have been received from Ministers which have satisfied the Committee that there would be no retrospective reduction in benefits. An amendment ordinance will provide that the donor declaration form will be subject to tabling and disallowance in Parliament and a new set of lawful extradition regulations has been made in place of those made under the inappropriate statute. The Committee thanks respectively the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for their assistance with the Committee's scrutiny of all these instruments. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave to have that list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities-government policy statement 2. Subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese tuna long-line fishing-pursuant to Section 9C of the Fisheries Act 1952 3. Supervising scientist for the Alligator Rivers regions-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to Section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978. 4. Science and Technology Statement-1985-86 5. Australian Research Grants Scheme-report on grants approved for 1986. 6. The Museum of Australia-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to Section 38 of the Museum of Australia Act 1980 7. Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to Section 32 of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973 Motion (by Senator Townley) agreed to. That the Senate- (a) aware that it will be poorer by the absence of Peter Rae, who until a short time ago was a Senator from Tasmania held in very high regard by most members of this Chamber; and (b) conscious of the excellent vote that ex-Senator Rae received in the Tasmanian State elections on 8 February 1986, which was second only to that of the Premier of Tasmania, congratulates Mr Rae and wishes him good fortune in his political career. Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.15) —We had hoped that the Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1986 would provide for a dynamic organisation, motivated to produce an efficient, sophisticated, economic approach to airport management and development without impediment. What we have is a limp piece of mumbo-jumbo designed to get the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) at arm's length from unpopular decisions, to give Senator Walsh another milking cow and, inevitably, to increase the costs through an even greater bureaucracy. There are so many areas that are totally incomplete that I really wonder how the Government got around to producing the Bill at this time. There are many questions to which the Minister for Aviation has not attended. The sorts of immediate issues that require attention are arrangements for the State and Federal governments and the issue of capital structure, which is not even determined at the time the legislation is before us but is to be determined afterwards. The whole basis of the required payments by the authority is just so unwieldy and unreasonable. I refer to the authority of the members of the Corporation and so on. The legislation creates yet another statutory authority designed to distance the Minister from direct responsibility so that the blame can accrue elsewhere as a result. The Government admits by this effort, that the dead hand of big government, is hamstringing efficiency and dynamism across the various sectors. The Government, by transferring the responsibility to an airports corporation, is just having two bob each way. What is the motivating force behind the new organisation? The government is inferring that commercialisation is the answer. There is no more commercial motivation in the Corporation as it is proposed than there is in the Public Service; in fact, if anything, there is less because of the hamstringing involved. There is certainly no profit motive or efficiency motive. What incentive is there for the Corporation even to try to balance its books? The legislation and the Minister's tabling speech show that there will be hamstringing right from the start by the Corporation being forced to take on everyone in the existing organisation who wishes to join. There is no provision for anything else; this is stated clearly in the Minister's tabling speech. As a result, how do we get new top management? Will new staff be on different terms, conditions, pay, superannuation and so on, from existing staff? Where do we get this infusion of new blood? At least for the first two years there will be staff ceilings. The Corporation will not be able to retrench inefficient and unnecessary staff; it will have to wait for natural attrition before any changes can be made. How long are the Public Service conditions referred to to last? Whether they are appropriate to the new organisation or not; how long are they to last? Of course, the worst problem with giving an organisation like the Airports Corporation the authority to proceed is that the Government has really given it nothing. It must follow the objectives set down by the Government, irrespective of whether those objectives are right or wrong. The Corporation has to do three years forward program planning. I do not mind that, except that it is as directed by the Government. These requirements, exercised at a strategic level, suggest fairly frequent interference from the Department. I believe it is unacceptable to form a corporation, say that it is important and then provide it with really no powers of any significance. That is quite unacceptable. The question of capital structure is laid down to be discussed between the Ministers after the passage of the legislation. But it is very difficult for a corporation to feel very safe in the hands of various Ministers when, for instance, clause 44 (2) states: Interest is not payable to the Commonwealth on the capital of the Corporation, but the capital of the Corporation is repayable to the Commonwealth at such times, and in such amounts, as the Minister determines. Does this mean it may be $10m or $100m, or that after the end of the first year the Government may say that it has given the corporation capital of $1 billion but that it will take the first $1m back monthly and that the Corporation can raise the money wherever it likes to pay the Government back? There is nothing in the Bill to say that that is not the way it could be handled. I think it was referred to in the other chamber as being a hollow log. Is this to be one of those bodies to which governments have access whenever they are short of money; they can just demand a capital repayment so that it becomes another source of revenue? As far as the dividend is concerned, clause 46 (3) states: The Minister shall, before the expiration of 30 days after the receipt by him or her of a recommendation made by the Corporation under sub-section (1) in relation to a financial year, give notice in writing to the Corporation- (a) where the recommendation is that the Corporation pay a dividend to the Commonwealth for the financial year- (i) approving the recommendation; or (ii) directing the payment by the Corporation . . . of a dividend of a different specified amount. So the Corporation, adopting whatever financial care that it may, may declare what is a reasonable dividend to keep the business operating but the Minister can override that at any stage by requiring an additional or alternative amount. What is the point in the Corporation's budgeting? What is the point in its declaring dividends if it does not have any say in how it is going to be administered? It is clearly to be a milking cow so that the Minister for Finance can have another source of revenue, one that has so far been unavailable to him. The Government insists that the Federal Airports Corporation represents commercialisation. I do not know what commercialisation really means. It is not privatisation because there seems to be more government intervention now than previously, but the legislation is apparently designed to achieve the benefits the Government would see if the Corporation were commercial without in fact letting it become commercial. I doubt that those benefits are possible. I noticed a comment in Lloyds Bank Economic Report for January 1986 concerning this matter. In a paragraph on public or private ownership it said: We believe it is not the ownership of an organisation which should be the focus of attention. The real question which needs to be answered is how efficiently managed is each Federal or State government-owned organisation? In other words, what is required is for the efficiency and accountability standards of the best of the private sector to be introduced into the running of a large number of government-owned enterprises. If this was to take place then the issue of privatisation becomes an illusion; badly managed organisations and highly regulated ones are not necessarily improved because the ownership is altered. We are looking here at an illusion. I cannot see anything in the legislation or in the Minister's speech that demonstrates at all that the situation will actually be improved. The Corporation is a phoney business enterprise. It has no profit motive; it has no chill breeze of competition; no staff whose performance and promotion is based on its economic growth and prosperity. Why are we going through this charade to change things and call this body a Corporation, except to get it at arms length from the Minister so that he does not have to bear the acrimony that goes with it when things turn out wrong? One of the ways to free it up-we would all, particularly on this side of the chamber, appreciate that-is to relieve the organisation of the problems that go with being saddled with the Public Service Board and the Department of Housing and Construction. This is an absolutely damning indictment of both organisations and their effect on the commercialisation, prosperity or economic capacity of any operation the Government has anything to do with. Let me make it blatantly pointed: The only way to succeed is to sever the connections with these two organisations, and this certainly requires considerable attention. The Minister claims that the Corporation will be free of restrictive Public Service staffing conditions. But it will not be free of Public Service staffing conditions because it is left to take over the existing organisation on terms at least as favourable as those now existing. I do not know what is the intention. I do not see why it is necessary, in creating a corporation and giving it various authorities, to apply many of these restrictions. I am sure that this particular restriction relating to staff is a typical case. If the Corporation finds that it is necessary to engage additional staff to perform additional duties or to perform duties better it is prevented from doing so. If, on the other hand, it finds that it can operate better, more efficiently, more profit-ably and more economically it is still prevented from doing anything about that because of the riders in the legislation. I would like now to come back to the Minister's tabling speech because it clearly raises more questions than it answers. I would like the Minister to be able to provide answers to the various questions that I now wish to raise. In the first paragraph of the Minister's speech he stated: When the Government came to office in 1983 it had as part of its platform a policy for improved administration of major airports. We believed that placing this responsibility with a largely independent statutory authority would offer significant advantages to the travelling public, taxpayers, the aviation industry and airport administrators. Subsequent analysis has clearly confirmed that view. I would like to know what sort of an investigation was carried out. Was there a public inquiry? If so, what are the results of that inquiry and how are they measured? If the whole premise is based on that I believe we need to know how it was based. In the next paragraph of the speech the Minister stated: Departments of State are of necessity bound by the Government processes which inhibit commercial flexibility and responsiveness. I wondered whether this was particularly applicable to the Department of Aviation, whether it was just another average case, or whether there were any specific areas that needed to be brought before the Parliament to demonstrate it. A little later, dealing with the same matter, the Minister stated: Additionally, governments in the past have unduly influenced the priorities for aviation infrastructure development for reasons unrelated to economics or efficiency. Will the legislation change in any way restrictions on operation and the necessity for the corporation to follow so strictly the instructions that are laid down? I cannot see that any major decision of any consequence can be taken by the Corporation that cannot be overridden by the Government or where the decisions that it takes do not have to fit in with government policy in one form or another. I am not quite sure why it was necessary to mention the review of the Opposition's 1981 two-airline agreement which is under way or what effect that has on the legislation, but I did notice that the Minister found it necessary to include it. I wondered whether that had any bearing on the legislation and I would be obliged if the Minister could say where that fits into it. For a piece of hotshot jargon, the next paragraph would take some beating in any piece of legislation I have ever seen: In framing the legislation the Government has had to face the task of balancing the need for autonomy and entrepreneurial management with the need for public accountability to maximise public benefit. This approach fits in with the Government's policy of public enterprise-efficiency, consumer responsiveness and successful management. I believe that we have achieved that balance. Time alone will show what sort of balance we have achieved. I see nothing in this legislation that would go to support such a heap of claptrap as undoubtedly that passage is. I do not know who could have produced it. I feel sure that it would be difficult to blame the Minister for it, but I am sure that it brought a laugh to many people. The next question I want to pose relates to the disclosure of results and for publication of indicators which year by year will show the performance of the Corporation across the range of its activities on an airport by airport basis. How will this change anything? What are the criteria on which these airports are to be judged? What is the performance on which they need to be dealt with? Is it possible to compare Adelaide and Perth and, if so, why? What is the need or advantage in doing things of this sort, if in fact they can be done? The next paragraph of the Minister's speech reads: The Government has set objectives for the Corporation covering social, financial, management and efficiency aspects. What is left for the Corporation to do? The Government has set social, financial, management and efficiency aspects, and yet this Corporation is said to have a need for autonomy and entrepreneurial management with the need for public accountability and all that sort of thing. Why do we try to pretend that we are producing what clearly is never the Government's intention in the first place? The Minister's speech continues: The Corporation will be required to put forward to the Minister for Aviation- and so on and so forth, but it is required to do all this within the constraints the Government itself has laid down before the Corporation starts. There is no doubt that this is nothing more or less than a cup of tea committee. Provided that the Corporation agrees with what the Government lays down, it will be allowed to continue. Later in that speech, the Minister says: This legislation will provide a framework for the operation of airports more efficiently, more commercially and in a manner in which the Corporation's performance will be able to be judged by its owners, the people of Australia. Again, I would be obliged if I could be told what that means. Then the speech goes on to say that there will be no net increase in staff and that the Corporation will offer positions to all staff whose functions are transferred. It continues: While the Corporation will have power to set conditions of employment for its staff, it will also be required to provide, at the time of the transfer, offers of conditions of employment to transferring staff at least equivalent to those which they apparently enjoy in the Australian Public Service. Does this mean that we are looking to form another organisation which will be seeking conditions better than those in the Public Service? Does it mean that we can ultimately recruit people for this service on conditions less than those that apply to the Public Service? Does it mean that matters such as superannuation and other benefits, maternity leave, time off and so on will be on two different levels? Does it mean that one group will come in with one level of employment conditions while another group will be at a different level? Senator Grimes —Knock it off. Senator ARCHER —I will knock it off when I am finished. I want answers to these questions. The Minister says a little later: I will be consulting with my colleague the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) before determining an initial capital structure for the Corporation. Is that likely to be $1 billion, $5 billion, or $10 billion? What is the purpose of it, except that it is now the obvious intention of the Government to try to recover it by declaring that the capital shall be returned to the Government in such time and in such a way as the Minister for Finance will determine. I think we all know Senator Walsh well enough to know that he is a very generous soul and that he is probably not going to want it very quickly! He probably is not very worried about any potential loss in fuel revenues and things like that! So we are not likely to have any difficulty with him! However, the next Minister for Finance may not be so generous! The second reading speech states: . . . the Government's requirements on a variety of issues . . . will not be subject to recovery. Included amongst these will be, for example, the payments of ex gratia payments to local government . . . The arrangements with local and State governments are inadequate. The legislation does not provide adequately for them. I find it very difficult to determine the Government's intention. We come back to the commercial question. I am not sure how we go about determining where we fit in with the operation of the Corporation on a commercial enterprise basis. What about the cars, shops, bars, hotels, parking and those sorts of things? Who will determine that? The legislation is totally incomplete. Towards the end, the second reading speech states: . . . the financial performance of airports will be measured and results made available to airport users. So what? That is not what it is all about. The Corporation's aim should be to see that we get the best service possible in the best and safest way. Where is the autonomy that is supposed to be vested in this Corporation? It is certainly not in finance. It is certainly not in decision making. It is not in staffing. It is not in the objectives. It is not in the working conditions. Provided that the Corporation does whatever the Government lays down for it to do, it has autonomy. But I can see no other way in which autonomy arises at all. I believe that the legislation falls far short of minimum standards. I would like the Minister to provide some information on the matters that I believe are important and unresolved. It is the Opposition's intention to vote against the legislation. Should that be unsuccessful, we will move that it go to a Senate committee so that the vast areas of incomplete detail can be dealt with and brought back to the Parliament so that we can deal with the legislation with more knowledge of what it is all about. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.38) —I am afraid that we have here another example of the Opposition opposing for the sake of opposition. Furthermore, it has not done any homework. Senator Archer has taken 25 minutes of this chamber's time showing that he has not done his homework. He has asked questions. He has gone through a speech and said: `What about this, what about that?' That material exists. If he had taken the time, as we have done, to go to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and say `What about these points,' he would have the information he required. Instead, he sits over here with his colleagues and says: `Sure, we will oppose it. It is simply a Labor Party policy matter. We will oppose it automatically'. He has exposed himself and his Party as simply lazy. Senator Elstob —They are fighting amongst themselves all the time. Senator SANDERS —I suppose that they cannot get a decent conversation that way. One certainly would not get an intelligent conversation that way. The point is that, if the honourable senator is to be in this chamber, he has to do some homework. He has to earn his pay. The people who elected him expect him to earn his pay and he has not done it in this instance. Senator Archer —I would like to have your experience. Senator SANDERS —I am sure the honour-able senator would. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —I ask Senator Sanders to speak to the Bill. Senator SANDERS —I am sorry. We have here a Department of Aviation quango. The honourable senator referred to quangos as an evil thing and they are; but, unfortunately, they are a fact of modern day life. A quango is a quasi-autonomous government organisation. A standing rule with quangos is that a young quango is better than an old quango. A young quango is more efficient than an old quango. I think we get about five years efficiency out of a quango. When a quango is set up it is full of new people who are full of vigour and they are enthusiastic about their job. They will take off and do something to reform the system as they see it. They know what the deficiencies are because they have come from some stuffy old organisation. The Federal Airports Corporation will be a quango but it will be a young one. I think we will see some good things coming out of it for a little while. Hopefully, we will see some changes that will keep it on its toes. In the first five years of its development I think it will probably be a very worthwhile structure. What do we have with the present Department of Aviation? We have one of the most ossified bureaucracies in the country. If this bureaucracy is broken up in any way, shape or form into any other smaller, newer quangos that will be a very good thing. To the ossified bureaucracy of the Department of Aviation aeroplanes are a nuisance to the smooth flow of paper work. They interfere with the smooth operation of the bureaucracy. Speaking as a pilot, my impression of the DOA is that it would be quite happy if all aeroplanes were permanently in hangars with their doors welded shut. If that were the case it would not have to worry about people such as me in the aircraft industry. Senator Robertson —That is understandable. Senator SANDERS —Perhaps it is. There are a number of areas of aviation which will have very little to do with the proposed Federal Airports Corporation and I will not go into them in any detail, but I would point out that the Department of Aviation is under attack as never before in areas such as its air traffic control procedures and its various procedures of consultation with the industry. It is the impression of the industry that the Department of Aviation is inflexible in dealing with aviation matters. I will give just a small example of how the Department of Aviation looks at pilots. An acquaintance of mine was lost in the air over Strahan, Tasmania. He got on the radio and said: `I am lost'. Of course the Department could not help him much. He went back to Strahan and landed. When the weather cleared he flew to Hobart. When he arrived there he received a radio message to ring the tower. He rang the tower and he was told that his licence had been cancelled because he had got lost. This is an example of the DOA's response to a person who was in an emergency situation. It cancelled his licence until he took another examination because he got lost. That is not the way in which an organisation that is truly interested in aviation should conduct its affairs. The Department of Aviation is inflexible, inefficient and completely unrealistic. I have heard from a manager of an airline at Tullamarine Airport about what would happen there in times of security difficulties. In other words, if there were a hijack attempt at Tullamarine, do honourable senators know who would be in charge of the operation? By DOA standards, the guys who drive up and down the runways in yellow cars to see that the runways are free of debris, would be in charge of all of the military or police personnel during a hijack attempt because it is their job to control the airport aprons. That shows how unrealistic the DOA's bureaucracy is. Anything the Federal Airports Corporation can do to rectify that situation is very needed indeed. On the DOA, we find that there has been a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on the Darling Harbour fiasco. that is the title of it. It is called `No Port in a Storm'. The Darling Harbour fiasco basically involved a heliport, a helicopter landing pad, in Sydney. This inquiry has been rightly called the Dick Smith inquiry, because Dick Smith, the pilot and former owner of Dick Smith Electronics, got this Committee to look into this matter. When the Committee let it be known that it was investigating the Department of Aviation, it got 800 submissions from all over the country, not just on Darling Harbour but 800 submissions on inefficiencies, inadequacies and downright stupidities of the Department of Aviation. So it goes on and on. We find that Senator Archer, with all his questions, did not bother to read the second reading speech by Senator Grimes. I do not think that he did, because some of his questions, at least, would have been answered in it. Senator Archer said that there is to be absolutely no scrutiny of this Corporation by anybody. The second reading speech in relation to all of the Corporation's activities states: . . . be subject to close scrutiny by aviation users and the aviation industry. . . . this scrutiny will be enhanced through requirements in the legislation for consultation, disclosure of results and for the publication of indicators which year by year will show the performance of the Corporation across the range of its activities and on the airport by airport basis. What could be better than that? It goes on to say: Additionally, the Corporation will be required to put forward to the Minister for Aviation each year a three year forward program including its budget for the following year and details of its corporate plans. I think the Government is taking a very brave step in the following, because it says: To enable the Corporation to operate as autonomously as possible, it will be freed from the requirements of: Staffing under Public Service conditions; the requirement that it utilise the Department of Housing and Construction for its capital works-although it will be expected to provide the opportunity for that Department to compete for such work on a commercial basis. The Government will also remove: . . the need for its day to day land dealings to be administered through the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. In other words, it will be a very streamlined and efficient organisation, and I think that Senator Archer, if he had done his homework, would have to agree with this. Senator Grimes —My Department will be the next to do that. Senator SANDERS —The Minister interjects. One of the objectives-I welcome this-set by the Government is that the Corporation be a good neighbour to the communities it serves. This has been of very great importance to us. We have had representations by councils, by mayoral committees, to the effect that they wanted to make sure that their rights would be preserved. I believe that, with some amendments that I hereby foreshadow, this legislation will in fact protect the interests of all the users, the travelling public, those living in proximity to airports and the industry itself. It is also very important that this new Corporation protect the rights of general aviation. General aviation is the poor relation of the aviation industry in Australia. Unfortunately, the airlines get all the publicity and most of the gravy. The DOA, being a large quango, sometimes listens to the airlines, but never listens to general aviation, and general aviation actually flies far more hours than the airlines do. I believe it will be up to us in the Senate and in the general aviation area to make sure that the cost recovery program does not put general aviation at any disadvantage. For instance, under noise abatement programs, it would be very unrealistic if general aviation were lumbered with any of the jet noise abatement costs. We will have to watch this very closely. The Bill, I think, is timely; it is necessary. Opposition members have come up with a number of criticisms which really do not hold water. They have variously said that they want the airports to be privatised. We all know what this would mean. Senator Archer —Who said that? Senator SANDERS —In the media release from Bruce Lloyd, shadow Minister for Aviation and National Party member for Murray, dated-he did not even bother to put the date on it. Senator Grimes —It is eternal. Senator SANDERS —It is eternal. I guess the Opposition just rolls it out every time there is anything it wants to oppose. This would be one thing it wants to oppose. The media release states: `Federal Coalition to oppose Federal Airports Corporation Bill.' It goes on to say that it would like privatisation. It says that there are no efficiency performance standards. The release has a number of errors in it. It says in one area: Unlike the British Airports Authority there are no efficiency performance standards. Actually, the performance standards are spelt out in the Bill, and so it goes. Opposition members simply have not done their homework on their media releases or on their speeches in this place. The Bill is worthy of our support. It certainly has the support of the Australian Democrats. I think it will have the support of the people in the areas surrounding the airports. It will have the support of the industry and general aviation if-and this is the main requirement-in fact the Government, the industry and the Corporation all work together to further aviation in this country. I support the Bill. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.51) —The principal objections which the Opposition has to this legislation can be categorised in two ways. The first is that it creates yet another unnecessary statutory authority and, as Senator Archer has said, the aim of that is simply to put at arm's length from the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) and from the Government the necessity to make some difficult and at times very controversial decisions about the administration of aviation in this country, about matters such as the location and operation of airports and the provision of facilities at airports. We believe that these are the types of responsibilities for which direct ministerial accountability ought to be retained. I give as an example of the Government's failure in this sort of matter the prolonged failure of the Government to come to grips with, make a decision and make a public announcement on the location of Sydney's second airport. People at both Wilton and Badgery's Creek have been told time and time again that a decision is imminent; that it is about to be made. They were told once again just prior to Christmas of last year that a decision was about to be made, and that decision has yet again been shelved. This is an example of the way in which the present Minister for Aviation has treated his responsibilities in this area. The second general criticism I would make of this legislation is that what is claimed in the second reading speech, namely that this is in line with general international practice in the operation of airports, is entirely incorrect. I shall come back shortly to the question of the way in which administration of airport facilities in the United Kingdom and the United States of America has been handled in recent years. This legislation indicates once again a failure by the Government to start to move on the more significant aspects of policies of reform and deregulation of airline operations and, in particular, the pricing structures and the access to the aviation sector, which ought to be substantially increased. No serious case has been presented for the haste of this legislation. This legislation was rushed through the House of Representatives yesterday. It is brought to the Senate within a matter of 24 hours of its passage in the House of Representatives. It is brought before us for debate with absolutely no statement being made as to why this is a matter of essential urgency. This Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1986 has been languishing around for some time. It has been brought on ahead of various other debates and yet there is no indication of why this is a particularly significant matter to be dealt with at this stage. A number of references are made in the Minister's second reading speech to inquiries which have dealt with the question of the structure and form of aviation regulation in Australia. One of those which is mentioned is the Bosch Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, which reported in November 1984. If, however, one looks at the recommendations of the Bosch Inquiry, and in particular to the summary of those recommendations on page 17, one finds that what Bosch called the National Airports Authority should be given certain responsibilities, including being given `as much commercial freedom as possible in undertaking its operations'. I want to come back to that at a subsequent stage in my speech. The interesting thing about the Bosch Inquiry was that it was never given the opportunity to discuss the whole question of whether the establishment of the National Airports Authority now provided for in the Federal Airports Corporation Bill was a good step. It is certainly true that the Australian Labor Party indicated in its last election policy that it would move to the creation of such a statutory authority, but I believe there has been no argument as to the particularity of the merits of having such an organisation as distinct from the continued operation within the Department of Aviation. Similarly, in terms of talking about the response of the Department of Aviation to a number of matters which have been raised, Senator Sanders, for instance, touched upon the House of Representatives inquiry. If one looks at Dick Smith's own publication entitled Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom one will find that there are a very large number of publications which the Department of Aviation has simply failed to respond to and failed to answer. Not just public criticisms by those who like to get stuck into departments, but public criticisms made by people who are knowledgeable and experienced in the aviation industry have not been answered. I suspect that one of the functions that the Federal Airports Corporation will come to assume is the Minister's ability to say, whenever a lot of these problems are raised: `Oh, that is not my responsibility any longer, you have to take that up with the Corporation. The Corporation will have to give you answers as far as that is concerned. Of course, I cannot direct the Corporation or require the Corporation to do very much to be of assistance to you.' The most serious charge that I think can be made is that the Bill and the second reading speech fail to indicate in any substantial way that are to be the efficiency performance standards required of the Corporation. I want to come first to the question of the raising of revenue. On page 8 of the Minister's second reading speech it says: If, however, the Corporation engages in activities in competition with private enterprise it will be required to do so through a subsidiary and thereby in respect of those activities be liable to taxation. As I say, that relates to the comment which I read earlier from the Bosch Inquiry. Nevertheless, we do not know the extent to which the subsidiaries of the Federal Airports Corporation are in fact going to be allowed to operate with some inbuilt government-backed advantage against the interests of private competitors. This brings us, for example, to the way in which the Government deals with matters arising under the Airports (Business Concessions) Act 1959. For some time I have pursued inquiries with the Minister on the question of the operation of the Airports (Business Concessions) Act. On 15 May 1985 I put down a question to the Minister dealing with this matter. The reply to these questions was printed in Tuesday's Senate Hansard. It has taken from 15 May 1985 to 11 February 1986 to provide a particular answer. I asked, in terms of the way in which the Government has fiddled operations under the Airport (Business Concessions) Act, this question: How many contracts awarded specifically under the Airports (Business Concessions) Act have been renegotiated after their original awarding? One would have thought that where contracts were entered into and subsequently renegotiated-these are competitive contracts in which bids are put in, a tenderer is selected and a contract is let-the Government would have maintained a fairly close eye on the renegotiation of those contracts. The answer from the Minister is as follows: Contracting parties commonly alter the basis of their relationship if agreement can be reached. From time to time my Department has re-negotiated provisions of contracts awarded under the Airports (Business Concessions) Act. Variations are only agreed to by the Department of Aviation where they are deemed to be in the best interests of the Commonwealth. Some of the areas in which variations to contracts have been made include the financial consideration payable, extent of goods and services offered, hours of operation, extent of leasehold improvements to be effected, pricing of goods and services and extension to the duration of contract itself. There is no record kept of the number of contracts re-negotiated. A government authority tells us that it lets and varies contracts but does not bother to keep a record of how many contracts it renegotiates. That is scandalous. If that were to occur in relationships in the private sector, if somebody were to allow contracts to be renegotiated and kept no records of those renegotiated contracts, people would claim that that was absolutely untenable and improper. Nevertheless, the Department of Aviation thinks that that is a perfectly valid way to conduct its business. The legislation says that the Federal Airports Corporation will be able to set up subsidiary companies to undertake business. We do not know whether it will be able to do so at some commercial advantage, backed by the Government, and whether it will be able to enter into and renegotiate contracts, and, presumably with the same sort of sloppy attitude currently held by the Department of Aviation when it cannot even tell the Parliament what contracts have been renegotiated, tell the Parliament that it does not even bother keeping records of how many contracts have been renegotiated. If, as Senator Archer says, an attempt is to be made to use the Federal Airports Corporation as a revenue raising instrument rather than as an instrument designed to improve the efficiency of airline operations, the Government ought to be able to address and answer those sorts of problems. The next matter put forward in the second reading speech is: We-the Government-believed that placing this responsibility with a largely independent statutory authority- I note the qualification `largely independent'- would offer significant advantages to the travelling public, taxpayers, the aviation industry, airport administrators. Within anything put out by the Minister no attempt has been made to demonstrate at any stage where the advantage to the travelling public, taxpayers, the aviation industry or airport administrators would accrue. One thing which reinforces our belief that this Bill is simply an attempt to get the Minister out from the hot seat is admitted in the Minister's second reading speech. He said: Additionally, Government in the past have unduly influenced the priorities for aviation infrastructure development for reasons unrelated to economics or efficiency. Indeed many of the decisions taken in the past have inhibited economy and efficiency in the industry. This legislation will go a long way towards rectifying these problems and will enable the Corporation to act more readily to meet the changing needs of the travelling public and the aviation industry. Are we supposed to believe that the Corporation will be in a position where the Minister can influence its decisions without taking the responsibility for influencing its decisions? Looking at clause 9 sub-clause (3), clause 10 sub-clause (1), clause 11 sub-clause (1), clauses 23, 27 and 34 and clause 35 we see a list of ministerial powers of direction. Let us consider in particular clauses 39 and 40. Clause 39 (1) states: The Corporation, when setting its financial targets to be included in a financial plan . . . shall consider the following matters: (a) objectives and policies of the Commonwealth Government known to the Corporation and any directions of the Minister. Clause 40 (1) states: Without limiting the generality of the Minister's powers under sub-section 41 (2), the Minister may direct the Corporation to vary financial targets of, and performance indicators adopted by, the Corporation. In other words, the Minister has the power to require the Corporation to fiddle the books in order to change the targets and the performance indicators to meet whatever specification the Minister happens to direct so that the results come out the way that the Minister wants. In the meantime, in setting those targets in the first place, the Corporation will have regard to the objectives of the Government which they know about-presumably that implies that there are objectives of the Government that they do not know about-or any directions of the Minister. Undoubtedly, when my colleague Senator Kilgariff participates in this debate he will have something to say about the sorts of decisions that were made about the Darwin Airport and my colleague Senator Watson will talk about aviation decisions-airport location decisions-made in Tasmania. The important thing is the implication that airport administration and airports exist solely for economic or efficiency purposes. One thing of critical importance in this country is the social value and the important sociological decisions made about the location of transport and transport centres. It is absolutely clear that the development of Australia as a nation has been largely predicated on a number of decisions made about the location of transport facilities, which were not justifiable on the grounds of economics or efficiency alone, but were justified on the grounds of national development and their social worth to particular communities in a country with as many difficulties and as much isolation of communities as we have. The admission by the Minister simply reinforces my fear that this legislation is an attempt to avoid the proper political responsibilities and decisions which governments ought to make by putting them into the hands of a corporation and saying `Of course, the Corporation will make these decisions' when in other areas of potential embarrassment to the Government the Minister will retain a power of direction and the Corporation will have to act in line with the Minister's directives. The Minister claimed in his second reading speech that this was being undertaken in line with international practice. I do not believe that to be true. I indicate to the Senate that a close study, for example, of the operation of airport authorities in Great Britain reveals that this is not the case. In a publication by Carsberg and Lumby entitled Privatising British Airports Authority-policies, prospects, procedures there is a lengthy discussion of the British Government's successful attempts to move the administration and control of British airports out of the hands of the British Airports Authority. I say quite clearly that I do not subscribe to all the fanciful claims about deregulation of the airline industry as they touch upon key areas of safety. I do not believe that there is any justification for them. Some recent experiences of aviation policies in the United States I believe are quite negative and need to be very closely examined. The actual administration of airport facilities is a different matter. The British Airport Authority is responsible, or was responsible, for the administration of Heathrow Airport, Gatwick Airport, Stansted Airport, Glasgow Airport, Edinburgh Airport, Prestwick Airport and the two airports at Aberdeen, the fixed-wing airport and the helicopter airport. The operations of the British Airport Authority have been moved progressively from the Airports Authority into the hands of private sector operators. The Minister formerly responsible for airline and airport matters in the British Government, Mr Iain Sproat, indicated: Our job as regulators and legislators is not to run an industry, nor to show how it should be run. Our job is to create the right climate for expansion and provide as many opportunities as we can for industry to flourish. The Government set the general objectives for the private operators-safety, security, capacity, efficiency and respect for the environment. The whole trend in both Britain and the United States of America has been for the administrative control of airports to pass out of the hands of governmental authorities and into the hands of private sector operators. Therefore, the Government is simply incorrect in claiming that what it is doing is in line with the general thrust of international practice. The report of the Civil Aviation Authority released in London in May 1984 entitled `Deregulation of air transport: A paper regarding the experience in the United States' and prepared by the economic regulation group of the Airline Economics Branch of the Civil Aviation Authority, is indicative of the overseas trends. I turn very briefly to the comments made by Senator Sanders. Senator Sanders said that basically he believed that quangos are all right, provided they are young quangos. Of course, the well-known dictum of Galbraith about the life cycle of regulatory bodies will undoubtedly apply to this body. It will not take very long for the Federal Airports Corporation to become simply an arm and an integral part of the industry that it is supposed to regulate or supervise. I want to nail Senator Sanders on a couple of matters, quite simply because I believe honourable senators on this side are getting a little fed up with the tedious misrepresentation that Senator Sanders seems to have as his stock-in-trade. Do honourable senators remember the famous Press release on which he could not find the date? He could not find the date on it because he could not turn over a page. That was the real difficulty-the sort of physical and intellectual difficulty he had in turning over a page in order to find the date on the thing. The second point is that the Press release was supposed to be a statement-Senator Archer challenged him on this-in which, Senator Sanders claimed, the Opposition stated that it wanted to privatise this operation. I will read the Press statement. It is headed `Federal Coalition to oppose Federal Airports Corporation Bill' and states: The Coalition Opposition Parties will oppose the Federal Government Bill to establish a statutory corporation to take over the management of seventeen of Australia's major airports from the Department of Aviation. The Coalition Parties believe that another ``Quango'' or statutory authority, subject to excessive Ministerial direction, is not the best way to achieve greater efficiency, and public accountability of aerodromes such as Mascot or Tullamarine. Airline industry representatives question the degree of autonomy the Corporation will be allowed. Its ability therefore, to operate the aerodromes on a stable commercial basis is in doubt. The Minister can alter the financial base of the authority, require government policy directives to be followed without compensation, and interfere with airport charges. There is concern that airport charges may have to be significantly increased to cover these Government directions, and this could lead to more expensive air travel. Unlike the British Airports Authority there are no efficiency performance standards. There is no requirement for ``common user'' terminals for a more deregulated domestic airline system, and there are no satisfactory provisions in relation to local government authorities adjacent to airports. The Opposition believes that there are too many statutory authorities, and that the better way to efficiently manage our major airports is to establish individual boards of management. This would create a body that is separately accountable and would allow more independent management decisions. That is dated 27 November 1985. Madam Acting Deputy President, you were paying very close attention to that as I was reading it and you undoubtedly would have noticed that the word `privatisation', or indeed any similar attempt to use the word `privatisation' or anything like it, does not occur in that Press statement. Yet we hear Senator Sanders braying away. But we expect that. Senator Sanders, in a most interesting article which he wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 January 1986 about the operation of the Senate, said that he believed that the Senate `would take its role seriously'. In the article he states: I might as well have stayed in Hobart. The Senate joyfully wallows in trivia like a hog in mud. Debate takes the form of personal vilification, and interjections have all the intellectual qualities of braying donkeys, thus completing the farmyard atmosphere. He has already given proof to his own words. With his personal vilification of Senator Archer and with his braying interjections, I suppose he at least has made some attempt to give substance to his claims. This is a wonderful article. You should read it, Madam Acting Deputy President. There is the story of how interested the Press was when his motorcycle was run over by a backing Pajero and everybody came out to photograph it and how significant it was. But, of course, he had nothing to do with it. This just happened to have taken place outside the window of my room. I well recall watching Senator Sanders, the crumpled motor-bike and the photographer. Senator Sanders was astride that motor-bike in more different positions than in the illustrated Kama Sutra. More positions were given to that motor-bike than one finds in an Australian Democrats' policy statement. I appear to be straying from the purposes of this legislation. I simply want to say that, in terms of Senator Sanders's contribution to the debate, his deliberate attempt to misrepresent what the Opposition has said about the Bill can be effectively demonstrated simply by a study of Mr Lloyd's Press release on the matter. I believe there are many opportunities for building on the developing success in financial and other aspects of the aviation industry in Australia. The September 1985 publication of the Department of Aviation entitled `Outlook for the Aviation Industry: An Information Paper' shows the growth which has taken place in airport operations. With the exception of the airports of Brisbane and Hobart, one sees that the relative balance between various commercial operations which are run at the airports does in fact give the opportunity for airports to be run on a fairly efficient and indeed commercially viable basis. But it is the belief of the Opposition that that will not be achieved within the structure proposed within the Federal Airports Corporation Bill. I conclude my remarks by saying once again that we are opposed to the creation of this new quango. We believe that it is an attempt to get the Minister out from under the necessity to make difficult and politically hazardous decisions from time to time. We do not believe that there has been any demonstration of the benefit that will flow to the airline industry or the travelling public, or indeed to revenue, by the establishment of this Corporation. We believe that there are significant unanswered questions, particularly about the financial undertakings of the corporation through its subsidiary companies. We do not believe that it is necessary for this legislation to be rushed through in the way proposed. We believe Senator Archer's proposal for some further investigation is warranted. For those reasons the Opposition will vote against the legislation. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(11.18) —I rise to support the Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1986 but not at the length that some of the former speakers have done. I will avoid that by not quoting great slabs of the second reading speech which both speakers from the Opposition seemed to think was fairly important. Like Senator Sanders, I have read the second reading speech and I know what is in it. I assume that other senators also know what is in it. The purpose of the Bill has been clearly outlined in that second reading speech and I just want to mention a couple of features which are relevant to the remarks I wish to make. Firstly, the Corporation's establishment will for the first time place Australian airports on a commercial basis. This is a step in the right direction and one which has been a concern of Estimates committees over the years. This concern is satisfied by the Federal Airports Corporation Bill. Associated with that is the fact that there will be a proper disclosure to the Minister for Aviation and the Parliament of the operating and financial performance of the Corporation. That is the sort of thing that we in the Senate have always asked for-that quangos, as they are called, must respond to and report to Parliament, through the Minister. The second point, which seems to be overlooked by members on the other side, is that the Corporation will be financially self-supporting and will operate with a great degree of flexibility and responsiveness. I notice that the latter was mentioned by one of the Opposition speakers, but in a critical sense of not wanting to have in it the sort of people who would perhaps enable the Corporation to act with a greater degree of flexibility and responsiveness. We ought to note that the Government's decision, as usual in these matters, has followed a study by a departmental task force over a period of some 18 months. It is not something that has been rushed forward. The Bill may have come into this place a little earlier than we had anticipated, but the proposition has been in front of us and has been discussed and debated for some time. I make the point again that, as usual with the Government, an extensive consultation process has been conducted throughout the Federal Airports Corporation study. We know, by reading the material given to us as background to the Bill, that several formal consultative arrangements were established to make sure that there was appropriate and proper consultation. We know that discussions were held with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the unions and the staff associations so that they could talk about the transfer to the Corporation-a most necessary step to make sure that the Bill is acceptable to the people who are most involved in the first instance; that is, the people who are working in the Department of Aviation at the moment and who may be working in the FAC if this Bill is successful. Most importantly, although this was rejected by one speaker on the other side, there have been discussions with the aviation industry and general community interest has been expressed through the Aviation Industry Advisory Council, the National Airports Consultative Council and the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council. I make the point that the Minister for Aviation has made in the other place, that the views expressed throughout these consultations have been most helpful to the Government in its deliberations on the matter. My concern in this matter, as in all other matters, is how the plan affects the Northern Territory. I notice that the State capitals plus one or two other cities are included in the initial stages of the Bill; in other words, Darwin is not included. There are two reasons for this. One is perhaps that it is a Territory capital rather than a State capital, and the other more important one is that the facility is shared between the RAAF and the civilian DOA. The RAAF move to Tindal will surely reduce some of the pressure on the Darwin Airport and when the total airport situation is looked at in three years, as is promised in the Minister's speech, some decision will be able to be made about whether Darwin ought to be included. I would think that at the time, depending on the decision made by the RAAF on what parts of the Darwin Airport it would like to retain, there will be the possibility that Darwin be included in the airports under the control of the Corporation. I make the point, then, that Darwin is the responsibility of the Federal Department for at least the next three years, as of course are Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Gove and Groote, although Tennant Creek has taken a most important step. We will all be aware of the aerodrome local ownership plan and I know that the Tennant Creek town council has been looking very closely at accepting responsibility for the Tennant Creek airport. It has entered into negotiations with the Department of Aviation to take over and control the airport. I commend it for that and I do hope that the Department will take on board the fact that the people of Tennant Creek are getting a little restive. The Department has yet to finalise certain investigations and make certain decisions, and I call on it now to see whether it can resolve the difficulties which appear to be facing it and get the ownership of Tennant Creek airport transferred as quickly as possible under the local ownership plan to the Tennant Creek council. I know that Alice Springs and Katherine will be looking carefully at developments. They will be looking at the experiment of Tennant Creek to see whether they might again consider the possibility of taking over their own airports. They have looked at it in the past but up until this stage have rejected it. I am sure that is because they are not certain how it will operate. So the Tennant Creek project will be an experiment at which the other two major towns will be looking. As I have indicated, the Darwin Airport is not included in the plan but I must take this opportunity to mention a couple of factors about the Darwin Airport that I have perhaps spoken about before. I trust that you, Madam Acting Deputy President, will not call me to order on this. I feel fairly confident because if Senator Puplick can get away with discussions on the Kama Sutra I should at least be able to get away with the Darwin Airport, which at least mentions the word `airport'. Senator Puplick —It is not as interesting as the Kama Sutra. Senator ROBERTSON —That may well be but my interest is much more in the Darwin Airport at this point of time. Senator Grimes —You are getting old. Senator ROBERTSON —Not that old; may-be less athletic. I refer honourable senators to speeches which I have made in this place and which my colleague Senator Kilgariff has also made, and will make again today, since 1976. It is no secret that the Darwin Airport needs upgrading. The airport itself is basically the same as the building I first went into in 1949. There have been superficial changes and it looks quite different but basically it is the same old building. I will not comment on which government has been in power for most of the 37 years since 1949 but I note that it was not a Labor government, and it seems to me that it is a Labor government that is trying to do something at present. Two aspects of the Darwin Airport need to be looked at-the runways and the terminal building itself. I will not dwell on the runways because they are quite clearly a matter for the engineering people but I am assured that investigations have been held and cost assessments have been made of the upgrading of the runways to the required standard. I know that the Minister himself is looking at the matter and I understand that he is going to go again to the Territory within the next few months once again to look at the airport and terminal and see what can be done. We all know the problem that the Minister faces; that is, the problem of financial constraints. The Government has undertaken a policy of fiscal responsibility and quite clearly we in Darwin cannot get the building that the people of the Territory had hoped for. We had hoped for something along the lines of the Townsville or Brisbane airports or some of those that have gone to our neighbours to the east. The Minister is aware of the problem, as I have indicated before. He has studied it and he has had his Department prepare for him several proposals that he is considering. I am confident that in the near future he will come up with a plan for the Darwin Airport. My confidence is reinforced by an extract from a letter which the Minister wrote to one of my colleagues. He said; The Government is aware of conditions in the existing passenger terminal and is committed to the provision of improved passenger facilities at Darwin Airport. My Department has now substantially completed a study of options for development to determine which most adequately meets the needs of Darwin Airport at minimum cost to the travelling public. Hence, the Government will soon be in a position to make a decision on future development at Darwin Airport. I make the point again with no apology that the Darwin Airport is extremely important to all of us in the Northern Territory. Tourism is vital to the Territory. Our economy there is becoming more and more dependent on tourism and, while one might criticise this development, it is a statement of fact and I do not intend to criticise it at this stage. The decision has been made by the Northern Territory Government, and that is the government elected to make this decision. If we are to have tourism as one of our major industries, we must have an appropriate terminal. I am heartened by the use of the same words in the Minister's letter-`an appropriate terminal'. We are the gateway to Asia. This has been said in this place many times and it is becoming more and more so. Quite clearly we must have a terminal, particularly an international terminal at the Darwin Airport which will not give the wrong impression to overseas visitors. Those of us who have been to Darwin in the last few years will know that overseas visitors coming in would wonder what sort of country they have come to when they are herded into the international section of the airport at Darwin. I would like to move again slightly outside the actual Bill to mention the Gove control tower. It is related to the whole development of the system in the Northern Territory. There has been some criticism of the Government because the recently completed Gove control tower has not been put into operation. It has not been commissioned and people have not been appointed there. I remind honourable senators that the decision to build the tower was taken in 1982-prior to the election of the present Labor Government. I simply say that the Labor Government continued with the plans laid down by its predecessors. Let me say in all fairness to those who recommended this decision in 1982 that it was based on the anticipated traffic which would flow through in the next few years. The decision not to open the tower at this time has been taken for three reasons. Firstly, the airlines have notified a reduced anticipated level of movement by their companies through Gove. They have indicated that, where they had asked for a certain number, they are now happy with a reduced number. Secondly, I am assured by the manager for South Australia and the Northern Territory and by the people working at the Gove Airport, with whom I have had discussions, that the present requests by the airlines can be handled by the current procedures. We do not need the tower operating to handle the sort of traffic that wants to pass through Gove at the present time. Let me make the point that, when we have tight fiscal control, we certainly do not want to appoint a lot of people to Gove Airport if they are not required simply to keep up some sort of image for the people who are asking: `Why is it not being used?'. The third reason why the tower has not been opened is that there are improved meteorological services available with the new station which was opened last month by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). So with the amount of extra meteorological material it is felt that the Gove Airport tower need not open. But let me make the point which the Minister made at the time, that is, that the opening of the tower will be looked at once again when the airlines indicate a need for an increase. When the airlines come to the Department and say `We anticipate that there will be a greater flow of through traffic', in the near future then it will be looked at again. At that stage there will be discussions not only with the companies concerned but also with the people in general aviation. I am obliged to Senator Sanders for raising the fact that the general aviation group, particularly in the Northern Territory, is a significant body. The majority of movement of people operating out of an area as isolated as Gove Airport quite clearly is general aviation. We must look to the general aviation people, particularly those who are flying their own planes out of their stations and from the missions, to get an indication of whether they want the tower opened. Finally, I would like to mention what has become known as the Dick Smith inquiry. I do not share Senator Sanders's view that the Department of Aviation is ossified. I believe that there are many dedicated officers within the Department and many are attempting to implement what up until now have been fairly stringent and sometimes complex rules. I remind Senator Sanders that, in the last few days, there has been a change of permanent head. No doubt, as always happens with the change of a permanent head, the new broom will make some changes which will perhaps reduce what Senator Sanders sees as the ossification of the service. The emphasis of the Department has always been on safety. I am not a pilot as some honourable senators are; I am just an ordinary member of the travelling public. While the emphasis is on safety I am quite happy about that. I am quite happy to put up with some inconvenience if I can go on board the aircraft and have reasonable confidence that I am going to get off at the other end. I remind those honourable senators who need reminding that the record of safety within Australia is commendable and one of which we need not be ashamed. I make the point also that, if problems are identified by the inquiry, I have no doubt that the recommendations which will come out of the report will be closely looked at by the Minister and by the relevant Caucus committee and recommendations will be made by the Minister for changes which will improve the quality of the service provided by DOA if this is necessary. I am particularly pleased to see the response from people all round Australia to this inquiry. I understand that over 4,000 submissions have been received. I know that quite a large number have come from the Northern Territory. I have read those and I am pleased to see that, while there is some criticism of the Department, there are a few bouquets as well as brickbats. I look forward to the public hearings which will arise out of the inquiry. After attending some of them I will look forward to reading the report. I commend the Bill to the Senate and I invite honourable senators to support what I regard as a most worthwhile piece of legislation. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.35) —The Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1986 which is before the Senate today seeks to establish yet another statutory authority. As has been said before, this statutory authority will manage 17 of the major airports in Australia. It is noted that they are the capital city airports of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Canberra. It is to be noted that Darwin is not included. Perhaps there is some reason for that but I will go into it later. There are the others at Launceston and Coolangatta and the general aviation airports at Bankstown, Essendon, Hoxton Park, Camden, Moorabbin, Archerfield, Jandakot, Cambridge and Parafield. There are other aerodromes in Australia which have a very considerable air movement, such as the one at Alice Springs where it is extremely high. One wonders too why Alice Springs, like Darwin, has been left out. The Opposition does not believe that the creation of yet another statutory authority will necessarily be beneficial to the aviation industry. It does not believe that the proposed Corporation will allow the level of freedom for the industry which was envisaged by the report of the Bosch Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery. Indeed, significant recommendations contained in the Bosch report appear to have been disregarded. The need for a thorough investigation of the entire aviation industry has been highlighted recently by Dick Smith in his publication Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom. People may agree with what Dick Smith has had to say or perhaps they do not, but the fact is that he recounts numerous examples of bureaucratic fetters on the industry. Dick Smith claims that the fetters that he has outlined do not impair Australia's air safety standard of which all Australians can be justly proud. Nevertheless, I think the point has been made. An inquiry is taking place and one would hope that something of importance and something concrete will come out of it. The Bosch report has said much regarding cost recovery. Indeed, cost recovery on aero- dromes in the aviation industry throughout Australia is now very considerable. The cost recovery that has taken place eventually comes back to the air traveller. It is the air traveller who pays in the long run for the cost recovery. I believe it is reasonable, while this is taking place, for the matter of the administration of the Department of Aviation also to be looked at to see whether it too can be made more efficient because surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander. While there is undoubtedly a need to review the management of some airports to free them of departmental restrictions, it is the Opposition's view that the legislation requires further consideration. Referring the legislation to a Senate committee may be of some assistance in dealing with more contentious sections of the Bill. I think it would also enable people from outside the Parliament to put their viewpoint. While the Opposition is opposed to the Bill for the reasons I have outlined I must express my personal reservations concerning the Federal Government's management of the two major airports in the Northern Territory at Alice Springs and Darwin. Senator Robertson, who spoke before me, mentioned this matter but, of course, there are various sides to it. In the three years since the Australian Labor Party has been in government these two airports have been left to stagnate. It is quite correct to say that, as far as Darwin is concerned, that matter was investigated many years ago. The Public Works Committee considered the matter and made recommendations, which I will refer to later, but still nothing has happened. I think it is fair to say that the Federal Government has shown little interest in proceeding with upgrading the airports in spite of the clear and urgent need for improved facilities at both terminals. The saga of the redevelopment of Darwin Airport goes on while we await the outcome of the reappraisal of the project. Criticism of the reappraisal is that it is taking so long when initially it was the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) himself who said that the reappraisal would take some six months. In fact, one wonders why a reappraisal was considered necessary in the first place. I believe that is difficult to fathom. Anyone who has ever passed through Darwin Airport terminal will be aware of the appalling state of the facilities there. The terminal is, as Senator Robertson said, an old World War II hangar, with no air-conditioning, totally inadequate baggage collection facilities and equally inadequate customs facilities. This results in lengthy delays to those returning from overseas. It is a most incredible place. The roof of this old hangar still shows the scars of its having been bombed and shot up in World War II. Businessmen coming from overseas from Singapore and arriving at Darwin must wonder what is happening when they see such dreadful conditions. What a poor welcome to these visitors who are so essential to our tourist industry. The Public Works Committee had no doubts about the need for redevelopment of Darwin Airport. It concluded: (a) Facilities at Darwin Airport for international passengers and aircraft are grossly inefficient and measures designed to rectify the situation should be implemented. (b) The staged northern development option for the development of facilities at Darwin International Airport has operational and cost advantages over other options examined and is supported. (c) The Committee is satisfied that the factors which contributed to the design of the proposed new terminal and associated aprons and taxiways at Darwin International Airport were rigorously examined by Commonwealth Departments and reflect realistic forecasts and spatial requirements. The Public Works Committee-a joint parliamentary body-went on to make other recommendations relating to the upgrading, but it is clear from the three statements I have listed that the Committee recognised the need for the upgrading and found the proposals to be realistic. Yet despite all this, the Federal Government took the decision to abandon the improvements which were well under way by early last year. Perhaps it flowed from the cost of the project. Nevertheless, that decision was taken, despite the fact that the Federal Government had already spent some $12m to $15m on the project. In pulling out in this way the Federal Government caused considerable disruption to the industries and businesses in the Territory which had been involved in the redevelopment and had geared their operations to take account of the redevelopment project. Indeed, some operators wrote to me expressing their concern at the cancellation of the project, because they had refused other offers of work on other projects on the basis of their commitment to the airport project-only to find that, out of the blue, their contracts had been cancelled at, I understand, some considerable loss. So far as I am aware, Darwin is the only capital city where the airport has not recently undergone or is not presently undergoing some form of major redevelopment. That may not be entirely accurate because I note that Canberra, too, has some problems. But I am not aware of any other redevelopment project which has been ditched in the same way as has the Darwin Airport project. Many statements have been made about the Darwin Airport, and I do not believe that the situation at the airport can wait another three years for us to see what will happen. It is true-and perhaps this is the reason why it has not been included as one of those capital city airports coming under the proposed Federal Airports Corporation-that perhaps one reason, which has been stated, for the present state of affairs is that Darwin Airport is a defence airport. The land comprising the airport, which is very extensive when one considers the presence of defence aircraft, commercial aircraft and the general aviation section, covers a vast area, but it is all owned by the Department of Defence. It seems to me that there is a simple answer. I am sure that everyone agrees that the commercial operation of aviation in the northern area will remain at Darwin Airport and that Tindal at Katherine when work is completed will take some of the aircraft. The Mirage squadron from Butterworth is there now and when replaced by the FA18 aircraft will have its permanent home at Tindal. Therefore, quite a lot of these activities will be transferred-not all but a good deal of Royal Australian Air Force activity will go from Darwin to the Tindal air base, a very commendable project. At the same time there will still be a defence area within Darwin Airport, there will be a transport area which will involve many aircraft that come through Darwin from overseas, and there will always be a RAAF presence in Darwin. It seems to me that if the Authority intends Darwin Airport to remain the property of the Department of Defence-and I do not have much quarrel with that-I suggest that in order to remedy the situation and to overcome the problem an area should be excised out of the defence area for the commercial operation of Darwin Airport. I believe that this would be a very sane way of curing the problem and getting on with the job. Darwin is the front door of Australia through which many overseas visitors gain their first impressions of Australia. The Territory Government and private investors in the Territory are doing their best to build world class facilities to attract vistors from overseas. It is interesting to note that the number of visitors coming through Darwin and Alice Springs into Australia is growing quite rapidly. In 1984-85 a total of 53,000 overseas visitors and 311,000 interstate visitors came to the Northern Territory. Some 155,460 of these visitors came to the territory by air. This does not include use of the airport by Territory residents, which of course would swell and perhaps triple that number. The point is that with the existence of the national parks of Kakadu and Uluru - Kakadu in Arnhem Land and Uluru at Ayers Rock - the number of visitors is greatly increasing. For instance, in 1984-85 Uluru had 110,162 visitors and the number of visitors to Kakadu came close to that figure. I seek to emphasise that the swell in the number of tourists coming through Darwin and Alice Springs points to the necessity for urgent action at these two airports. It is the aim of the tourist industry in the Northern Territory as assisted by the Territory Government to continue to attract visitors to the Northern Territory. I believe that a realistic promotion is now progressing directed at attracting one million visitors to the Northern Territory by 1994. This is reasonable for the tourist industry in light of the international facilities that are now being built in Darwin and Alice Springs, but investors must have some qualms, not as to the ability to bring visitors to these two areas but because of the fact that to an extent investors have been sold down the drain. When the plans were being made to invest many millions of dollars in the tourist industry-in international facilities, hotels and what have you-investors thought that the international airport was really going to come about. As I have said previously, when international visitors see the incredible situation that exists now and pass through the old hangar they must wonder where on earth they have arrived. It is a very poor situation. The Territory is already building up its world standard accommodation facilities with the construction of the Yulara complex, the Sheraton Hotels in Alice Springs and Darwin and other international facilities. The feasibility studies for all these projects were conducted by well regarded professional accounting firms. The consultants' studies and the Territory Government's decision to act were based on some fundamental premises which included the prompt upgrading of the Darwin Airport facilities to facilitate the direct flow of international tourists to the Territory in accordance with the recommendations of the Commonwealth Parliament's Public Works Committee and the Commonwealth upgrading of the Alice Springs Airport and its terminal to cater more adequately for increasing domestic traffic and wide-bodied aircraft. On both accounts the Federal Government is letting the Territory down and, in doing so, jeopardises the Territory's prospects of improving its tourism industry. Improving its tourism industry increases the Territory's revenue, which makes it more able to stand on its own feet. I believe that Darwin Airport and Alice Springs Airport could be run by a company, although not necessarily a corporation, as has been envisaged for airports at other capital cities in Australia. To get these projects moving and on the road, which is most essential, a company could be formed, perhaps along the lines of Cairns International Airport, that would at least manage and operate the facilities. It could be a shared responsibility between the Federal Government, the Northern Territory Government and private enterprise. The Alice Springs Airport is in a most dreadful situation. At times five jets are crowded on the tarmac. I commend the Department of Aviation for having put up security fences. Having so many jets crowded in such a small area makes the airport prone to accidents. There is only one airstrip to take wide-bodied aircraft. The strip is quite insufficient. It is also quite inefficient for use by the Department of Defence. One must be very concerned when one sees the movement of defence aircraft, such as Mirages, across the country arriving in a place such as Alice Springs with their fuel practically extended and with only a few minutes to land. The result is that they come in, one after another, as one can see them do, at a tremendous pace and all land on the one strip, gathering at one end of the aero- drome. That, too, is very conducive to a major accident. So the Alice Springs Airport must be upgraded for defence and developmental reasons. I believe that there have been some discussions among the Aviation Department, Federal authorities, the Northern Territory Government and the Alice Springs City Council regarding the upgrading of the Airport. There is really no argument. All parties are willing to accept responsibility and a type of local ownership. Local ownership in this regard should be in the form of a company that could manage both airports. Senator Robertson spoke about the aerodrome local ownership plans in the Northern Territory. He mentioned Tennant Creek. Tennant Creek is a small town some 300 miles north of Alice Springs. It has struggled to bring about a reasonable existence from the many years of mining, from tourism, abattoirs and such. The town has applied for local ownership of the airport. The Tennant Creek Town Council received a letter from the Minister dated 7 February. The letter says: The Department is continuing to maintain the airport with all repairs where possible taking place when no flights are scheduled in or out with minimal disruption. There are considerable problems with the tarmac and the surface of the strips at Tennant Creek. The letter continued that an agreement in principle to the Tennant Creek Town Council taking over ownership was reached on 14 May 1985 and that, following consultations with the aviation industry, a study is now being conducted. The letter states that the Minister for Transport expects to make his decision at the end of March, that an engineering survey is now being conducted and that the consultants think there is a good chance that Tennant Creek Council will get ownership. It also states that the airport is at the moment operational as there has been no rain for several weeks. It is quite common in Tennant Creek for there to be no rain for several weeks. When there is rain, the airport is in a very dire condition. I hope that Alice Springs Airport and Darwin Airport receive immediate attention. It is no good for the Minister to go on saying that he will give his advice in six months. I think it has been some nine to 12 months since he said that. It is no good his saying that there will be a survey and that he will watch the situation for three years. As he has the Federal responsibility for these places in the Northern Territory, the time has come for him to meet his responsibilities. In closing, I reiterate the coalition's present election policy on the management of major airports: We will ensure that all major airports seek to recover their cost from operational income and, whenever possible, derive a profit for future works programs. We will set up management boards for each major airport. These boards will have wide powers of management and will be instructed whenever possible, to operate on commercial principles. Their membership will include business leaders and other qualified persons. These boards, subject to Commonwealth Government approval, will have the power to borrow on the commercial markets for the purposes of financing airport works. The Opposition believes that this policy of separately and-I stress this-accountable airports is superior, therefore, the Opposition opposes this Bill. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.59) —The Opposition opposes the Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1986 which seeks to establish a Commonwealth statutory authority to maintain and operate selected aerodromes and associated facilities. The airports are the capital city airports together with a number of other nominated airports. Two of those airports are in my State of Tasmania. I have particular concerns in that State. I note that during much of the debate my colleague on the opposite benches, Senator Grimes, has been reading a copy of the Examiner the headline of which reads `Airports in Crisis'. No doubt he feels somewhat embarrassed not only by that headline, but also by his Government's lack of concern for the needs of the northern Tasmanian community. We believe that we have been shortchanged by this Federal Labor Government. We note from the record that it put forward a program for cutbacks in meteorological services which affected the area. Proposals were made for cutbacks in night fire fighting services. I note from the Examiner that Ansett Airlines of Australia, the largest air freight operator out of Launceston Airport, which is one of the major air freight airports in Australia, has announced that it has written Launceston out of consideration as a base for a possible international freight service from Tasmania because airport facilities cannot handle the type of aircraft that would be needed to operate this type of service. So we have certainly been shortchanged. Much of the economy of the northern Tasmanian community depends on the continued expansion of this most important infrastructure in our area. While this legislation is full of platitudes and generalities, it is very short on specifics. Mention is made in the second reading speech of the need for the appropriate gearing ratio, which obviously depends on matters such as the value of assets being vested in the Federal Airports Corporation, its future investment programs, the levels of working capital required and the level of financial flexibility necessary for proper management. It has been suggested by a colleague in the other place-the honourable member for Bass, Warwick Smith-that this matter should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. The very vagueness of these proposals leaves much in question. I support that suggestion. One of the problems of this legislation is its vagueness; it is not very satisfactory. We are not told the value of the assets that will be acquired. We do not know whether it will be their written down value, their replacement value or their current cost. I think this information is very necessary. It is also necessary for the community to be aware of the values because how can any community make an assessment if it does not have any forward projections from the Government of what is planned for a particular airport or what it is prepared to meet by way of cost so far as immediate capital expenditure requirements are concerned? Senator Grimes has said that Launceston activists made the wrong decision in resisting local ownership and that they would now have to live with it. We will have to live with it: Those are true words. However, the activists were not given enough information on which to make their decision. They were not given the future plans, they were not told of the costs or what the Government was prepared to do. Senator Grimes —Rubbish! Senator WATSON —It is all very well to say `rubbish'. I challenge Senator Grimes to outline those proposals in his speech when he follows me in a few minutes. I would also like him to state categorically whether the excellent garden and parkland facilities which surround the Launceston Airport and which make it such a beautiful airport will be downgraded. Some of his colleagues-former Senator Hearn and others-and I have had to fight for the retention of these sorts of facilities. With the emphasis on cost recovery, et cetera, this will be the first area which will be pruned. The gardeners will be sacked and the facilities will be downgraded. I challenge Senator Grimes to make a statement in the Senate to the northern Tasmanian community that these facilities will be maintained at the highest possible level. It is all very well for airport authorities to say that these matters have to take second place to airport safety. This excuse is always used. It is very convenient, when transferring an organisation from ministerial responsibility to a statutory corporation, to transfer its responsibility. It has been argued by my colleague Senator Puplick that this is merely a vehicle or a mechanism to let the Government off the hook from making difficult or contentious decisions. I am concerned about the lack of financial information and financial standards that will be required. The second reading speech states: In setting the capital structure for the Corporation, particular attention will be given to the balance to be struck between the long term viability and needs for future investment of the Corporation, and the reasonable expectation of the Government for a proper return on the substantial public investment in airports. What sort of return is appropriate? Is the written down value of assets appropriate? One might take over an old airport which has rundown facilities and is of very low value but which has a fairly high throughput of passengers. In that case it would be very easy to make a profit compared with a modern airport which has updated facilities and high costs. We need an answer on whether there will be cross-subsidisation between airports when this authority is established. I am concerned about the ability of the Corporation to establish subsidiary corporations because there has been a very sad history, as the Senate has found out, of government statutory corporations establishing subsidiary companies. We need to know whether the same fiduciary relationships will be a necessary requirement of subsidiary companies as they are a requirement for the holding company. Therefore there needs to be some indication from government as to the sorts of values that will be put on the books and the values at which the assets will be acquired. For example, will the Government make a profit on transferred assets? I think we need to know the answer to that question. We should establish within the legislation certain limits on borrowing and the links between short and long term debt. Debt equity ratios can be established. I know it is difficult to foresee all the costs of the assets that will be acquired in any particular period but we could establish certain accounting links or debt equity ratios within the legislation which would certainly make it a much better piece of legislation. The Government says that the Corporation will be required to forward to the Minister for Aviation each year a three-year forward program, including a budget for the following year and details of corporate plans. I presume, therefore, that all the airports will be taken over immediately the legislation comes into effect. If not, there certainly will be difficulties in meeting this requirement. How do we know the costs and values of the assets that will be taken over if their acquisition takes place over a prolonged period? Although there are requirements for the disclosure of results and the publication of indicators, there will be problems because I can see the need for a certain amount of cross-subsidisation, particularly at certain stages of the development of airports. If we require each airport each year to make a profit or a reasonable return, there could be difficulties. There is also the possibility in establishing a statutory government operation that it could be starved of funds. We have seen how governments have virtually drained funds out of such organisations to the point that they make them bankrupt. In subsequent years governments have had to pour enormous amounts of money into those organisations to make them viable again. It could be that certain airports will suffer disastrously as a result of this measure. Although the Government says that there is a need to establish a statutory corporation in order to meet the requirements of a dynamic market, it also says that it is not being critical of the Department of Aviation. Surely there is an inherent criticism. Certainly employees are concerned about transferring superannuation benefits. I ask: Why not change the administrative processes for the whole of government operations or the Public Service if it is acknowledged that they are so inefficient and do not meet the requirements of a dynamic market? In other words, there is a recognition that the Public Service has to be inefficient and that it does not have to meet a dynamic market. But the Government is saying in this particular case: `We will isolate this particular segment of government activity, that of aviation, to meet a dynamic market'. I believe that there is a certain inconsistency in this sort of thinking. We do have a number of concerns. I believe that we are entitled to a study, particularly in Launceston, funded by the Government, which would indicate the extent of the necessary upgrading prior to bringing the airport into incorporation, to determine the sorts of costs people would be prepared to meet if we go into local ownership. There is also need for a provision-something lacking in the legislation-allowing a community to say to the Corporation: `We are not satisfied; we now want to go under local ownership'. There must also be certain terms and conditions of transfer as regards the value at which assets would be set if such an arrangement were to take place. This is certainly a shortcoming, because if we are concerned about serving the interests of the community, the community must have some rights. If it decides that it has been shortchanged, there should be the opportunity to come back. The Government must show where there are demonstrable inefficiencies and excessive costs in the present system. The Government's first duty is to do that and to reduce those costs rather than to use this excuse of a new corporation under which it can hide its responsibilities. The Bill is unnecessary. It will not necessarily be in the best interests of the community in which I live. I ask the Minister to answer the allegations I have made and to give assurances to the northern Tasmanian community. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.12) —in reply-I rise to close this debate and, in the traditional way, I thank honourable senators for their contributions, although I must say that in a couple of cases I do not think that thanks is very much justified. I take up two points that were raised by Senator Puplick because I just want to set the record straight. He castigated the Government for rushing this legislation through the Parliament and for not giving them time to have a look at it. I remind Senator Puplick that this legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives on 13 November 1985, at which time it was given to the Opposition so that the Opposition would have time to study it. It is now into February. If Opposition senators are going to take this amount of time to study a bit of legislation of this type, I take up Senator Sanders's point and say that they should not be here. The reason the legislation is on the list today is that I put it there. The reason I put it on the list today is that we have a piece of legislation ready for debate dealing with human rights, on which I think about 33 Opposition senators want to talk endlessly. We are obviously in for a few solid days of righteous indignation and all the other emotions that are expressed so well by Opposition senators. I thought that it was fairly sensible to get this important bit of legislation through at the time. Then, in an enormous step, Senator Puplick castigated the Government for being dilatory about the siting of the second Sydney airport. I remind honourable senators that the Government which Senator Puplick supported dilly-dallied on Sydney airport for about 15 years and refused to make a decision because it was too hard. Now Senator Puplick has the cheek to castigate this Government for not announcing a decision when, in about three weeks' time, we will have been in government for only three years. This legislation is part of the Government's strategy to improve the efficiency of the aviation industry and to improve the level of service to the consumers and to those who use our airports. I think that Senator Sanders and those who have actually read the legislation and talked to the Minister about it agree that this is right. We believe, and apparently some Opposition senators believe, that this would be better done through something other than the present administration by the Department of Aviation. There seems to be not much argument about that. But there seems to be considerable opposition to the establishment of an airports corporation of this type, although we hear precious little from Opposition senators about what they would do-except for Senator Kilgariff, who said that apparently the Opposition would set up management committees all over the country to look after the airports. We believe that the commercial operation of airports would in fact be better managed by a commercial business enterprise, which would have greater flexibility and greater responsiveness. Part of that flexibility and responsiveness will be given to the Federal Airports Corporation by virtue of the fact that it will not be bound by Public Service restrictions and regulations, or by government departments in its capital works. We thought that this would have been welcomed by these pillars of flexibility, private enterprise and free enterprise opposite. But no, this is all criticised, too. The Government has undertaken two reviews of the airline industry. We are currently reviewing the two airline agreement. We have made changes to Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd, which have resulted in their making a profit for the first time this year. But still, none of this satisfies the people opposite. They want to oppose for the sake of opposing. They want to oppose any sort of change of this type because, first of all, they did not do anything themselves and, secondly, because they cannot think of anything better. We have had a fair bit of parochialism in this debate and I crave the indulgence of the Senate to join in, because I come from a town where, as Senator Watson pointed out, some of that parochialism has been going on. I am very happy to take part in it because I think that nowhere else in Australia gives a better example of how stuffy, conservative people who are afraid of change, who are willing to be manipulated by conservative politicians, can lead to a situation where the whole system is paralysed and where no change occurs because of nonsense and fear tactics. The motto of the city of Launceston is `Progress with Prudence'. I do not know who Prudence was, but the way these people go on-they are represented in the Senate and in the galleries here today-would have caused my Irish ancestors to say it was something like `progress with paralysis'. If we compare Launceston with the city of Devonport just down the road, or the city of Cairns way up in North Queensland, we can demonstrate what happens when people like this get into the development of facilities of this type. The Fraser Government said to the denizens of Launceston and other places-- Senator Sanders —Denizens? Senator GRIMES —Yes; I think a denizen is a monster, a dark dwelling person or something. Senator Sanders —Someone who lives in a dark wood. Senator GRIMES —Yes. The Fraser Government said to them `Look, we have a local ownership scheme in this country. Will you have a look at it? Will you see how this might affect your city?', knowing quite well that we have one of the only airports in Australia that pays its way. They said no; and their local member, Mr Newman, who was a Minister, said no. He set up a local airports action committee, which said no. He put the new member for Bass, Mr Smith, on it, and he said no. They came around to me, as their local senator, and I said: `What do you want?'. They said: `What we want is Launceston Airport upgraded to 747 aircraft standard'. I said: `Good heavens, that costs about $35m; why do you want to do that?' They said: `So that we can fly fat lamb carcasses to Singapore'. I said: `How many times a year?' They said: `About twice a year'. They were willing to spend $35m to upgrade this airport to 747 standard to send two 747s full of lamb carcasses to Singapore once a year. Even they could see that that was ridiculous, so they went back to Mr Newman and to the gurus back there and said `Grimes says that that is a bit rich, that it costs about $35m. The other thing that Senator Grimes said was, ``Will you look seriously at the possibility of local ownership?'' '. They said no. Here is a dreadful socialist such as me, supposed to be a centralist, saying: `For God's sake look at looking after your own airport and developing your own airport'. But they say `No, no, that is a Federal Government responsibility; we want the Federal Government to do that'. On the north west coast of Tasmania there are two airports-Devonport and Wynyard. The Fraser Government said: `Will you look at local ownership?' The people of Wynyard-and here I am going to apologise to Senator Archer-have told me, and I have no doubt that it is true, that they went to their local member, Mr Groom, who was also before that a Minister in the Fraser Government, and asked him: `What do you think?' He said: `Do not touch it; do not have a bar of it. It is a plot by Fraser to off-load all of the expenditure.' I accused Senator Archer once of saying that. I was wrong. He actually encouraged them. However, the people of Wynyard said: `No, Mr Groom tells us we do not want local ownership'. However, the people of Devonport, closer to Launceston, with an old Quonset hut as an airport building, said: `Yes, we will give it a go; we will develop our airport.' What has happened is that they have a beautiful new terminal. If I do a decent day's work in Sydney the best way for me to get to Launceston is to get an East-West Airlines flight at 6.40 at night from Sydney, fly to Devonport and then drive to Launceston. The people of Devonport had the sense to look at the situation, look at the possibilities, look at the facts they were given, as the people of Launceston were given and to develop their airport. All the time back in Launceston, Mr Smith, Senator Watson and Mr Newman were saying: `No, we do not want a bar of local ownership. It is a socialist plot by Grimes. We do not want a bar of local ownership.' Senator Watson —Is East-West able to fly out of Launceston? East-West cannot fly out of Launceston. Senator GRIMES —Senator Watson says that East-West wants to fly to Launceston from Sydney and they could do that but this Government will not let them. The facts are that East-West has to have a licence to fly from Sydney to Launceston if it is a trunk route. Under the two-airlines agreement, put into legislation by the Government that Senator Watson supported, it cannot fly into Launceston. It will not be able to until we can do something about that two-airline agreement which his Government put into legislation. It would be a breach of contract and Senator Watson knows it. Senator Watson has the gall to get up and say in Launceston: `Those nasty socialists will not let East-West Airlines fly into Launceston'. It is a travesty of what is possible to see what has happened in Launceston. I am reported in the newspapers today as having said so and I say so again. Senator Watson, Mr Smith and Mr Newman have repeatedly and consistently opposed local ownership and local control of the Launceston Airport. They have come out and said so over and over again. When we set up the Corporation they came out and said: `But we might want local ownership. We want you now to fund an inquiry to see whether we should have local ownership.' They were adamantly opposed to local ownership. They have consistently opposed local ownership. The present member, Mr Smith, has come out and said: `Do not have a bar of local ownership. It is a plot by the Federal Government.' Now they see what has happened at Devonport. I ask Senator Watson to go and see what has happened in Cairns where the people were given the same facts as the people of Launceston. What happens? They say: `Oh, we might have made a mistake'. All I can say is this: They have made a mistake and, as I said in the paper, they will have to live with it. The other reason I think they will have to live with it is that I have changed my mind, I think, because who would want a lot of troglodytes, denizens, if you like, people of this type, running the local airport? One would not want them running the local airport. If they were a bit forward thinking like the people of Devonport or Cairns, fair enough. Senator Archer —Or Wynyard. Senator GRIMES —Or Wynyard, for that matter. The trouble is that the people of Wynyard were conned by their previous member too. But no, they did not do it and now they bleat. But they do worse than that-- Senator Watson —You have changed the ground rules. That is the difference. Senator GRIMES —We did not change any ground rules and Senator Watson knows it. He knows we did not change any ground rules. But they do worse than that; they get up and they go on with the nonsense they went on with in the Launceston Examiner yesterday. They put the fear of God into people using Launceston Airport. As it happens, Launceston Airport is a very efficient, very effective and very safe airport. If one goes on the way Newman has been going on-at least when he is doing that he is not using the Freedom of Information Act to try to find out about the private lives of members of Parliament, but it is not much better-and misleads the people of Launceston, we will get people saying: `Maybe I will not fly into Launceston. People like Watson and Newman and Smith are saying that this is an unsafe airport.' It is not an unsafe airport; it is an efficient and effective airport and under the operational regulations that are applied now it is more than adequate for the traffic that goes in and out of it now. Now we come to what happened yesterday. What happened yesterday is that Ansett Airlines of Australia, and Mr Newman, said that it would not put its international freight operations into Launceston because it could not fly 707s in there. Ansett has never made a request to the Department of Aviation or to the Government about a 707 airport in Launceston. What it is really about is its desire to extend its freight terminal, against the plans that have been put forward by this Government and the previous Government for the development of Launceston Airport. Ansett wants to extend its freight terminal in such a way that it would impede the future development of that airport for passengers and for other purposes. It is not willing to discuss it. It is not willing to enter into negotiations about it. It just says: `This is what we want to do and we will do it. If the Government won't agree, we will go to Mr Newman as we know he will kick up a fuss. We will go to Senator Watson and Mr Smith because we know they will kick up a fuss.' Senator Sanders has said in the past that what has happened with airports in this country, and particularly in Tasmania, is that they have become cargo cult things. If one puts up a big enough runway-or in Senator Kilgariff's case, if one puts up two or three runways-one will suddenly, like a magnet, attract planes from all over the world which will bring in millions of people. I remember when I was on the Senate Select Committee on Passenger Fares and Services to and from Tasmania with Senator Peter Rae, who incidentally was also in favour of local ownership, that we took evidence in the north west coast of Tasmania. The people wanted two 747s a day from Melbourne, which would have emptied the whole population of Tasmania in a couple of weeks. That sort of exaggerated nonsense goes on. Senator Archer —I do not think that is correct. Senator GRIMES —It was an exaggeration or hyperbole. I accept that, Senator Archer. What this is all about, unfortunately, is local bloody- minded conservative politicians who opposed for the sake of opposition. Now, the situation having got to the stage where they were demonstrably wrong and when they were made to look fools by the people of Devonport, they say: `We were wrong. Please, will the Government let us off the hook? Please, will you run a big inquiry to see if we were right or to see if we were wrong?' One just cannot play the game that way. Senator Watson had the cheek to get up here in Parliament today and say that the deficiency in this legislation is that it does not give the local people enough say and that the locals should have a say. For the last four or five years we have been battling in Launceston to give the local people a say and it is his ilk who have been saying: No, it is Federal policy.' There is nothing in this legislation which stops local people from having a say. In fact, the necessity for the Corporation to report on an airport by airport basis, the necessity for it to report on all its activities and the necessity for it to demonstrate how efficient and effective it has been will mean that Senator Watson, all the citizens of Launceston and I can get up and say: `We are not getting a fair go; you are not doing the right thing.' But, for heaven's sake, he came in here, when we are talking about efficient airports, effective airports and economic airports, and wanted an assurance from me that the Airports Corporation will not do anything to the gardens outside Launceston Airport. As if the most important things in Launceston are the blooming rhododendrons and camellias outside the airport! I love the gardens. I think they are terrific. I think it was tremendous that we had a Minister for Aviation from Launceston. That is why we got our huge airport terminal and that is why we got our gardens. The wife of the Minister developed the gardens. She designed and developed them and she did a terrific job. In a quarter of an hour speech the most serious point Senator Watson could bring up today is that he wants a guarantee from the Minister representing the Minister in another place that-I think these were his words-no one will prune the gardens outside the Launceston Airport terminal. This is absolutely typical of the nonsense that has gone on. We have had an example today of Senator Archer asking a whole series of questions: `Why is it? What does that mean?' All the answers are in the second reading speech. I do not have to answer them because Senator Sanders answered them. I thank him. He has spared the Senate from listening to me for 10 minutes. All the answers are there but quite clearly the honourable senator has not read or considered the legislation. Senator Puplick talked about the delay in the legislation and delays in decisions relating to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. That is incredible coming from those opposite who spent as long as they did deciding where Sydney Airport should be. He did not have much to say. I enjoyed the contributions of Senator Robertson and Senator Kilgariff about airports in the Northern Territory. I am not an expert on them but, having arrived at Darwin at 4 a.m., I appreciate what an apalling terminal that is. Only one terminal used to be worse, and that was at Devonport. Local ownership fixed that problem. The residents now have a decent airport. I hope that the people of Darwin get the airport that they deserve. The people at Devonport did. I sometimes think that the people of Launceston got more than they deserved. I will raise the matters mentioned with the Minister because I have no detailed knowledge of them. I urge honourable senators to take this legislation more seriously than they have. We want to set up a corporation which will own, develop and operate airports efficiently and cost effectively but will, of course, operate them within the overriding requirements of safety and security decided by the Government and the Department of Aviation. The Corporation will operate these airports in the capital cities and it will include in its operation a couple of general airports, Coolangatta and Launceston. The objectives of the authority will be spelt out in the National Airport Authority's proposal in appendix B, page B1. I will not read them out. If those opposite cannot see in that clear objectives and what the Government wants to do, I doubt their capacity to read. We have demonstrated, in dealing with other statutory corporations, that we want to see them run efficiently and effectively and provide the service that they should. We went to an election with this as a policy. I believe that there is a general acceptance in the industry and outside it that this is an effective way to proceed. I can understand people with little, parochial views, with nothing much to contribute to the world, making a big noise about this matter in their little backyards. But I do not think that it impresses anyone outside those backyards. I hope that those people in Launceston who have been carrying on now realise what a disservice they have done to that community in the past. Senator Watson —Is that an acknowledgment that we are not going to do well under this Corporation? Senator GRIMES —I know that the honourable senator is sharp and that he will interrupt with such incisive comments, but he should wait until I am finished. I am as absolutely confident as anyone that the Airports Corporation will look at the airports individually and as a whole and will ensure that they are run economically and effectively, and that the runway at Launceston Airport will be upgraded, as is needed, to cope with increasing traffic and the changes with which it has not been possible to cope in the past. I have made no bones about preferring local ownership but I am sure that the Minister has done the right thing. I have had long talks with him about Launceston because a few individuals on its action committee, local politicians and members of the chamber of commerce were trying to screw successive government over and again regardless of needs and economies. If the airport had been taken over by local ownership in the way it was then operating it would have operated inefficiently. That group would have been a bit like Oliver Twist asking for more and more and not accepting responsibility in the way that the people of Devonport and Cairns have. That is a great pity. Perhaps some time in the future when we have less conservative people in this place, when Senator Watson and I have gone and when a new generation of people are here who can think better we can have another change. As Senator Sanders said quangos probably should not last forever. They are much better when they are younger than when they are older. Perhaps we could look at this matter again in five or 10 years. Something had to be done nationally. That is why we have this legislation. In Launceston something had to be done locally because the people there could not think beyond their backyards. I thank Senator Sanders and others who support the legislation. It is a pity that the Opposition Liberal and National parties do not support the legislation. I would like to have been enlightened as to why they oppose it. I suppose it is the old matter of opposition for opposition's sake. I thank honourable senators for their contributions. I hope that we can get the legislation through quickly. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, 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. 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. WForeman, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Georges, G. 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 Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John 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 Vanstone, A.E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Coleman, R. N. Chaney, F. M. Morris, J. Townley, M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Referral to Standing Committee Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.44) —In accordance with standing order 196a, I move: That the Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1986 be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for inquiry and report. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.45) —The Government opposes such a proposition. Question put: That the motion (Senator Archer's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— 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. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John 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. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, 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. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Siddons, J. R. Gietzelt, G. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Chaney, F. M. Coleman, R. N. Lewis, A. W. R. Morris, J. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate interrupted. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(12.51) —Yesterday I asked a question that I regarded as quite serious regarding the situation of New Zealanders coming to this country, and the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who replied, tried to make a joke of the issue. I assure him and the Senate that a great many people are quite worried about the present open-door policy of immigration that we have with regard to people coming to Australia from New Zealand. Primarily, of course, people are worried about the cost of supporting those New Zealanders who are out of work-and in a moment I will give some figures on just what percentage of them are out of work-which is, by estimates made last year, in excess of $60m a year. I have always felt if one can afford to give money away, that is all right; but Australia cannot afford it at the moment. We are deeply in debt. As I have said before, we are more in debt than many of the countries that the newspapers write a lot about. We are more in debt than Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile or Poland and our overseas debt is increasing. Our balance of payments is in a mess; our dollar continues to fall; and yet we are letting New Zealand export its unemployment to this country. I saw written: `Exporting no-hopers is New Zealand's only growth industry'. Let me immediately say that not all of those who come to Australia go on the dole or become associated with drugs or with crime, but an undue percentage of the people who come to this country do. I had a letter from somebody who is working in New Zealand. Attached to it is a photostat of an article from a New Zealand paper-I do not know which paper it was-which is headed: `NZ loses 18,424'. It states: Wellington, Today. Latest Statistics Department migration figures show a big rise in permanent and long term departures for the year to the end of November. There was a net-term migration loss of 18,424 for the period, compared to a loss of 1,806 for the corresponding period in 1984. That is a factor of some ten-fold. Attached was this letter: It really is about time that we brought in visas/work permits the same as the UK, it really has got out of hand. The writer says: Hell, I'm supporting four Kiwis on the dole in Australia with my taxes, the Government should mount an inquiry into the effects on the Australian economy with the enormous number of Kiwis in Australia, our taxes could go down, in fact they could even abolish the A$20.00 departure tax on the savings . . . Why should NZ have less and less unemployment at our extent, they don't want to support ANZUS, imagine as an exercise what would happen to the NZ economy if all `excess' New Zealanders were sent back to Kiwiland . . . The final sentence is: The NZ Government really gets it easy. That, I think, sums up the attitude of quite a lot of people in this country with regard to the number of people coming from New Zealand to Australia. Last year, also in New Zealand, there was an article with the byline: `From Tess Livingstone in Canberra', which, in part, reads: About 11,000 New Zealand-born unemployment beneficiaries cost Australian taxpayers $64 million a year. The majority of these have arrived in Australia in the past 10 years. A Melbourne academic who has researched the subject extensively has called for an urgent review of Australia's `open door' policy towards New Zealanders. A Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology public administration lecturer, Mr Scott Prasser, said the present arrangement meant New Zealanders needed only a passport to live in Australia. He has published his findings in a social welfare journal, Australian Society. `They do not have to fit any job schedules, be sponsored by relatives or have a lot of money,' Mr Prasser said. `They simply hop on a plane for Australia.' Mr Prasser said the 1981 Census showed 177,000 New Zealanders living permanently in Australia, a 97 per cent increase on the 1976 figure of 90,000. Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Department records show another 27,000 New Zealanders settled in Australia between 1981 and 1984, including 12,920 in 1981-82, 7,666 in 1982-83 and 6,573 in 1983-84. The article further said: The Statistics Bureau August- that must have been August 1985- labour force figures show New Zealanders who settled in Australia after 1981 have an unemployment rate almost twice that of the average for Australian-born residents. The figures show 128,000 New Zealanders in the Australian workforce-with 16,200 of them unemployed. The unemployment rate among New Zealanders who moved to Australia between 1981 and 1983 is 15.1 per cent. Among New Zealanders who arrived between 1976 and 1983, the unemployment rate is 13.1 per cent. As a whole, New Zealand-born people in Australia have an unemployment rate of 12.7 per cent. This compares with 7.6 per cent for Australian-born people, and an average of 8.8 per cent for those born outside Australia. That, I think, gives some idea of just how much the Australian taxpayer is supporting those people who come to this country from New Zealand. A more recent article, from the New Zealand Herald on Saturday, 1 February 1986, was headed: `More Off To Australia'. It stated: The outflow of New Zealanders seeking better jobs in Australia continues to accelerate, with no signs yet of the turn-around predicted last week by the Labour Department. Statistics released last night show that during 1985 there was a net loss of 19,299 people leaving the country for at least a year. Under the headline `Since 1979', it continues: That was the biggest outflow of any calendar year since 1980, when the outflow on a similar permanent and long-term basis was 23,593. That gives us the situation that more and more people are coming to this country. If we had an open-door policy for places like England or the United States, I am sure that there would be quite an outcry. But there does not seem to be such an outcry with regard to all these people coming to Australia, quite a high percentage of them, as I have stated, going on to unemployment benefits. Finally, I think I can sum up the situation by quoting from an article in the New Zealand Sunday Times of 22 December last year. Again, we are referring to what Mr Scott Prasser said in an issue of the magazine Australian Society. He said: . . . we may have been mates in the past but now New Zealanders are acting more like bludgers. That is a quote from the newspaper; they are not my words. He continued: Given Australia's continuing high unemployment levels, perhaps it is time Australia's open door to New Zealand was closed just a little. The fact that some of the 11,000 New Zealanders are receiving $64 million in Australian unemployment benefits makes a review of the present system urgent. By contrast only 450 Australians receive New Zealand benefits, at a cost of $1.5 million . . . I do not think that Australian taxpayers can continue to support the present open door policy. As I said, when I asked this question yesterday the Minister who replied treated it as a bit of a joke. I do not think it is a joke. The fact that $64m, on an open-ended basis, is being given to those people who decide to come from New Zealand and live here is, as I have pointed out, worrying quite a number of people in this country. I think the Government would do well to look at the situation, to examine it, perhaps to supply the figures that I asked for by way of question yesterday afternoon and, if necessary, to change the situation, particularly whilst we in Australia have a time of such high unemployment. There are many young people in this country who cannot get jobs and cannot look forward to having a decent job in the near future. I do not see why we should allow people from another country open access to Australia under these circumstances. Sitting suspended from 1.02 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. I remind the Minister that in Question Time yesterday he consistently refused to answer my questions about the Government's use of high interest rates to support the Australian dollar. In view of yesterday's comment by the head of the Federal Treasury, Mr Bernie Fraser, that there was not a lot of scope left for jacking up interest rates, does he now concede that the Government has indeed been jacking up interest rates to protect the dollar? Does he agree with Mr Fraser's further comment that interest rates have had their day as an instrument of economic policy and, if so, will the Government reverse its high interest rates policy and grant relief to Australian home buyers, farmers and small businessmen? Senator WALSH —In respect of farmers and interest rates it ought to be noted that normally the farm sector is a net lender. That may have changed in the last six months but it has yet to be shown that it has. If the farm sector, as distinct from some individual farmers, is a net lender, higher interest rates will increase the incomes of farmers in total, not reduce them. That is the offset that ought to be noted. In regard to Mr Fraser's speech yesterday, I understand that he has told the Press that the answer reported was an answer to a hypothetical question which posed circumstances which do not in fact exist. The answer given by Mr Fraser to that hypothetical question is in complete conformity with standard economic theory and should have surprised nobody but economic illiterates, which probably accounts for why it has been seized with such glee by members of the Opposition and most of the Press Gallery. I happen to have a copy of Mr Fraser's speech with me. In it he described the real world, as he saw it, and what has really been happening as distinct from hypothetical propositions. He said. Over the years Australia has performed relatively poorly in terms of restraining wage and other cost pressures. I interpolate that the years Mr Fraser was talking about were the years of Liberal-National Party government, and especially of Fraser-Howard government. He continued: As a result, it has been necessary for the exchange rate to depreciate to permit us to catch up with our competitors. The approach to wages and prices embodied in the Government's Accord with the ACTU is helping to restrain such pressures. In the past also wage and cost pressures have distorted wage and profit shares in ways which have been inimical to growth. The Accord, and the wages pause which preceded it, have resulted in more moderate growth in real wages and, combined with increases in productivity, sharp reductions in real unit labour costs: . . . Senator Michael Baume —Whose wages pause was that? Senator WALSH —I notice that a member of the Opposition asked: `Whose policy was the wages pause?'. There is no secret about that. The wages pause was the last ditch policy of the Fraser Government. The Fraser Government, having walked away from having any wages policy at all in May of 1981, opted for the most centralised wage determination system which can be devised-that is, a centralised wages pause. That was its desperation measure of late 1982. So I ask those members of the Opposition who seem to think that both the policy being advocated by their present Leader-that is, deregulation and five years of industrial warfare, to use his term-is in any way compatible with the wages pause of the Fraser Government. They are, of course, diametrically opposed because on the one hand we have the most centralised wage determination system which can be devised and on the other, so Mr Howard says, we have a free market. Mr Fraser continued: The depreciation of the $A in 1985, in a situation of more moderate wage cost increases, has restored Australia's competitiveness to about the levels of the early 1970s (see Graph 3). Although it has not been the only factor, the Accord has made substantial contributions to these improvements in Australia's fundamentals. It represents a different approach to wage restraint and to the handling of the inflationary effects of currency depreciations compared with the past. I commend to members of the Opposition a study of Mr Fraser's speech. In particular, I commend it to the Leader of the Opposition, who I understand said recently that he is too far away from the treasury bench to understand what is really going on in the economy these days. I have heard a quip along the lines that after he was one day away from the treasury bench he was too far away to understand what was going on. If members of the Opposition study Mr Fraser's speech in some detail they may become somewhat more enlightened about the state of the economy than they are now. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister for Finance's refuge in the hypothetical question part of his answer and I ask him to address his comments to the real world, to the situation in Australia in February 1986. I ask the Minister: Is there at present scope for any further jacking up of interest rates to protect the dollar or have high interest rates had their day as an instrument of economic policy and is there now room for a reduction in interest rates? Senator WALSH —As I explained yesterday, the Government's economic strategy is supported by three principal legs; that is, a wages policy, which the Opposition does not have and which during most of its last couple of years in government it did not have; we place some emphasis on monetary policy; and we place some emphasis on fiscal policy, particularly expenditure restraint-expenditure restraint, if I may say so, of a degree never exercised by the previous Government and in particular by the previous Treasurer, who is now the Leader of the Opposition. In all of his five years as Treasurer he did not bring in a Budget that held expenditure within the forecast limits or a Budget which held the deficit within the forecast limits. Senator ROBERT RAY —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce analysed the latest labour force statistics? What are the major features of those statistics that will affect Government economic policy? Senator BUTTON —It would be charitable to myself to say that I have analysed the latest labour force statistics in any detail but I am able to give them to the Senate. Senator Chipp —Is this question a complete surprise? Senator BUTTON —It should not be a complete surprise to any politician. If I may say so, before Question Time Senator Chipp drew my attention to an article published in a paper in January 1984 which he seemed to think was relevant to me. Today's figures show a 3.4 per cent increase in jobs this financial year. The total figure has exceeded by some considerable amount the Government's projected creation of 500,000 jobs by April 1986, the end of its third year of office. Since coming to office the Government has generated over 600,000 jobs in less than three years-100,000 more than the target it set itself. The figure in percentage terms represents a 3.4 per cent increase this financial year and the largest January to January increase since the start of monthly surveys in February 1978. For the fourth consecutive month the unemployment rate has remained under 8 per cent. I also make the point that three-quarters of the jobs created by this Government have been full time jobs, and the present unemployment rate is 2.6 percentage points below the high point of September 1983. I have mentioned that the unemployment rate remained under 8 per cent for the fourth consecutive month. The rate in percentage terms is 7.8 per cent-the same as last month's figures-and that is attributed to the fact that the participation rate increased slightly from 61.1 per cent to 61.6 per cent in that period. The figures again indicate, first of all, a satisfaction of government policies in terms of predictions and a stated intention by the Government. They indicate a further and continuing success in the Government's economic policies and are encouraging to the Government in terms of the steadiness with which the employment rate has been maintained in the last few months. Once again I would say that, in referring to these figures, they are not figures about which any government can be complacent or satisfied. They are figures about which a government and, I believe, members of this Parliament, can be pleased without lapsing into any degree of complacency about their improvement. Senator DURACK —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to his recent claims that the magnitude and timing of the drop in world oil prices has taken everyone by surprise-even himself-a claim that the Minister has been using to justify the Government's cheating Australians out of the full benefit of the world price reduction. I ask the Minister whether he recalls his speech to the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia on 18 July last year when he specifically referred to and cavassed the difficulties for Australia which would follow a drop in the price of oil to $US20 a barrel or below and also to several other speeches to industry meetings where he canvassed the uncertainties about the oil price. Did the Minister acquaint the Cabinet with the implications of such a lower price for oil when it was considering its 1985-86 Budget and, more importantly, when it was considering its policy which ultimately was announced in the tax statement of 19 September last year? Senator GARETH EVANS —The challenge I gave Senator Durack yesterday was to make good his boast that he had foreseen the drop in world oil prices by asking him to indicate where, if anywhere, on the public record he had shown this prescience and perception that he now has in retrospect. I note that he is unable to do anything of the kind. Of course I recall making the CEDA speech and a number of others last year in which the implications of a drop, either suddenly of over time, in the price of oil to $20 or below, were canvassed. That was part of an entirely rational process of policy development and contingency planning which is characteristic of all Government Ministers' approaches to their portfolios and in spectacular contrast with the muddled ad hockery of our predecessors. What I am clear about is what I said during the course of debates and contributions to the present controversy over the last few days that, as of the latter part of last year and in the immediate run-up to the price collapse which has occurred in the latter part of January, while there was a general expectation of a price drop to around $US22 or $US23 a barrel, it is simply not the case that in any circles that I have heard about there was a serious belief that there would be a plunge down to of the order of $17 or $18 or below that which we have seen. So I do not resile in any way from the comments that I made during the week. As to the question of whether I acquainted my ministerial colleagues with the possible price scenario that we have encountered, I did, of course, circulate, through appropriate channels, copies of my speech to my colleagues and I am sure that they read it avidly as they always do. Senator COATES —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, refers to the lobbying against the Government's Bill of Rights Bill. A consistent claim in letters that I, and I presume others, have received, is that the United States of America and the United Kingdom had rejected the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but that the covenant had been accepted by what they described as Warsaw Pact countries, implying that the covenant was therefore an instrument of repression rather than freedom. What are the facts on the international agreement to the covenant? Is there any basis to the sorts of claims made by those encouraging people to oppose the Bill of Rights Bill? Senator Puplick —On a point of order, Mr President: Is it not contrary to Standing Orders to ask the Minister to anticipate a debate which is currently on the Senate Notice Paper? The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I am indebted to you for that characteristically robust and direct ruling. The obligations in the covenant, notwithstanding so much of the mischaracterisation that has occurred, have been adopted by a large number of countries including many countries which have a political culture or social philosphy very similar to that prevailing in Australia. Australia itself, of course, signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights back in 1972 and ratified it on 13 August 1980 during the tenure and power of the Fraser Liberal-National Party coalition Government. While there are many characteristics of that Government which are reminiscent of the Warsaw Pact countries I do not think it can be said that there was a resistance on the part of the Fraser Government to the principles underlying that particular covenant, although there has been a subsequent resistance to putting them into practice. The United Kingdom has signed and ratified the covenant. The United Kingdom was also one of the first signatories to the European Convention which tracks over much the same ground and it should be mentioned that there is currently a Bill in the House of Lords to bring the European Convention into domestic law in the same way as is proposed in Australia with the Bill of Rights. The terms of the European Convention are very similar indeed to that of the international covenant. So far as the United States is concerned it is true that it has not ratified the Bill so far because it has been unable to obtain the necessary 75 per cent of votes in the Senate because of the view of many senators there that the essence of many of the protections in the covenant are already embodied in the United States Constitution. But, notwithstanding that, the United States has signed the covenant and one would expect it to be regarded universally as observing its strictures. New Zealand has ratified the covenant and in fact is moving now to a statutory Bill of Rights. Canada has ratified the covenant and now has a constitutional charter of rights after having had a statutory Bill of Rights in force for the last 20 years. A large majority of the members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Council of Europe have ratified the covenant, as have a number of members of the Commonwealth of Nations. It is absolute nonsensical scuttlebutt to claim, as so many have, that the international covenant is something that has only appealed to Warsaw Pact countries or those with social and political traditions at odds with our own. That is a totally misleading falsehood. I should finally add, of course, that simply because some nations adopt obligations which they do not meet, it does not mean that other countries should not meet those obligations or that the obligations themselves are not worthy ones. Senator CHIPP —I also ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General a question on the campaign against the Bill of Rights. Have Government Ministers, like Australian Democrat Senators, been victims of a vicious, lying, nationwide letterwriting, telegram and telephone campaign against the Bill of Rights? Have members of the National Party of Australia and some members of the Liberal Party of Australia, particularly from Tasmania, primarily been responsible for exploiting decent, innocent Australians with untruths, distortions and lies? For example, does the proposed Bill of Rights in any way compel or allow homosexual marriages, as is being claimed by members of the National Party? Does the proposed Bill, as claimed by the letter writers to me, even by the stretch of the most perverted imagination, force or encourage communism in Australia? Does it threaten freedom of worship? Does it threaten the family structure? Do the people who are whipping up this frenzy understand what social engineering means? Will the Minister tell me what it means? Does the Bill bring this about? Is the Bill of Rights being opposed by hypocrites? Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: A little earlier in Question Time a point of order was taken by Senator Puplick about anticipating discussion, and you ruled that point of order out of order. I raise the same point of order under standing order 99 with respect to some of the specific parts of the question asked by Senator Chipp. We have on the Notice Paper a discussion of the human rights Bill and Senator Chipp is asking a series of quite specific questions about the effect of the Bill. He is asking the Minister to say whether the effect of the Bill is this, or this or this. I suggest that in the form of question there is a clear request to the Minister to anticipate matters which will be under discussion in the Senate probably later today, but certainly within the next few days. I suggest that the specific questions that are being asked are precisely the sort of issues that will be the subject of debate, or some at least of them no doubt will be the subject of debate, and I ask you to rule the question or those parts of the question out of order. Senator Chipp —On the point of order, Mr President: I am bringing to notice the distorted, lying campaign raised by certain people to distort the debate that will take place in this chamber. I am not talking about the debate or the Bill per se, but about the campaign that is being waged outside this chamber. I have in my hand, for example, a paper from the Australian Festival of Light written by a J. K. Bowen, BA, LLB, a barrister at law who says this, in short: The Bill appears likely to offer nothing but harm to the ordinary law abiding decent and hard working citizen. The PRESIDENT —Order! I would ask Senator Chipp to address his remarks to the point of order. Senator Chipp —On the point of order, I want some light thrown on to this distorted campaign that is being aided and abetted by members of this Parliament before the Bill is debated in this chamber. The PRESIDENT —Order! On the point of order, as I understand it from Senator Chipp's question, he was raising allegations or remarks contained in correspondence that had been written concerning the Bill and in that respect I think he is entitled to ask his question. However, I suggest that he should be careful concerning the detail in his question as regards the matters that are in the Bill. In allowing the point of order, I would ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General to pay heed to my remarks so that he will not go outside the relevant standing order. I would ask Senator Chipp to bring his question to a conclusion. Senator CHIPP —Thank you, Mr President. Is the Bill of Rights being opposed by those who support the most outrageous gerrymander in the Western world in Queensland, which allows a government to be returned with a vote of only 35 per cent of the people-- Senator Boswell —What about the preferences, you-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chipp, will you ignore the interjections and get on with your question? I would remind Senator Chipp that the question is getting very long and I ask him to bring it to a conclusion. Senator CHIPP —One is not interrupted often by the original missing link. The vote is much lower than that gained by President Marcos of the Philippines. The PRESIDENT —I would ask Senator Gareth Evans in giving his answer to heed the ruling I have given on the point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that Government Ministers have been receiving letters and other communications on the Bill of Rights. Indeed, I have been receiving them personally for about the last 10 years. Although the Government has received a great deal of support for the proposed Bill, it has to be acknowledged that a great many of the letters we have been receiving are, I believe, properly characterised in the terms identified by Senator Chipp. To capture perhaps some of the flavour of this correspondence, may I indicate a couple of the kinds of missives which have recently come to my attention. One is in the following terms: Dear Senator, I don't like the sound of the Bill of Rights. . . . . . . . . . I object because of Article 21: `Any person who is arrested shall be informed of the reason of the arrest'. . . . . . . . . . Yours sincerely. Another one, which perhaps indicates that we proponents of legislation cannot be relied upon to be entirely objective, reads: It is noteworthy that the vast majority of subversives who are the main energisers of this Bill and the ID card lead unsatisfying sexual lives and show it in unsatisfying married lives, if ever they get round to that formality. There are many more illustrations of this kind, Mr President, but I do not want to trespass on your patience. I am not aware of the precise source of all the serious misconceptions about the Bill that exist, but it is no doubt true that those afraid to protect the basic rights and freedoms of Australians would be interested in propagating such ill-informed beliefs. The honourable senator has identified some of the worst prevailing misconceptions about the Bill. It does not force communism into Australia, and I have no idea how anyone can be led to that perception. It does not threaten worship, nor does it in any way threaten family structure, nor can it be associated in any way with social engineering, whatever the understanding of that term as it is employed by our various correspondents. It does not threaten. It does not do anything other than provide expressly that every man and woman has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, quite exclusively. Yet we still hear allegations, as Senator Chipp has said, that the Bill allows or encourages homosexual marriage. Far from the Bill threatening freedom of worship or the family structure, it will embody for the first time in Australia's history a general protection of the right to adopt and manifest a religion, a general prohibition on government discrimination based on religion, and recognition of the natural and fundamental role of families in our society. I shall not trespass any further into the subject matter of the Bill. I think the truth of the matters I am asserting is well enough apparent to sensible members of this chamber. Of course, Senator Chipp is correct in pointing, as he finally did, to the hypocrisy of many of those opposing the Bill. I can be as confident as he appears to be that those who support and indeed tend to rely on massive gerrymanders are exactly the kind of people whom one would expect to be lined up against the Bill, which protects the voting rights, among many other basic rights, of the people of Australia. I assure Senator Chipp and the Senate that the Government simply will not be swayed by misrepresentations and falsehoods of this kind. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy to table the papers from which he has quoted, in particular the documents about which he was so disparaging, particularly the first letter which seemed to me, as I heard it, to contain a perfectly sensible statement of principle. I would ask him to table those papers. The PRESIDENT —Order! Does the Minister table those documents? Senator GARETH EVANS —On the understanding that Senator Chaney regards as a perfectly sensible statement of principle that people ought not to be informed of the reasons for their arrest, I am very happy to table the papers. I do so in conjunction with Senator Chaney's contribution. Senator BLACK —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Could the Minister advise the Senate of the current state of proposals to transfer nursing education from hospital schools to colleges of advanced education in Queensland? Further, how has the Queensland Government's response to Commonwealth initiatives on this issue compared to other States? Senator GRIMES —In all States, except Queensland, the transfer of nurse education from hospital schools of nursing to colleges of advanced education is either under way or planned in the near future. As Senator Black will know, nurse education has traditionally been a State responsibility. The Commonwealth in these transfers offered to assist the States with the transfer of provision of $1,500 indexed per student, plus tertiary education assistance for eligible students. In addition, the Government has committed a further $7.3m for nurse education and retraining, and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations will administer an extra $4m for the retraining of nurses. All States have submitted proposals under these programs, with the exception of Queensland. It is significant that one of the reasons given by the Queensland Minister for not putting in a proposal is the requirement that employers in fact make a contribution in this scheme. Clearly, the Queensland Government as the main employer, is just not interested in making any contribution to the training or retraining-which is more important-of nurses in Queensland. However, the Federal Government is willing, and my colleagues Senator Ryan and Dr Blewett are always willing, to continue negotiations with Queensland on the matter of nurse education because we believe, as does the nursing profession, that educated nurses will enhance the status of nursing and, what is more important, will improve the quality of health care in Australia. We will continue to negotiate while the Queensland Government resists change of this type. However, I suppose that eventually, even if the existing Queensland Government stays in power, the Queensland Government will have to catch up with the rest of Australia. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In the light of a likely 1985-86 balance of payments figure that will easily top $12 billion, does the Government not agree with Mr Bernie Fraser, the head of the Federal Department of the Treasury, that the tight monetary policy pursued by the Government through Reserve Bank activity in the market-place `has had its day'? Is this not an indication that its attempts to keep the Australian dollar steady have failed? In view of the fact that, despite an occasional rally, the Australian dollar has remained close to a trade weighted index figure of 60 since November, does the Government agree that, if the dollar remains at this level or falls further, it should renegotiate the prices and income accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to combat the resulting inflationary effects? Senator BUTTON —One of the key features of this Government's economic management has been the historic agreement on prices and incomes with the trade union movement which is embodied in the accord. I would have thought that now, after nearly three years of those arrangements, most commentators would recognise the success of the accord in terms of overall economic strategy. Mr Fraser's comments contain no new revelations about the current account deficit or possible policy settings. He emphasised in his speech, as I understand, that he believed that the Government's policies would be successful in turning around the current account deficit. The Government has never, at any stage, precluded the possibility of further discussions and negotiations relating to the accord, nor has the trade union movement. On the basis of a successful period of economic management, in which the accord has been a centrepiece, there is no current plan or proposal to seek any renegotiation of the accord. At an appropriate time last year, when the first impact of the devaluation was felt, it is well known that the Government entered into a series of negotiations with the trade union movement about the provisions of the accord and the possibility of discounting the effects of a devaluation. This arrived at a result which, it is anticipated will produce discounting in the current wage case. On the basis of that historical performance, if it becomes appropriate at any stage-the Government at the moment does not believe that it will-the Government would be prepared to enter into further discussions with the trade union movement. No such plans are currently in the offing. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Leader of the Government: What point would the trade deficit need to reach before the Government considered it necessary to re-enter negotiations with the ACTU? Senator BUTTON —That is a silly question. I cannot answer it, and nobody in his right mind would anticipate that I could. That is a matter for judgment by the Government in the light of a whole range of circumstances. We have not operated at any stage on the basis of some sort of check list of desirable economic performance indicators chalked up somewhere by the Liberals to see how we are going. We will never do that. That is a matter for consideration at the appropriate time. The Opposition must not be impatient about these things. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the Minister for Education seen the article in the latest Bulletin which outlines the recommendations of the report of the Victorian Education Department's Task Force on Peace Education? Does the Government intend to alter its approach to peace education in the light of the recommendations of this report? Senator RYAN —I think I have explained to the Senate previously, in answer to earlier inquiries, that our Government has taken a very careful and thorough approach to developing material suitable to be used in schools where those schools wish to incorporate the study of peace into their curriculum. When we first came to office, I asked the Curriculum Development Centre of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, which we re-established, to assess and investigate what was available in terms of peace study curriculum throughout Australia. It did that. Following that, and upon submission from various education authorities, the CDC funded two major pilot programs concerning peace education, or education for peace, one being carried out by the New South Wales Department of Education and one being carried out by the Victorian Catholic education system. Both of those pilot studies are just about complete. The Curriculum Development Centre will be considering their results at its next meeting. I have made a number of speeches on the subject of peace education in which I have made it quite clear that, while our Government wishes to facilitate and support schools or teachers who wish to incorporate the study of peace into their curriculum, we do not have any particular view on how that should happen. We do not, for example, advocate the development of a new subject called peace studies. We believe that, as issues of peace and issues surrounding peace, such as the possibility of nuclear war, are of such concern to young people, it is appropriate that the Government respond in a positive and helpful way to assist young people and their teachers to investigate these subjects in a proper and scholarly fashion. I am pleased to note that the Victorian Government similarly has taken a constructive approach to this matter. I have not yet had time to study its report, but I expect that it will be along similar lines to the approach undertaken by the Commonwealth. I think it is very important for those who want to slip easily into unfair and ill-informed criticisms of this development to remember that our response is a response to concerns expressed by young people. Any survey done of the attitudes of young people in recent years has shown that the matter of peace, of the security of their future, is something they always nominate as being of major concern to them. If we were to ignore that concern and were not to provide some assistance to teachers to deal with that concern, I think we would be failing in our responsibility, particularly in this all important Year of Peace. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Transport Workers Union in the Australian Capital Territory has imposed a series of restrictive practices that prevent the use of more than 62 concrete agitator trucks to deliver an estimated 350,000 cubic metres of concrete this year, which is almost half the number of trucks which delivered a lesser amount of concrete eight years ago when 123 trucks delivered 315,000 cubic metres of concrete. Is the Minister aware that, if one is an owner-driver of a concrete truck in the Australian Capital Territory, this monopoly practice will enable one to gross in excess of $110,000 a year? Is he aware that the Builders Labourers Federation and the TWU have imposed bans in the Australian Capital Territory that require all trucks on building sites to be unloaded only by members of their respective unions? Finally, I ask: Does the Government propose taking any action to rectify this outrageous monopolistic practice? Senator WALSH —I am sure that Senator Lewis will be surprised to learn that I did not know any of those things, at least until a few minutes ago when I received a note from the Minister on the matter. I will refer the matter to the Minister to see whether he wishes to add anything to what I have to say. I think I should make a few comments. The figure of $110,000 a year which Senator Lewis referred to, even if correct-I am not in a position to say whether it is-ought to be seen in the context that it is the return for quite a substantial capital investment and cash operating costs, as well as a return for the labour of the driver. It is in no sense comparable with wages. I do not think it is quite accurate to call this practice a monopoly. If it has been accurately described by Senator Lewis, it is an occupation into which entry is restricted. That may or may not be a good thing but it is certainly not unique. For example, in Senator Lewis's State the quantity of milk which can be sold is laid down by regulation and nobody who does not have a milk quota is allowed to sell milk at all. The same can be said for eggs and taxi licence plates in the Australian Capital Territory, and probably in every other capital city in Australia, too, for all I know. Restricted entry, the purpose of which is to maintain prices above those which are likely to have prevailed in a free market situation, may or may not be deplorable. Judgments about that are usually made in accordance with whether the people who are making the judgments benefit or lose from them but that situation certainly is not unique. It is by no means restricted to this industry. The only other comment I want to make at this stage relates to the third part of the question which Senator Lewis asked and that was about the requirement that only members of the BLF or the TWU unload trucks. Senator Lewis may have his view on that matter, but it is not an unusual practice for certain tasks to be designated to, or reserved for, members of particular unions. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to his comment during Question Time yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating policies that throw away anything up to $1 1/2 billion in revenue and spend an extra $1 1/2 billion revenue via that irresponsible shopping list of promises he has made and that these policies would lead to `a blow out in the deficit of the order of $3 billion or $4 billion'. Senator Walters —Get your facts straight. Senator COOK —That is a direct and accurate quote from Hansard. Will the Minister provide the Senate with further details of these proposals which would add substantially to Government spending or would substantially cut Government revenue? Senator WALSH —As far as I know, Senator Cook has quoted accurately what I said yesterday. I have one amendment to make, however. The statement was qualified by a prior statement that the list I presented was by no means exhaustive. I want to amend the figures which I gave yesterday of around $1.5 billion being added to the deficit because of expenditure increases and another $1.5 billion being added because of tax relief promises. That was a quite serious understatement because if all the promises that have been made by the Opposition over the last three years on tax reductions and expenditure increases were to be implemented, the deficit would blow out by more than $5 billion. In other words, the deficit would be even higher than the prospective deficit of $9.6 billion which this Government inherited from Mr Howard's last Budget. If the hypothetical Howard Budget were to be put together now the actual deficit would be even higher than that. I can give a few details-for example, the Opposition's policy on income splitting. Granted it is open to some interpretation but the way in which it is most commonly presented is that the Opposition would allow any couple to divide their income equally for taxation purposes and pay tax accordingly. The cost of that in 1984 was $1,800m; the cost today would be at least $1,900m. The child care rebates promised by the Opposition would cost the revenue $180m. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I have not sought to take a point of order on the fact that the Minister for Finance cannot comment on any policy that might be announced by the Opposition, but he is misquoting those policies. Those policies, as announced for the election, clearly indicated that there would be a phasing in of the various policy objectives, including those to which he has referred, and, in particular, income splitting. That was specifically costed during the election campaign and limits were placed on it. This is a total misrepresentation of the Opposition's position. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I ask the Minister for Finance to be as brief as possible in his answer. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. Within the next few days I intend to issue a comprehensive list of the irresponsible spending and taxation policies of the Opposition parties and the effect that those policies, if implemented, would have on the deficit. So today I am giving only a sample. The Alice Springs-Darwin railway would add some $600m to outlays. Admittedly this would be over a period of years. The jewel in Mr Howard's crown is the off the top of the head policy he announced a few months ago that young recipients of unemployment benefit should be required to attend tertiary institutions for at least three days a week in order to receive that benefit. The cost of that, assuming they all attended technical and further education institutions where per capita costs tend to be lower than they are in other tertiary institutions, would be an additional $600m per annum to outlays. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is it a fact that the 3 per cent productivity increase included in the accord mark II is based on Australian Council of Trade Union determinations? If not, on what basis has the Government determined this increase? How can this figure be predetermined before a case has even been considered by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Does the Government consider that itself and the ACTU are in contempt by pre-empting any decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of a 3 per cent productivity increase which would cost in the order of $4 billion to $6 billion? Senator WALSH —I am just contemplating the alleged costs which Senator Parer gave. Certainly the figure of $6 billion is much too high; I suspect the figure of $4 billion is also too high even if the 3 per cent increase were spread across all wage earners in one hit. It should be borne in mind that the cost to employers of a productivity increase of that size is less than the cost of an equivalent wage increase because there are no add-on costs, as is the case with wages. Senator Parer referred to a determination of 3 per cent and asked whether that figure was determined by the ACTU. Frankly, I do not know. I will ask Mr Willis whether he has anything to say about that; but I do not believe that the use of that sort of term is appropriate in these circumstances. A judgment was made by the ACTU and the Government together that, spread over a period of two years commencing July 1986, a figure of about 3 per cent for productivity increases would be an appropriate alternative to a wages claim for productivity gains. Ultimately, as Senator Parer suggested, the Arbitration Commission will either endorse that assessment which has been made jointly by the Government and the ACTU or it will make its own assessment. The arrangement or agreement between the Government and the ACTU is that the Government would support a productivity claim of that size spread over the two years commencing July 1986. Senator TATE —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware of the derelict and vandalised state of Veterans Park in the national capital, a park which is meant to be a place of remembrance for those who died in the wars after the Second World War in South East Asia, particularly the 424 Australians killed in Vietnam? Has the Minister any plans for refurbishing and developing that site so that it provides a fitting remem- brance to the many Australians who gave their lives in those conflicts? Senator GIETZELT —I do recall Senator Tate asking me a question about this last year. I am aware of the fact that subsequent to that the Department of Territories gave the developer of block 3 section 26 in the city permission to use part of the Veterans Park as a staging area for the construction of a building. The National Capital Development Commission intends to upgrade the park following the completion of the building, which, unfortunately, has fallen behind its schedule, with a contribution being made by the developer towards the costs of such upgrading. Whilst it is not expected that the building will be completed before the end of April, the NCDC has indicated that the task of reconstructing or upgrading the park should be completed by October or September of this year. The work will include the installation of a water fountain, flagpole and plaques honouring those servicemen who served in Korea, Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam. Advance trees will be planted in order to make up for the lost time as a result of the usage of the park, and extensive landscaping will be undertaken. The NCDC has also taken steps to extend the park through to Mort Street, so the net result will be a much improved addition to Canberra. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What does the Government propose to do with respect to its defence co-operation program for the Philippines Army in the light of the Cooksey report? Has the Government considered the argument that the only way the communist New People's Army will be defeated will be by the actions of a reformed Philippine Army, and that a valid case therefore exists for continued support by Australia to the training of the Philippines Army on the proper, professional and ethical base which has characterised our past support? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think, on balance, it would be appropriate if I referred that matter to the Minister for Defence to seek a considered reply from him. There is much that I could say about the defence co-operation program with the Philippines, and certainly I could make the comment, which has been made often enough before by the Minister for Defence, that the Government would not accept any proposals under that program which threatened human rights. What our response will be in the light of the Cooksey report to which Senator MacGibbon refers, which I am not sure has yet been made officially public, is something that the Government has yet to determine, but I will seek a response and let the honourable senator know. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister therefore inferring that previous Australian aid training programs for the Philippine Army have lacked respect for human rights? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not inferring anything of the kind. I have no idea what tortured cells lurking in particular back corners of Senator MacGibbon's brain led him to make such an allegation. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Coleman, I am sure all honourable senators join with me in wishing her a warm welcome back to the chamber. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to correspondence directed to honourable senators from Michael Tooth, President of the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales, in which he has included an assessment that 40,000 farmers will be affected by the quarantining of farm losses? Can the Minister comment on the accuracy of that assessment? Senator WALSH —I did receive such a letter, addressed `Dear Senator', from which I assume it was received by all senators. It evidently was received by a number of senators, anyway. It was a covering letter which enclosed photocopies of the front page of a publication known as `Farm Investment Letter', which is published by Primary Investors Pty Ltd. It said, among other things: In FIL's view, the National Farmers Federation appears closest to the mark when it says that 25 per cent of farmers (about 40,000) will be hurt by the tax proposals to go before the Federal Parliament in February. The tax proposals referred to are the quarantining of farm losses. It continued: The NFF figuring is based in grassroots analysis by country accountants, not on a rather idiotic sampling of tax information used by BAE and Treasury. I do not know whether the National Farmers Federation did in fact assert what this publication claims the national Farmers Federation asserted, but the assertion made in that publication was clearly endorsed by the Livestock and Grain Producers Association when it sent the covering letter. I make these comments. For a farmer to be hurt by the quarantine provisions, he must both have off-farm income in excess of $20,000 and be operating a tax loss farm. In other words, if the claim is true, something more than 25 per cent of farmers, and probably a much greater percentage, are in receipt of off-farm incomes in excess of $20,000. If that were true, I think it is inescapable that at least an equal number would be in receipt of off-farm incomes of between, say, $10,000 and $20,000. So we would have reached the point where between 25 per cent and 40 per cent of farmers-or possibly 50 per cent if these assertions are correct-would have to be in receipt of off-farm incomes of $20,000, and the overwhelming majority of farmers in receipt of off-farm incomes of at least $10,000, and the greater part of those off-farm incomes in excess of $20,000. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimate of net farm income for this financial year is $6,700, and it is important to note, as I mentioned on Tuesday, that that figure is certainly not comparable to wages, because it does not include any allowance for what should be imputed as income received by farmers and not received by other groups. It is agreed by anybody who knows anything about this that that figure, to be compared legitimately with wages, needs to be increased, although there is less agreement on the amount of the increase. Nevertheless, the $6,700 figure is used by the LGPA-or I understood it was used by the LGPA-as a claim for financial assistance to farmers because of the very low incomes. I therefore find it surprising, to say the least, that the LGPA should be backing an assertion that off-farm incomes are of the size and of the prevalence which is asserted in that publication. If that claim is to be accepted as correct, it must cast doubts over the legitimacy of any needs-based claims for financial assistance to farmers based on the estimated $6,700 average farm income, to which has to be added some imputed income and the alleged very high and prevalent off-farm incomes which the LGPA explicitly endorses. I am puzzled by that and I have therefore written to the President of the LGPA seeking his comments on what appears to me to be a serious discrepancy between a claim allegedly made in this publication, by the National Farmers Federation, about the effect of quarantining farm losses on farmers and the other inconsistent claim made by the same organisation that farmers' incomes are extremely low and farmers therefore are entitled to very favourable consideration from the Government for financial assistance. Senator TEAGUE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. The Minister for Social Security said in the House of Representatives yesterday that his Department hoped to save about $90m by 1988 in a new program for limiting social security overpayments; that is, an average of $30m for each of the next three years. How did he arrive at this figure and how is it credible when the Minister has claimed that the net level of overpayments detected by his Department last financial year amounted to less than $20m in one year and should be expected to fall further? Also, will there be any increase in the number of Department staff employed to detect social security fraud as a result of the new measures? If so, how many? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Teague says, the Minister for Social Security did make a statement yesterday about overpayments and he did quote some figures in putting forward his proposals to cut down the amount of overpayments and fraud in the Department of Social Security. He does expect the amount of savings to be generated to be of the order of $90m by 1988. I think that was the figure quoted in the statement, which I have only partly read. It was my understanding, from a reading of that statement, that the net level, as the Minister said, of overpayments detected by the Department of Social Security last financial year fell below $20m, but he also pointed out that there was still some $76m in accumulated overpayments and, in passing, compared this to the $2.9 billion which is outstanding in taxation. In the statement, from memory, the Minister did not give details as to how the estimate of the calculated savings would be made. I certainly cannot estimate it off the top of my head. I will seek accurate information from him and give it to the honourable senator as soon as possible. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. In referring that question to the Minister for Social Security, could there be a breakdown of from which benefits and allowances the overpayments will be saved, which will amount to $90m? Senator GRIMES —I will seek that detail. I am sure it must be available in the estimates that have been made. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —During Question Time Senator Gareth Evans read from two letters which were addressed to Senator Chipp and which related to the Bill of Rights. When I asked for the tabling of those letters I indicated that I thought one of the letters contained a statement of principle with which I agreed. I have checked what was said as against what was in the letter. I make no complaint about the fact that Senator Evans read part only of the letter to which I was referring. I would like to quote what that part was and to explain my attitude to it. According to my note, Senator Evans read out: . . . . . . . . . Dear Senator, I do not like the sound of the Bill of Rights. I object because of Article 21. Any person who is arrested should be informed of the reason of the arrest. Yours sincerely. In fact the letter is a longer letter than that. I will read the same passages but I will put in the additional parts which make it more sensible. It said: I object because of Article 21. `Any person who is arrested shall be informed of the reason of the arrest'. I would like to make it quite clear to the Senate that I regard article 21 as a sensible and, indeed, unexceptionable statement of principle which I support. The PRESIDENT —Before I call the next business I draw the attention of honourable senators to the length of some of the questions that have been asked in the last day or two and I also draw attention to the length of the answers that have been given by Ministers. Some of the lengthy questions, naturally, involve lengthy answers. Already there are a number of senators who have not had the opportunity to get themselves on the record since the Parliament resumed sitting. I urge all honourable senators to give consideration to the length of their questions and to the necessity to ask supplementary questions, and I would also remind Ministers of the desire on their part to be as brief as possible in providing the answers. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 13 February, from Senator Peter Baume: 13 February 1986 Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to abandon its commitment to use Commonwealth Constitutional powers to achieve national Aboriginal land rights.' Yours sincerely, (PETER BAUME) Senator for the State of New South Wales Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.05) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: . . . . . . . . . The need for the Government to abandon its commitment to use Commonwealth Constitutional powers to achieve national Aboriginal land rights. It is urgently necessary, for the sake of the Australian community, that the Labor Government abandon its present commitment to use Commonwealth constitutional powers to achieve uniform national Aboriginal land rights as it has set out in its policies. It might be worthwhile examining some of the expectations which the Australian Labor Party raised before it came into Government, in its policy documents and in the statements by some of its spokespersons over the years. I remind honourable senators first of the actions of Senator Susan Ryan when in Opposition. Senator Ryan, as the Labor Party spokesperson on Aboriginal Affairs-- Senator Gareth Evans —And a very good one. Senator PETER BAUME —`A very good one', says Senator Gareth Evans. I imagine that he is committed to uniform national Aboriginal land rights as well. Senator Ryan pledged herself to Aboriginal land rights in 1983. She promised that the first action, the immediate action, of a Labor government on election would be the enactment of land rights legislation. Of course, it has not happened. The Labor Party promised that legislation when it was canvassing votes. Senator Ryan went out and bought votes with the promise and has not delivered. Senator Ryan criticised the State of Western Australia. In January 1981 Senator Ryan said in a Press release: If the Western Australian Government is not prepared to protect these rights then the Federal Government has no moral or constitutional alternative but to legislate to protect them. Those were Senator Ryan's words then. Those were her views about the place of the Commonwealth then. They are the views enshrined in Labor Party policy. They are the views which the Labor Party put to the Aboriginal community. We have a situation now where the Western Australian Government is not prepared to enact Aboriginal land rights and where Senator Susan Ryan, consistent with the statement she made in 1981, should be calling on her colleagues and her Government to enact the kind of uniform national Aboriginal land rights which she was seeking then. Indeed, in August 1981 the honourable senator came into this place with her own Bill to bring down land rights in one of the States. She produced the legislative framework. We do not want to hear any argument that the delay has been due to any legislative difficulty. The Government was able to draft legislation in Opposition and Senator Ryan was able to promise then that uniform national land rights legislation would be the first action of a Labor Government. Of course, it has not been. The policy document of the Australian Labor Party makes clear its commitment. It makes clear its desire that Aboriginal people should have secure land tenure. As I will say later, we agree with that. It says that it should be done by the States, and I go on to quote the Labor Party document: . . . where this is not introduced- that is, by the States, it will- use Commonwealth constitutional powers and legislation to achieve these objectives. That is the policy of the Australian Labor Party-a policy promised before election and not implemented since. The Labor Party has made no secret of the fact that it would be prepared to override the States, the rights of the States and the actions of the States. Its promise was to do so immediately upon election. Where are we now? It is three years on and we have not even seen from the Labor Party any sign of the legislation which it promised or about which it trumpeted so much. We have seen some progress. We have seen the Labor Party produce what it calls its preferred national land rights model. I will have a bit more to say about its preferred national land rights model in a moment because that model has been rejected by everyone. We have seen the Labor Party talking about five principles to be observed, but in relation to the promises which were made, and made so clearly, we have seen no action. Indeed, the Government policy is now in disarray. The Australian Labor Party is in disarray on land rights. We know the policy. I have indicated what it contains. It is clearly wrong-headed. We knew it was wrong before the Labor Party went to the election. We have taken a different approach and continue to take a different approach. But the Labor Party policy remains. Whether in the form of its preferred model or as a policy document it has been rejected by the Aboriginal community. The Aboriginal community said that the preferred model was a sellout of Aboriginal interests. Its members said so on national radio and television. I have the statements. I will not bore honourable senators with them but they referred to the policy as inadequate, as a sellout and as conferring fewer rights upon Aboriginal people than does the Northern Territory legislation which was introduced by the Fraser Government and for which many honourable senators on this side of the chamber voted and worked. The Labor Party's preferred options have been rejected by Aboriginal people not once, but many times. Indeed, the National Aboriginal Conference, while it still existed-- Senator Chaney —What happened to that? Senator PETER BAUME —Indeed; while it existed it was invited to set up working parties to deal with the Government. The NAC voted to boycott a steering committee meeting because it believed that the Government was guilty of inadequate action and bad faith. It made it quite clear that the Government, quite apart from its rhetoric, was offering something weaker than what the Liberals had introduced and implemented. This approach by the Labor Party has been rejected by State colleagues. One has to think only of the Labor Premier of Western Australia. Mr Burke said: `I'll quit if land rights legislation is brought in'. That is what he thinks of Senator Ryan's and the Federal Party's approach to land rights. He would rather resign as Premier of Western Australia than have anything to do with what those opposite and people like them have proposed as a solution for the land tenure problems of Aboriginal Australians. This policy has been rejected by the community. Single-handedly the Australian Labor Party at Federal level has managed to turn around the opinion polls. At the time we lost government the general acceptance level of some form of land rights was about 80 per cent. The latest opinion polls show that the community is dismayed and about 80 per cent oppose land rights. That is indeed an achievement from people like Senator Ryan who promised so much and delivered nothing to the Aboriginal people. News- papers have reported today that the Labor Caucus has demanded that the Federal Labor Party implement the policy of land rights to which the Party is committed and which it has refused to touch. Senator Crichton-Browne —After a State election in Western Australia. Senator PETER BAUME —As my colleague says, after that election. The Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Charles Perkins, spoke out today. Being a loyal officer of the Australian Public Service he would not speak on his own account. He would speak only to echo government policy so he called for land rights to be enacted this year. `Act now on land rights' says Perkins. Is he speaking for the Government? Mr Gerry Hand spoke out asking that the Party adhere to its land rights policy. Today on the AM program Mr Gayler, the honourable member for Leichhardt and Chairman of the Caucus Committee, demanded that the Government start to implement the policy and get on with the job. At the same time, the Secretary of the Labor Party in Western Australia made it quite clear that such action is not on and is not available to the Government. Senator Lewis —How long have they been in government now? Senator PETER BAUME —It has been three years. This was to be the first and immediate action of a Labor government upon election. Its whole approach to land rights was rejected even by some of its Caucus colleagues. I have a Press clipping in which Mr Graeme Campbell, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, had something to say about the inadequacies of the policies which his party proposed when it went to the Australian people-rejected even within the Federal Labor Government. Mr Hawke has refused over the past year to authorise a public awareness campaign which was sought by Mr Holding to make available information on land rights. It is an open secret that Mr Hawke blocked the allocation of money which was necessary to mount that campaign. That is his commitment. Mr Hawke promised to fix the matter when he went to Western Australia. During the 1984 election campaign, Mr Hawke backed down on a central part of the Labor Party policy in relation to the mining veto. We think that the policy is wrong anyway but all I am trying to do is to illustrate that it has been a disaster for the Labor Party. It has been a disastrous performance by the Labor Government. We know that there have been broken promises to Aborigines across the board. It might be worth reminding honourable senators of something said by Mr Pat Dodson at the National Press Club recently when he was talking about the Government and its dealings with Aborigines. He said: The fact is that at no stage have Aboriginal people or their representatives had any chance to make any meaningful contribution to the development of the Government's preferred national land rights model. That is terrific. Aborigines are the people involved. They have had no chance to make a contribution. Mr Dodson continued: The Minister's supposed consultations with the now defunct land rights steering committee demonstrates clearly the shallowness of his undertakings about consultation and negotiation. He said other things about the Government's failure to honour its promise of adequate consultation and structures for consultation. It abandoned the National Aboriginal Conference, the only national consultative body which the Aborigines had and it has done it at the time when Aboriginal land rights have moved back to centre stage and when at more than any other time Aboriginal people required a national voice with which to deal with government. The NAC went leaving Aborigines with no single national voice to talk for them. The substance of this motion is that we believe that the Labor Party should move away from its commitment to a national land rights model. That is what it has been pushing in theory for years. Of course, it is what it has avoided doing. But it is not about doing; it is only about talking before elections and making promises when it wants votes then doing nothing about it. It has had legislation ready, has promised immediate action and has stated exactly what it will do. Our policy is different. It is clear. Our record is clear. While the Labor Party talks we act and implement. Two major pieces of land rights legislation in this nation have genuinely advantaged and advanced Aboriginal people. They were implemented by a Liberal National Party Federal government and a Liberal Party State government in South Australia. The two Acts are the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act which was passed by this Parliament under a Liberal-National Party government, and which two of us here had the privilege of administering as Ministers, and the South Australian Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act, introduced and passed by a Liberal State government. Our record is one of achievement and of actually putting land rights in place. We believe that the approach to secure land tenure will differ in different parts of the country. The Northern Territory, where 25 per cent of the population is Aboriginal and where many traditional communities exist, that calls for one legislative model. In the light of experience that legislation requires some amendment but the core of the legislation is still appropriate for the Northern Territory. In South Australia, which has a different situation, a different model of legislation is required. Of course, a Liberal Government put that legislation in place. In New South Wales we have seen the Wran Labor Government put into place what is a mockery of land rights legislation. Senator Teague —It amounts to nothing. Senator PETER BAUME —It has amounted to nothing. It has not advantaged the community and it has brought land rights into disregard. We have the record. But our policy still states that we oppose uniform land rights strongly, not out of some blind ideology but because we could foresee what has happened. We opposed the attempt to impose upon Australian communities and Australian States any uniform national model of land rights. It will be disastrous for the whole movement for secure land tenure. It will be disastrous for the efforts to advantage Aboriginal Australians and it will be disastrous for any sense of accommodation between different groups in Australian communities on this difficult matter. We believe the States have a responsibility to meet their obligations to the Aboriginal people. The States will independently adopt policies which will seek to take account of the particular social, economic and cultural needs of their Aboriginal communities in respect of access to and tenure of land. We believe that our colleagues in the States will move. When I was Minister we had some difficult negotiations with the State of Queensland. But that State, as a result of negotiation, was prepared to move on the issue of tenure in relation to the Aboriginal reserves in that State. I suggest to Senator Ryan that, with the best will in the world, a uniform national land rights model would be the very worst thing that could be offered to the State of Queensland. This Government's policy has been wrong from the beginning. Senator Ryan knows it has been wrong because she has not implemented the policy. I say to Senator Macklin, who I know supports the Government's policy, that Senator Ryan will not implement the policy and the Government will not implement it. The time has come for the Government to recognise that it has gone down a wrong track, a blind alley. It should re-examine its whole approach to the needs of Aboriginal people and recognise that the approach of its political opponents has been more successful, more productive, more positive and more beneficial to the Aboriginal people in Australia. Our policy is clear; it is better and it is fair. Our policy will work and our legislation has worked. This Government has had no legislation. All we have had from this Government is rhetoric and betrayal. We have implemented land rights where Labor has not. We have dealt with the States; Labor threatened the States and, when any State has stood up to it, Labor has given in. The history of this country shows that since white settlement most of the original settlers from Europe were given grants of Crown land. They received, as it were, land rights to enable them to establish themselves in Australia and to start their life in this country. The move to grant appropriate land tenure for Aboriginals, as has been contained in the Liberal-National Party Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act or as has been contained in the Pitjantjatjara land rights Act, is merely an attempt to give some Crown land in an appropriate fashion to Aboriginal communities for their benefit and for their advancement. We have been able to do so without dividing the community, as has been the case with the Government and its rhetoric. The federalist approach to land rights is the only sensible approach-to recognise that we are a federation made up of a number of different autonomous governments and States. Let us consider the situation if, as Senator Ryan and her ideological colleagues wish to assert, the 1967 referendum gave the Commonwealth power to make laws in relation to Aboriginal land tenure. Land management and land tenure are State responsibilities. We could end up with a situation in which, if land tenure for whites were involved, it would be a State matter but, if land tenure for Aboriginals were involved and we listened to members of the Government, that would be a Federal matter. That is clearly ridiculous. For the sake of Aboriginal Australia and of national consensus, we urge the Government in recognising its abject failures to take note of this motion of urgency, to abandon its policies which have failed and to go down the more appropriate path, the one which endorses the Opposition's policies. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(3.25) —We on this side of the chamber, the Government of Australia, have become very used to the confusion and internal fueding within the Liberal Party of Australia on all the major issues of our time, be they privatisation, industrial relations or land rights. There is never a single coherent view that emanates from the other side of the chamber. We have become very used to this yet, inured as we are to the confusion, contradiction and wrangling that has characterised the performance of the Liberal Party in opposition in the last three years, I am amazed to have heard what I have just heard from Senator Peter Baume. Even I was amazed to hear Senator Baume come out with so many contradictions and so many absurd claims and allegations as he has just done. On the one hand, he has chosen to lecture us, the Commonwealth Government of Australia, about the meaning of the Constitution and to advise us to abandon constitutional responsibilities which reside in the Constitution because of the will of the Australian people. On the other hand, he has chosen to boast of the performance of his Party in respect of land rights when it was the Federal Government. On the one hand he says that we must leave these matters to the States and that we the Commonwealth have no role in this crucial issue of land rights. Yet, when we look at the State in which there have been the most recent attempts to legislate for land rights, Western Australia, what do we find? We had the very moderate, the very sensible and very cautious legislation put forward by the Burke Government and passed by the Burke Government in the lower House where the Burke Government is in control. What happened in the Upper House? The political colleagues of Senator Baume and Senator Chaney rejected that legislation. Of course, Senator Baume chooses to ignore that. He chooses to ignore the disgraceful performance of the Liberal Party in Western Australia on this issue. Senator Baume, in his typically dishonest fashion, raised the fact that there is a lessening of public support for land rights. Of course, that is a matter of great concern to us. But what is the reason for it? The reason for it is the fearmongering, dishonest, disgraceful campaign waged by the Liberal Party of Western Australia and supported, of course, by the mining interests in that State. What does Senator Baume have to say about the performance of the Liberal Party in Western Australia? What will Senator Chaney have to say? Senator Chaney —If you sit down, I will start talking. Senator RYAN —Senator Chaney is offering to say something about it. I will be very interested to hear Senator Chaney's comments and his defence of the performance of his Party in Western Australia. I will be very interested to hear what Senator Chaney has to say about the action of his comrades in the upper House in Western Australia in rejecting the extremely moderate and cautious land rights legislation of the Burke Government. It is simply unacceptable to us and to the Australian public for the Liberal Party, which has not been able to find a single point of agreement on the land rights issue or any other major issue, to come in and lecture us about our lack of unity or coherence on this issue. I suggest to Senator Baume and Senator Chaney that it is the job of the Opposition to work out its position on land rights. On the one hand, there is a new shadow Minister-I think the third in three years-for Aboriginal Affairs. Senator Peter Baume —What is his name? He is an excellent bloke. Senator RYAN —Actually, I know what his name is. I had to check before this debate began. I would not have known it from any public performance or activism by him in this respect. Mr Connolly has said that he supports the official Liberal Party policy, which is to pursue land rights. Even Senator Baume and Senator Chaney cannot pretend that that view is shared by, for example, their comrade, Mr Sinclair, the Leader of their coalition party in the House of Representatives, who has said publicly in recent times that he is ashamed to have voted for the very Northern Territory land rights legislation about which Senator Baume was just boasting. The Leader of the coalition partner of the Liberal Party in the other place says he was ashamed to have voted for the Northern Territory land rights legislation. It is time that Senator Baume and Mr Sinclair were introduced to each other. I comment in passing that this is probably the first act about which Mr Sinclair has ever admitted shame. Then we had the performance of the Western Australian Liberal Party and of Mr Hassell, who has actually been quoted in Melbourne as saying that his understanding of land rights-he was referring to the extremely moderate and cautious Burke proposals-was that people in the suburbs of Melbourne have to understand that their back yards could be affected as much as any in Western Australia. Mr Hassell said that publicly. Where was the brave retort from Senator Peter Baume then? Where was Senator Baume's proud claims that his Party has the greatest record in land rights of any party in this country? There was no response to that ludicrous, dishonest statement that the backyards of people in Melbourne were in danger because of something that might happen in Western Australia. I understand that Senator Chaney was similarly silent. It is one thing for them to come into this chamber, where there is a great deal of support for land rights, and boast about their record in government; it is another thing entirely to enter into public debate when their comrade from Western Australia says that the backyards of people in Melbourne are threatened by land rights in Western Australia. I would be much more impressed with Senator Baume's rhetoric and boasting if he chose to say a few things in a public place at a time-- Senator Chaney —What about Mr Hawke in Western Australia? Senator RYAN —I am pleased that Senator Chaney interjects by referring to our Prime Minister because it reminds me that I must correct one of the more spurious allegations made by Senator Peter Baume in the course of his remarks. Senator Baume alleged that the Prime Minister blocked funding of a public awareness program. I must put it on the record that that is wrong. Advertising campaigns are not approved or disapproved by the Prime Minister; they are subject to a ministerial committee's examination. That particular campaign has not yet been funded simply because of budgetary limitations. There was no intervention by the Prime Minister in the work of that ministerial committee. On the question of public awareness and public campaigns I simply repeat that it is not good enough for Senator Peter Baume-I can anticipate wearily what we will hear from Senator Chaney-to come into this place boasting and bragging about what they have done and what they are prepared to do when they were silent where it really matters, in the State of Western Australia, when there was an attempt to get the beginnings of a land rights program into legislation. They did nothing to correct the absurd claims of their own colleagues in that State. Senator Chaney —I actually opposed the Burke legislation. Senator RYAN —Senator Chaney is now saying that he opposed the Burke legislation. I am sure that he did. I am sure that he would in effect oppose any legislation in his State. The reason for that is not Senator Chaney's personal values in this matter, as I believe that Senator Chaney does support land rights; but he is powerless, he is impotent, in his own State. He is absolutely unable to persuade his State colleagues, such as Senator Crichton-Browne or the new senator from Western Australia, Senator Knowles. He is totally unable to persuade Liberals of that ilk to adopt a sensible, fair and just position on this issue. Therefore, any boasting or bragging in this place is just so much empty rhetoric. Because time is running out, I will not go through-- Senator Chaney —You have plenty of time. Senator RYAN —I want to tell the honourable senator what we have been doing, since he refuses to acknowledge it. I could refer to the kind of comments made by Paul Everingham. People may ask `Paul who?', as well they might since he has virtually disappeared since he came into this Parliament. He used to be the Leader of the Northern Territory Government and used to say things about land rights which I am sure Senator Chaney and Senator Baume found immensely embarrassing when they were dealing with their sort of Liberal. We also have had the Leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia, Mr Olsen, applauding the act of the Bannon Government in extending the Pitjantjatjara land rights provisions to the Maralinga Aboriginal communities. Some Liberals do support land rights and are prepared to support them publicly but we do not have anything approximating a coherent and serious position in this respect from the Liberals and until we do lectures by the likes of Senator Baume and Senator Chaney on land rights are gratuitous to say the least. Senator Chaney —But what are you going to do? Senator RYAN —Before I proceed to tell the Senate what we are going to do, let me say what we have done. Senator Baume, in his usual fashion, decided to make a debate about land rights a debate about Senator Ryan. In some ways I am flattered by this attention but in other respects I think that it is fairly pointless. He suggested that since we have been in government we have taken no steps to implement the policies we developed in opposition. That is simply absurd. As every honourable senator will know, Mr Holding, our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, immediately set about establishing consultation mechanisms, undertaking discussions with the States and working towards what I hope and expect will be achieved this year, that is, the implementation of our policy. I am sure that no Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has engaged in such thorough and intensive consultation with Aboriginal people throughout Australia as well as with other people who legitimately have interests in this matter. Senator Peter Baume —Why do they call it a sell-out? Senator RYAN —Senator Baume likes to parrot the comment that the preferred model is a sell-out. The preferred model is very similar to the Pitjantjatjara land rights legislation which 25 minutes ago was the subject of great boasting by Senator Baume. When he talks about the Pitjantjatjara land rights principles being something that people associated with him having achieved it is wonderful, but when they become the basis for our preferred model it is a sell-out. It is just another contradiction of the kind that we are so tired of hearing. Of course there has been lively discussion on the preferred model but I would like to hear from Senator Chaney as to which principle in the preferred model he takes exception to, which principle would he not like to see embodied in legislation in every State and perhaps in Federal legislation, because those principles are the very principles which have been implemented in the Pitjantjatjara and subsequent South Australian legislation. That procedure is still alive; it will come to fruition very soon. That preferred model has been discussed with every interest group throughout Australia, with every Aboriginal group and every other group that has a legitimate interest, and with State governments throughout Australia, and there has been progress. In the Northern Territory, for example, the one area which Senator Baume's legislation left unaddressed-the area of the dreadful need of Aboriginal people living on pastoral properties on their traditional land-is actively being addressed. During the period that Senator Chaney and Senator Baume were Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs, and before them their predecessor, Mr Viner, no progress was made to give land rights claims-- Senator Kilgariff —It has progressed through the Northern Territory Government. Senator RYAN —Senator Kilgariff interjects that there has been progress through the Northern Territory Government. That has occurred following consultation and by agreement with us. There is now progress. We are now virtually at the point where those 3,000 or so most dispossessed Aboriginal people living on pastoral properties will be able to get secure title to their land, but that has come about through the efforts of Clyde Holding, our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and through the process of consultation and the seeking of consensus which has been characteristic of our Government in this as in every other matter. In Queensland, for example, the deeds of grant have now been passed over to Aboriginal communities and that could only have happened with Commonwealth co-operation and with a commitment by the Commonwealth to allocate resources for the services needed in those communities. If we had done as Senator Peter Baume's motion suggests and refused entirely to accept any Commonwealth constitutional responsibility for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland, those deeds of grant would never have come into being because the Aboriginal Affairs Minister in the State of Queensland, Mr Katter, made it quite clear that his Government's willingness to proceed to this limited form of land rights depended upon active and extensive Commonwealth involvement. We have committed ourselves to that; we have resolved the questions relating to housing, servicing of those communities and so forth and as a result there is now progress in this area in Queensland. Senator Chaney —Following our policy. That is good. Senator RYAN —We are not following the policy. Here we go again. Senator Chaney says that we are following the former Government's policy but the policy which Senator Peter Baume has just enunciated for our benefit is a policy whereby everything is left to the States. Federalism was the theme insofar as there was a theme in Senator Baume's remarks. He said that everything must be left to the States. We had a wonderful burst of rhetoric about how we are different States and different solutions were provided in different States. If we had left the situation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander reserves in Queensland entirely to that State-for instance, if we had followed Senator Peter Baume's prescription of getting out of this area entirely-there would have been no progress. We accept our constitutional responsibilities in this respect. Senator Peter Baume —Provided you do not do anything about that. Senator RYAN —I am not responsible for Senator Baume's ignorance in this or any other matter. It has certainly been a matter of lively debate in Queensland. For those of us who have a genuine interest in the advancement of Aboriginal and Islander people in that State it has been a matter of continuing interest that, with Commonwealth co-operation and support, we have now reached a stage where there has been some advance. I would not say that it was the ultimate in land rights, but there has been some advance in that State and there is now some security of tenure for Aboriginals and Torres Strait islanders in that State. In South Australia, of course, the Bannon Government has extended the application of land rights legislation. The New South Wales Government has passed its own legislation and I disagree with Senator Peter Baume when he tries to deride and totally discount what has happened in that State. Everybody knows-certainly Senator Baume should know very well-that the matter of establishing appropriate land rights structures in the States that were colonised first, such as Victoria and New South Wales, is extremely complex. I must say it is a matter in which Labor governments in New South Wales and Victoria have not been assisted by the outrageous claims of the likes of Mr Hassell who has said; `Your backyard will be invaded by Aboriginals if there are land rights'. But that is the kind of complication we have to deal with. We have had a destruction of tribal communities in those States and, of course, it is very much more difficult to achieve consensus and a workable model of land rights in New South Wales. But the New South Wales Government has certainly embarked upon this. Land is being handed over to land councils. Funds arising from that land rights legislation are now being made available to Aboriginal land councils throughout New South Wales and there is progress. Let us not pretend that the situation in New South Wales now, as a result of the New South Wales Government's legislation, is not better than the situation that prevailed before when there was no such legislation. In Victoria, similarly, there has been progress. The Framlingham community is about to get secure tenure of its land and, in many other respects, the issue of land rights has been considerably advanced during the period of the Cain Government. Of course, all this adds up to a very clear picture. In each State of Australia where there has been a Labor government-except Western Australia-there has been a serious and an effective extension of land rights. In all these activities those States have been supported and assisted by the Commonwealth Government. In all those activities there would have been less progress if the Commonwealth Government had not been actively involved. The one State in which we have not been able to achieve any progress yet is Western Australia and the blame for that has to be sheeted home fairly and squarely to the Liberal Party of Western Australia. If the Liberal Party of Western Australia had permitted the Burke legislation to pass the upper House there would be land rights in Western Australia right now. Aboriginals in Western Australia would not be dispossessed as they are right now; they would be in possession of land. Because of treacherous behaviour of the Liberals in Western Australia that has not yet happened. But the failure of the Liberal Party to support that moderate legislation is not the final word. It is not the end of the story about land rights in Western Australia. I predict that there will be agreement between our Government, the Burke Government and the Aboriginal people in Western Australia that will lead to Aboriginals in Western Australia owning their own land as has happened in other States. I simply say in conclusion: If Senator Peter Baume and Senator Chaney are serious in wishing to see a just and fair settlement of this issue, they should offer some constructive and helpful comments instead of grandstanding in the way that Senator Baume has chosen to do today. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.45) —The motion we are debating today as a matter of urgency is: The need for the Government to abandon its commitment to use Commonwealth Constitutional powers to achieve national Aboriginal land rights. I must admit to a dilemma in being able to vote on this motion because I do not perceive any commitment to use Commonwealth constitutional powers so I am not quite sure how one goes about abandoning them. Having returned from Western Australia where I was supporting the Australian Democrats candidates in that State I can say that we were the only Party to support land rights in that election and we suffered because of it. But we will continue to push that issue because we believe it to be a matter of justice. We do not intend taking the supine role that the Australian Labor Party has taken with regard to this or the hypocritical role that members of the Liberal Party of Australia have taken by referring to past glories and suggesting that, in future, nothing at all will occur. I readily admit that, whereas the majority of white Australians are quite happy and support justice in terms of the provision of schools for children, hospitals for those who are sick and pensions for the elderly, in this area of justice there is no move whatsoever. Indeed, there is a gathering opinion opposed to it. That opinion has not just occurred, as was indicated by some of the previous speakers. It has been done quite deliberately and at a very high cost, not only in money terms but in terms of social cohesion in Australia. All that my Party is suggesting is that all Australians should recognise our common responsibility to provide Aboriginals with spiritual and material necessities for them to be able to live a full life in this their country. For the Aboriginal people themselves, in their own judgment, that means land. Without land the Aboriginal people will continue to be dependent upon handouts from the white community. There are no other benefits which are as crucial as this; none whatsoever. It is necessary to recognise that what we are talking about is not a legal gift. We are talking about a moral necessity. It seems to me extraordinary that people in Australia are saying that the Aboriginals should forget about their past. For a people who have survived a holocaust we are urging on them to forget what happened to them in the past. But in other areas what do we say? It is interesting to note that more Aboriginals died in the defence of their land by white occupation than did our soldiers in World War I and II combined. We say to them: `Forget'. But for other glories and for other defence of our land, we say: `Lest we forget'. The hypocrisy reeks. What we are looking at is a very simple and undeniable fact that, before the white European colonisers came, the Aboriginals, according to their own organisations and their own laws, occupied this entire continent and has sovereignty over it. For a variety of legal reasons we now have the ultimate absurdity in law in Australia that suggests-it has to suggest-that the Aboriginals invaded British territory. That is the interpretation that has to be given to the current law-an ultimate absurdity. If we do not hold that view we have to hold the view of prior sovereignty. There are no two other ways of going about it. We either hold that view-which is the current legal standing that the Aboriginals invaded British territory-or we have to accept their prior sovereignty. If we do, of course, we come to the situation which is currently the case in the United States of America. By a recent decision of the High Court, which has finally worked out the legal implications of that sovereignty, the Indian tribes in the United States not only have control over the land and proprietary rights over the minerals under the land but also the right to levy their own taxes on anybody who comes on that land, because they have been given recognition of their sovereign rights. That is what sovereignty means. So we go by the legal fiction that the Aboriginals invaded British Territory. I quote former Prime Minister Hughes at the end of World War I when in the Treaty of Versailles discussions he said: No wrong without remedy. Whatever the nature of the wrong-whether to life, limb, health, property, liberty, of any other right-the wrong-doer must, as far as he can, make reparation for the wrong. As it is between individuals, so it must be between states. That is the reign of law; that is the principle of justice. That is what ought to occur in Australia. What are we talking about, then, when we speak of land rights for Aboriginals? I would like to put very clearly, because it has not been put so far in this debate, what the Australian Democrats believe is the principle of land rights as it should apply to Australia. It is this, and I quote: Where a traditional tribal community has continued to reside on its traditional land discharging its spiritual obligations with regard to that land, and that land has never been occupied by any other persons, that community is entitled to a legal title to that land in legal recognition of the fact that they have always lived on that land, land to which no other persons have any moral claim. There are still tracts of land in every State to which that applies in which that has not been settled, with the exception of South Australia. Secondly: Where a traditional tribal community has been moved from its traditional land and it is land to which no other persons have a moral claim, that community should be granted title to that land in restitution. That has not occurred. Thirdly: Where an Aboriginal community consists of people who have been moved from their traditional lands to make way for pastoral or other development and there is now no question of restoring to them their traditional land because other persons have subsequently maintained their own moral claims to the land by virtue of occupancy, labour and expenditure, that community is entitled to compensation. I believe they are reasonable principles that ought to be accepted by reasonable people, but we do not have a reasonable debate on land rights in Australia today. We have an hysterical, hypocritical debate about land rights. It has become a boo word, a word to damn. I sat and watched television advertisements by the Liberal Party and by the Labor Party in Western Australia which said, `We recognise the problem in Western Australia and we pledge ourselves to do nothing about it'. This Federal Government in particular has succumbed without a whimper to that campaign of self-interest. What has it done? It has refused to recognise and abide by the National Australian Labor Party policy. It has denied the right of Aboriginal people to proper consultation or negotiation. It has destroyed the only national voice of the Aboriginal people in this country. It has refused to accept the right of Aboriginal people to withhold consent and impose condit- ions for negotiations. It has rejected and put aside its obligations legally, constitutionally and morally to legislate on behalf of the Aboriginal people in Australia. The Hawke Government has said that it will not implement ALP policy and it intends to change drastically the only major operational national policy, that is the national land rights policy, and to water it down. We have a Labor Party government coming into power on a so-called pro-Aboriginal policy that is pledged now to destroy the only national piece of legislation that was introduced by a conservative government. How things have changed since 1983. The Aboriginal people of Australia are not asking for charity-they do not want charity. We are moving towards 1988 which will be a bicentenary for Australians. As one Aboriginal said, `We celebrated our bicentenary aeons ago'. I wonder whether Aboriginals will have anything to celebrate after two parliaments led by the Australian Labor Party have failed to implement Australian Labor Party policy. Unfortunately, there are no Aboriginal members of either House of the Federal Parliament, so I would like to read from an Aborigine's view about what is going on because it makes a lot of sense. He said: You would make a road, then explore and interfere with the place, bringing sickness upon us all. Then your doctors would come to operate on us, to chop us up-because there are great dangers and illnesses in places. We understand this-the need to be careful and not disturb the place. We want to live in a healthy place. This wouldn't be your way- you'd disturb and mess up the land. Then the spirits of the place will settle us all. You're too ignorant to know this. We Aborigines know these things, you're white people and we're Aborigines. Don't come and argue with us again. Let it rest here-please. It would be nice if indeed in 1986 we would have done something about that particular problem, that we would have recognised the moral right to the land, and would have followed through that moral obligation to legislate to rectify that legal absurdity to which I referred previously. I quoted previously from a letter by the Catholic bishops in 1869, but I would like to do so again because it gives us pause. We must ask ourselves whether we have gone anywhere yet. This was written in 1869 by the Catholic bishops to the Catholics of Australia: We have dispossessed the Aboriginals of the soil . . . In natural justice, then, we are held to compensation . . . It is shocking to think of what has, in fact, been done . . . The stain of blood is upon us-blood in needless and wanton cruelty. It is said, even now, that as Europeans progress northwards, blood is so shed. It is not all that long ago. It is retained within the memories of Aboriginal people today. It would be as well that, instead of looking at what our people, the Europeans, have done in defence of their own land in saying `Lest we forget', we should be proud that our Aboriginal people have still such a longing for and an attachment to their own land that they are willing to fight, and continue to fight, to have their land back. That we denigrate that fight seems to me disgusting, because we do not do that in any other area of Australian political life. We should be proud that after 200 years the Aboriginal people fight on for their own land. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.58) —The empty chamber that we have before us is ample demonstration that the issues we are bringing forward for discussion today will not be determined in this place so much as in other rooms in this building over the coming months, and in particular in the Caucus room and Cabinet room of the present Government. This is, however, an opportunity for the Opposition to put its very clear view that there is a need for the Government to abandon its commitment to use Commonwealth constitutional powers to achieve national Aboriginal land rights. That issue was not addressed by Senator Ryan, representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this place, who spoke and then left the chamber. It was simply ignored by her. However, that is the significant issue which has to be addressed by the Labor Party. It is our view that it should take the action which is indicated in the terms of our matter of urgency. I thank Senator Macklin for the spirit of his contribution. I believe that he speaks with great sincerity and certainly with great consistency in these matters. In response to him, I ask him to consider that we are urging upon the Government a course of action which would be politically popular for the Government. We are seeking from this Government a move which would have the support of the great mass of the Australian people. We are not urging on the Government a course of conduct which would bring it unpopularity-quite the reverse. Why should we be concerned to do that? The simple answer to that question is that we think this is a very serious matter. We think that the Government is doing continuing damage in this area and that a change of direction is necessary. The Government is between a rock and a hard place, because the choices before it are unpleasant. The Government can do what is clearly right and step back from its policy commitment to national land rights legislation. I stress that is the consistent view we have held in government and in opposition. However, it does that at the cost of dishonouring frequent promises to the Aboriginal people. You, Madam Acting Deputy President, come from a branch of the Labor Party which has made many extravagant promises to the Aboriginal people. You and your colleagues sat behind Senator Ryan when she made promises to the Aboriginal people which have been long broken. It must be a very difficult decision for all honourable senators opposite. We are seeking the exercise of the sort of federalist approach which Senator Ryan used in her own defence, rather than the legislative approach which is currently being urged upon the Government by some of its own supporters, an approach which so far the Government has eschewed because I think it knows that it would be an extremely damaging course to follow. I wish to put a case to justify those comments, but let me very quickly deal with the red herrings raised in this debate by Senator Ryan. Senator Ryan asks what I have to say about the rejection of the Burke legislation in Western Australia. Let me make it quite clear that I would not support in any State or Territory of Australia the enactment of further legislation which left open-ended the amount of land which could be claimed and long periods of uncertainty as to what amount of land was to go to Aboriginal ownership. With the wisdom of hindsight-we have had this view for many years; we have sought to amend the land rights legislation of the Northern Territory for some years-it is quite clear that one of the causes of disturbance in the Northern Territory has been the long period of claims and uncertainty. I contrast that with the relatively clean and painless actions of the South Australian Government. I believe that we should have learned from those two experiences. I made inquiries of what the effect of the Burke legislation would be with respect to claims. I understand that the legislation in its final form permitted four years to make claims. I was given an estimate of another six years for those claims to be heard. I ask you, Madam Deputy President, and Senator Walsh, who is the Minister at the table but is perhaps not listening to this debate, what effect 10 years of that sort of uncertainty would have in Western Australia. I believe that would have been a very silly proposition and that the open-ended nature of the Burke legislation was proper grounds for its dismissal and rejection. I have had complaints from Senator Ryan in the debate about Liberal scare campaigns. I can say only that on the occasions I have campaigned in the Northern Territory I have been sickened by the Labor claims throughout Aboriginal lands. The Aborigines are told that if they elect the Liberals, the Nationals or the Country-Liberals, their land will be taken away from them. I am sure that Senator Kilgariff would be well aware of the sort of scare campaigns which are run by Labor politicians when dealing with Aboriginal audiences. I also noted Senator Ryan's claim, when she was responding to Senator Peter Baume's proper description of actions which had been taken by Liberal governments, that the Liberals are impotent. I point out that the significance of this debate is that it demonstrates that the present Government is not impotent. It has never been impotent. It has always had the legislative capacity to take the action which it promised in 1983. The Australian Democrats have always made it clear that they would support Government action. Indeed, they have urged the Government to stronger action. There is no legislative excuse, no upper House to blame. If the Government wished to bring legislation forward-we have heard it quite clearly again today-it would be supported by the Australian Democrats. The Government has a clear majority in this place on this issue, yet it has not brought legislation forward. I will not be embarrassed by any Labor speaker in this debate because the record is a shameless one of promises made over and over again, votes bought and promises shamelessly broken. It is one of the more distasteful aspects of politics in Australia for the last three years that so many promises were made to so many Aboriginal people and so clearly broken. There would be few honourable senators in this place on the Labor side of the chamber who were not party to the making of those promises and who are now not party to the breaking of them. Senator Ryan, who spoke without coming to grips with the issues at all, issued notes for candidates in 1983 which repeated the promise she made in this place that action would be taken to take these matters out of the hands of the Queensland Government and that legislative power of the Commonwealth would be exercised if States did not move. Western Australia has said that it will not move; the Premier has said that he will resign rather than move; but this Government still refuses to declare its hand. In the face of an election the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) refuses to rule out national land rights legislation but says that he will go along with Mr Burke. Let me move away from the aspects of this matter which move one to anger rather than to trying to work out what is the appropriate course of action. The Opposition is saying to the Government that there is a need for the Government to step back from the policy commitment, which is clearly set out in its platform, that it will use the Commonwealth legislative power when States will not act. We say very simply that we think that that is totally inappropriate. We believe that it will have a devastatingly bad effect on Aboriginal Australians and a bad effect on other Australians. If the Government persists in the confusion and uncertainty which has dominated this area, virtually ever since Mr Holding became the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, we will get a continual worsening of race relations in Australia. We will get a continuing worsening of the position of Aboriginal people in the community. There has been a sad lack of progress, and not just in the area of land. Sadly, my last conversation with the late Dr Rowley, a man who contributed a great deal to Labor Party thinking on Aboriginal matters and who certainly was a very valued adviser to the Government and the head of a statutory body-he was a valued adviser when I was the Minister and subsequently-was about the areas where there has been slippage, where we have gone backwards instead of forwards. I have since looked at the research Dr Rowley was doing in the last years of a life that made a marvellous contribution to our knowledge of Aboriginal people in Australia. One finds in that research some of the statistics that concerned him-the gross increases in unemployment, for example, in rural New South Wales over a period of 20 years of effort in which I, other Liberals and Labor people tried to do something to improve the position. There is a real dilemma for the Government at present. It made excessive promises. Those promises are set out in its platform, in what has been said in this chamber, in what has already been quoted and in the instructions which were given to Labor candidates in the 1983 election. Labor bought Aboriginal votes. There is no question of that. It aroused a massive over-expectation in the Aboriginal community and a massive reaction against the Aboriginal community. There has been complaint in this debate about the fact that the mining industry and others have campaigned against Aboriginal land rights. I do not have time to go into that in detail, but let me say this: The sad fact is that the quiet approach which was adopted by the mining industry at my request when I was Minister and undertook to try to work to get some changes to the land rights Act totally failed. The industry has put that point to me. It has said: `We were asked by you to go silent and nothing changed'. That is one of the reasons why the industry went public and why the concerns about the faults in the Northern Territory legislation have become so controversial. It was the Labor Party which encouraged the Aboriginal community to block any attempts to remove the difficulties in the Northern Territory legislation. In my period as a Minister, in Senator Peter Baume's period as a Minister, and in Mr Wilson's period as a Minister, it was the Labor Party which was making these now broken promises that have blocked change and have produced so much of the reaction that we are now all so worried about. What is the right course to follow? I have indicated in what I have said earlier that I do not believe there is any totally satisfactory answer. If the Government proceeds in accordance with its policy, if the Government carries out the policy of using its national legislative power, it will simply bring about very great difficulties in the legal field, in the constitutional field, in the political field, in the administration of the lands which are involved and in the community. There will be tremendous difficulties in all of those areas. Those difficulties were canvassed by me and by other Ministers when the coalition was in government, and I am sure they have been canvassed by the Minister in the present Government. If the Government does not step back from its undertakings, if it acts, I would sadly predict that it will create very great difficulty and confusion in the Australian community, great division and great bitterness. The Government has the difficulty that for it to step back would be to break major promises to Aboriginals. It must behave dishonourably if it is to follow the course that we have advocated but in this case it would be better to break its promises than to wreak further havoc in this area. We have consistently urged the Government to maintain a Federal approach in this area. I wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister which I had published in the Australian in May of last year. In it I put the views which I have expressed this afternoon but perhaps in a more ordered form. I repeat that the Labor Party should ponder upon the relative bipartisanship which applied to Aboriginal Affairs in the period 1975 and 1976 and ponder upon the reality that it was the Labor Party that destroyed that bipartisanship by developing policies which, in government, it has shown it is unable to implement. If we wish to step back from the division, which, I deeply regret, exists in the Australian community on this issue today, not least in my home State of Western Australia, the Labor Party has to step back closer to the position it adopted in 1975 and away from the extravagant promises which have been made over recent years. If one looks at the reality of what has happened around Australia one has a perfect demonstration of why a federalist approach is necessary. There has been a lot of talk in this debate about the fact that South Australia devised its appropriate solution for its Aboriginal people. I for one would see the South Australian solution as probably the best which has yet been devised by any State. It learned from the mistakes which we made in the Northern Territory. It is good to see that the Queensland government has moved some way down the track with respect to deeds of grant in trust, and that has had the support of the present Government, as it has had the support of the present Opposition. It is very easy for Senator Ryan to say: `Western Australia has done nothing. Western Australia is the only State where nothing has been done'. I simply remind the Senate that one-eleventh of Western Australia-8.9 per cent-is Aboriginal land. It is held in reserves. Those reserves are secure and the Aboriginal people have access to and use of them. In Victoria there is a very limited applicability of the principle and the Victorian Government has taken minuscule steps to do anything. I notice that it is not under threat from the Federal Government; nor is the Government of New South Wales. We have a situation where the Labor Party is publicly indicating its internal dissension on this issue. That is not surprising; that is not something of which the Labor Party should be ashamed. However, the pressures which are currently being brought to enact national legislation are flying in the face of experience and realism. It is the firm view of the Opposition that the approach which should be adopted by the national Government of Australia in this difficult but important area should be an approach which is based on working with the States and not the use of those overriding constitutional powers which probably have existed since the 1967 referendum. In a brief conversation with the next speaker she indicated to me that she wanted an approach which is based on more humane and more peaceful sentiments. I join her in those remarks. I believe that the course which is indicated in the Labor policy, the Labor platform, would produce quite the opposite. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(4.15) —I believe that the Commonwealth's constitutional powers to achieve national Aboriginal land rights should be used. The powers have been in place since 1967 and they have not been used. Before I commence my few comments I congratulate Senator Macklin on his speech, which I think made abundant good sense. Two States in particular in Australia are backsliding very badly on the land rights issue. Obviously the Queensland Government has no intention whatsoever of introducing land rights. Western Australia, where the stated policy was for Aboriginal land rights before the 1983 election, has now turned completely around, disregarded its own policy and disregarded its own statements. Before the 1983 election Mr Burke said to Aboriginal people that he would grant them land rights. Before the election just last week he and Mr Hassell both bent over backwards to disavow land rights, to disclaim land rights and to say that there would be no land rights in Western Australia, much to the disgust and horror of many European or non-Aboriginal people as well as, of course, all Aboriginal people in that State. They have been completely sold out and they resent that. It is very obvious from the style of the Burke Government in Western Australia that corporate business has had a big part to play. The mining lobby has been listened to, not the Aboriginal lobby. In 1983-84 the Labor Government put in place the Seaman inquiry to inquire of Aboriginal people, mining groups and other interested groups in the community their position on land rights in Western Australia. The Western Australian Government totally ignored the Seaman inquiry's recommendations. It has made no attempt whatsoever to educate the population of Western Australia about the need for Aboriginal land rights. It has completely abdicated its responsibility to the Aboriginal people. It was incumbent upon the State Government in Western Australia to educate people about the need for Aboriginal land rights and about what Aboriginal people were actually asking for, which was not a total hand back of the State to them. The Liberal Party of Australia was very successful in its anti-land rights campaign but it was given a completely free run on it. It was not challenged; it was not questioned. I again say that the Burke Government should have made every attempt to educate the population of Western Australia about the real condition and the real needs of Aboriginal people as an abused minority in my State. We need to look very carefully at why Aboriginal land rights are so important to Aboriginal people. Land is the spiritual basis for the Aboriginal people and it is the essence of Aboriginal culture. Aboriginals have been deprived of it by degrees ever since European settlement, and today they are almost totally deprived of it. Land is fundamental to Aboriginal integrity. To deny land rights is to continue the denial of the essence of Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal spirituality to the Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal people are not asking for Australia to be given back to them: They are not even asking for large percentages of it to be given back to them. They are asking for recognition of their timeless association with the land and for control of parts of it. Largely the parts which they are concerned about are those which are inhospitable to non-Aboriginal people, but that is a side issue. The moral issue here is that the Aboriginal people's prior occupation of this land should be recognised and it has not been recognised. In this the International Year of Peace it is most important that we consider the minority groups in our community. There can be no peace in the Australian community if there is not social justice. The denial of land rights to the Aboriginal people is an outrageous case of social injustice. The Commonwealth Government has the power to exert over State governments in this respect and I think it is high time it did so. Of course, the present situation in Western Australia is very embarrassing for the current Federal Labor Government but it should not abdicate its moral responsibility to the Aboriginal community. There can be no harmony in our community, as Archbishop Carroll so eloquently reminded parliamentarians at the church service to mark the opening of this session of Parliament on Tuesday morning. He said that the seeds of peace are within us all and that the community peace, the peace which we seek, should encompass all groups and individuals within our community. Pope Paul VI said that without justice there can be no peace. To my mind it is a matter of grave social injustice that the cause of Aboriginal land rights is being ignored by the Commonwealth Government. I support the use of the Commonwealth's constitutional powers to achieve national Aboriginal land rights and urge the Commonwealth Government to enforce the powers it has. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(4.19) —I think it is most unfortunate that here this afternoon we have heard a lot of the usual political grandstanding about what is the most important issue facing this country today. It has been suggested that we should be abandoning our responsibilities to Aborigines. It has been suggested by the Opposition that we should ignore the overwhelming referendum of 1967 which gave the Commonwealth Government powers, as Senator Vallentine said, to legislate for Aborigines in this country. Perhaps even more importantly, it has been implied that we should jeopardise Australia's international reputation and be prepared to abandon Aboriginal people purely because of the various vagaries of State legislation, which can change at the whim of political leaders-I include all political leaders in that statement. As I have indicated before in this place in other debates, the question of social justice for Australia's Aborigines is far too important for the kind of political nonsense that goes on in this chamber and in the other chamber. We should be taking the lead. We should in fact be establishing the priorities; we should be setting the agenda for the debate about the need for social justice for Aborigines in Australia before 1988. Let me stress that we have not got very much longer. I had a congratulatory letter from a gentleman on the Gold Coast in Queensland when I spoke up against the racist statements of the Queensland Premier. I would just like to quote from that letter because the writer made a very sound statement as to whether this chamber should be setting the tone of debate in regard to social justice for Aborigines. He said: I am one who firmly believes that racism is solely and entirely a political development. No racism can breed in any country without either political sponsorship or political apathy. I would say that there are guilty people in all political parties. There are guilty people who have put their own self-interest ahead of what is best for Australian Aborigines. For my part, I certainly regret some of the statements and commitments that have come from my own political Party. But let me make it quite clear that for every example that Senator Peter Baume or Senator Teague may give I can match three-fold with examples of conflict and contradiction within the ranks of the Opposition. I know that it is the job of the Opposition to attack the Government and to play on any embarrassing items that may occur. But let us just look at the coalition's policy. I quote from the coalition's policy on Aboriginal land rights, released in August 1984. The policy said in part: The coalition maintains that the States are in the best position to implement appropriate land rights legislation for their own communities. The coalition believes that there is a need for positive policies to provide opportunities for Aboriginal people who have a close and continuing association with their lands, to live according to their traditional culture and lifestyle. This will be enhanced if they are given secure title to appropriate land, provided that land has not been alienated. But the document further stated: We believe that any Federal Government action in relation to land should only be taken where necessary, and only after detailed discussion with the State. It seems to me that the Opposition is very confused about just where it stands on the question of when the States will make the decision and when the Federal Government will make the decision. When one looks within the Party ranks on the Opposition side, one sees that it is even more confused. I have a headline here `Leaders clash on land rights' and that refers to a debate between Mr Hassell and Mr Ian Tuxworth. I also have here a report of a statement from the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Ian Sinclair which states: `I'll amend land rights promises Sinclair'. He said that he was ashamed to be part of the Fraser-Anthony team that brought in land rights in 1976. That does not really sound like the pious statement made by Senator Chaney a little earlier this afternoon when he professed to be trying to get some sort of rational and informed debate going on this subject. Here we have the Leader of the National Party turning tail and saying he dissociates himself from the former Fraser Government in terms of its implementation of land rights legislation. Yet, in the 1984 election campaign, Mr Ian Sinclair on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation PM program stated: . . . a need for uniformity in the area of land rights because of the distribution of Aboriginal populations. I have no idea what has prompted Mr Sinclair to change his mind. I can only assume that it is the pressure that has been brought about by the mining companies and others who are prepared to give in to the racists in this country. I quote also from a former Attorney-General and Federal Court judge, the Hon. R. J. Ellicott, QC, who opened a seminar on the Ombudsman on 7 September 1985 in Canberra. He said that since the late 1970s Australia had been going through a period of considerable inertia and law reform. While he acknowledged that there had been some significant reforms, he mentioned in particular family law reform, the Federal Court and Aboriginal land rights. He said: Current attempts to undermine the right of Aboriginal people to say whether mining took place on their land can properly be regarded by the Aboriginal people as another act of dispossession. If a white person had taken away by the legislature the right to say whether mining took place on his or her land he or she would regard it as an act of expropriation by the State. To take that right away from the Aboriginal people, it having once been given, is an act of injustice. But who, among the mandarins in power who supported it are now defending it? So we seem to have here confusion and contradiction in the ranks of the Opposition. I think that it is well past time that, as leaders in this country, we all came to some sort of agreement and that a pact was reached between all political parties to stop using Aboriginal people of this nation as political footballs. The situation that has developed, as was pointed out by another speaker, is that the debate about entitlements for Aboriginal people and recognition of their dispossession in Australia has swung completely the other way from that of the 1970s. That is a tragedy and it is something for which many people on all sides of the debate about Aboriginal issues are responsible. If we do not come back to the fundamental issues in recognising Aboriginal land rights in this nation, and that a Federal Government does have responsibilities, we are looking forward to a period of very serious turmoil in 1988. We have only two years. In fact, we have less than two years if we are to give to Aborigines what they are entitled to. The issue we are debating this afternoon is perhaps the oldest and the most divisive issue ever to face this country. It is an issue that will not go away in the face of the sort of tactics that the Opposition has used here this afternoon. The Government's record is clear. The Government is committed to consultation. If that consultation appears to have been rather protracted, if the Opposition believes that we should have ignored the need to consult and just rushed in an put a piece of legislation before both chambers without consultation, I am sorry. We would rather have this delay, which has, I suppose, protected the political debate out there in the community, but at least we have been consulting Aboriginal people. In conclusion, historic research is already under way which shows that the issues we are debating were already apparent before 1850. In 1848 the then Imperial Government established conditions for settlement and leasing of land which predicted Aboriginal land rights and use and occupancy thereof. That particular Imperial Government, of course, was talking for the whole of Australia because that pre-dated the establishment of Australian States. The question of Aboriginal land rights was seen as a national issue 140 years ago, 12,000 miles away, and it was recognised by an English aristocrat. Yet, here we are in 1986 still debating whether or not a national government has that responsibility. The insight of the then secretary of state for the colonies, Earl Grey, has yet, it appears, to break into the closed minds of members of the Opposition and, I might add, many people out there in the Australian community. The coalition suggests that Australia is incapable of establishing an international personality. We are no longer a colonial nation; we are one nation with State governments. Of course those State governments are entitled to consultation. Of course we assume that in some cases State governments will respond in an appropriate way in introducing land rights that is in line with national land rights legislation as proposed. It is irresponsible of the Opposition to bring into this chamber this afternoon this motion that suggests that a Federal Government can just abrogate its responsibilities as a nation two years before Australia's bicentenary. The major interest in Australia when people travel overseas is the conditions for Aborigines. The world spotlight will be on this country in 1988. Therefore, we have not got much longer to stop the political grandstanding and to get on with the job, which is precisely what this Government is about to do. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.33) —This is hardly an irresponsible motion, as stated by Senator Reynolds. In fact, we are debating a matter of urgency, the need for the Government to abandon its commitment to use Commonwealth constitutional powers to achieve Aboriginal land rights. That commitment is stated in the Australian Labor Party's Federal policy on Aboriginals and islanders. That policy calls for State or Territory legislation to provide for Aboriginal land rights or, failing that, for the Commonwealth to introduce its own legislation. Since coming to office the Federal Government has been promising to meet its policy commitment to introduce national land rights legislation but, as my colleagues Senator Peter Baume and Senator Chaney have indicated, the Federal Australian Labor Party Government's land rights policy and its attempts to implement it have been confused, disorganised and plagued by the factional struggles within the Australian Labor Party over the land rights issue. The most recent accounts of the disagreements within the Labor Government over land rights indicate that the Labor Party Caucus Aboriginal Affairs Committee has called for the adoption of legislation in line with the Party's platform. Recent Press articles have quoted Mr Gerry Hand as saying that the Australian Labor Party has an obligation to live up to its previous commitments and promises to the Aboriginal people. The recent doubts which have been raised over the Federal Government's intentions have led to the unusual situation whereby the head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Charles Perkins, has publicly called for decisive action on land rights. In breaking his silence on the issue he has broken with the convention that public servants not involve themselves in political debates. That is a very interesting situation. No doubt these promises and commitments which both Mr Hand and Mr Perkins want the Federal Government to honour would encompass the right of veto over mining on Aboriginal land and compensation to Aboriginals for lost land. But it is clear, and it has been clear for over a year, that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other members of the Government are shying away from their commitments. Having promised Aboriginal people the world prior to coming to office, the Labor Party is now having to face the fact that it has promised something which it just cannot deliver. No doubt the Government is paying some heed to the poll conducted last year which showed that something like 80 per cent of Australians were opposed to the introduction of Federal land rights legislation. I think it is time that the Federal Government had the courage to admit that it has raised the expectations of Aboriginal people, as others have said, in a vote buying exercise at the 1983 and 1984 elections, and that the fact is that the land rights package which has been promised is not going to eventuate. The time has come for the Federal Government to be honest with the Aboriginal people and, for that matter, with the Australian community in general. The Government has been leading them, and all Australians, up the garden path for some two years. Mr Holding, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, early in 1984 came out with his five principles, one of which was the right of veto over mining on Aboriginal land. He has since circulated hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of the much vaunted preferred model to Aboriginal organisations throughout Australia and other parties with an interest in the land rights debate. In the lead-up to the 1984 Federal election the Prime Minister was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 October as having said: The general position of the Government is that we don't believe that the right of veto is an integral part of having fair and effective land rights legislation. What are the Aboriginal people to make of that? In fact, what is any Australian to make of that? The confusion does not extend only to the Australian community; it seems to begin with the Prime Minister, for before the 1984 election he said in a Press conference on 3 October: We will be making quite clear before the election what the position of the Government is. Only two weeks later, in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 October, he was reported as having said: I don't believe that we're going to be able to clarify the land rights issue before the election. More recently, we have had the continuing saga of this equivocation on land rights prior to the Western Australian election. There we saw the Labor Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, promise to resign if the Federal Government forced land rights legislation on that State. This undertaking was met with assurances from Mr Hawke that he saw no problem with Mr Burke's position on land rights and he stated that the Labor Party would not be losing Mr Burke. Surely the clear inference which one can draw from this is that there will not be any uniform Federal land rights legislation. But the people of Australia are entitled to more than veiled suggestions; they are entitled to a clear and unequivocal statement of the Federal Government's intentions on land rights. How many elections must we have before the Government comes clean and states its true position? How long will it take for the Government to acknowledge that its policy on land rights and the requirement of Federal land rights legislation is impractical and undesirable? The Government has already started to talk about a State by State approach to land rights. While that at least is a step in the right direction-and indeed the Opposition's policy on land rights states that we regard this as a matter for the States, which Senator Reynolds was kind enough to read out to us-the Government should now give us some detail on what is proposed. Is it intended to enact legislation which is in accordance with Mr Holding's preferred model, including a veto over mining on Aboriginal land and compensation for lost land on a Federal or State by State basis? There has been plenty of widespread community opposition to Mr Holding's preferred model. I certainly have been made aware of the feeling of Territorians and people from the States of Australia on the preferred model. I have had numerous comments from people who are opposed to it. I hope that the Government will not confuse the issue any further by foisting unwanted legislation on the States and that the Federal Government will recognise that the matter of land rights is one for the States and Territories. The Commonwealth should not impose such legislation. The States and Territories should be permitted to assess the needs and priorities of their respective Aboriginal communities and to enact appropriate legislation. As has been said by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Chaney, a very good example was enacted in South Australia. The Northern Territory provides a slightly different situation. Surely the Federal Government has learned from the experience of the Northern Territory and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act that the implementation and success of and support for land rights is very much dependent upon the account which the legislation takes of all those people, including non-Aboriginals, who have an interest in land use. State and Territory governments are in a far better position to examine the issues affecting Aboriginal people in their own regions and to take legislative measures. The Aboriginal people in the States and the Territory are part of them and will have their say as they do now. The legislation in the Northern Territory, while it was formulated and enacted with the best intentions, has been shown to have many problems about which I have spoken several times already. The legislation has been in place for 10 years and practical experience of its operation has shown that many elements of the legislation require urgent amendment. I point out that where it was estimated in the first place that perhaps 23 per cent of land would eventually be made available to Aboriginals, the situation now is that more than about 30 per cent of land has been granted to Aboriginal people. All in all, with grants and land under claim at present that figure would be very close to 50 per cent. Amendment is required since both alienated and unalienated land can be claimed under the Act. If honourable senators wish to look at that matter further, I suggest they refer to my Bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, which is before the Senate. I believe that the people of the Northern Territory are in the best position to judge what those changes should be and the Northern Territory should be responsible for its land rights legislation just as State governments should control State land rights legislation. One of the unfortunate consequences of the operation of the land rights Act in the Northern Territory has been a lessening of support for Aboriginal policies, apparent not only in the Northern Territory but around Australia. It has had a very detrimental effect in so many quarters. This is most unfortunate and is why I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to get its house in order. If the Federal Government is seriously interested in improving the conditions of Aboriginal people it will not force unwanted legislation on the States and will rectify the situation which already exists in the Northern Territory. Senator Peter Baume —It should pass your Bill. Senator KILGARIFF —Yes, Senator Baume; I note that comment. I make the final point that of all the comments which have come to me on Mr Holding's preferred Federal model, not one has been supportive, whether it be Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal. His proposals are not wanted and are not warranted. I suggest that the Federal Government consider examining the private member's Bill which I have prepared to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. I point out as a matter of interest that elements in my Bill appear to be similar to some of Mr Holding's proposals but other aspects would be more readily received by those in the Northern Territory who have been affected by the operation of the land rights Act. I am not talking only of non-Aboriginal people but of Aboriginal people who have lost their land against other Aboriginal people. The Northern Territory should have the authority and responsibility for its legislation. My Bill is a genuine attempt to reconcile the interests of all those involved in the land rights debate within the economic and social realities of the Northern Territory. That is what is needed, I suggest, Australia-wide. This principle should apply too to the States of Australia, State by State, not through a centralist platform. But first, can the Prime Minister and his Government take a firm stance on Aboriginal land rights legislation? If it is possible, we await it with interest. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.45) —The matter for discussion before the Senate is: The need for the Government to abandon its commitment to use Commonwealth Constitutional powers to achieve national Aboriginal land rights. That proposition suggests not only-by inference I suppose-that the Government abandon its powers under section 51 (XXVI), but also that the Parliament in the foreseeable future abandon its powers under that section. Senator Peter Baume —Or not try to exercise it. Senator COONEY —Yes. As I understand the proposition put by the Opposition, and Senator Baume will correct me if it is not so, instead of the Commonwealth entering into a uniform land rights Bill and enacting legislation on that line, the States should be left to enact legislation applicable to each jurisdiction. Senator Peter Baume —And encourage it. Senator COONEY —Yes, but I find some difficulty with the proposition which I understand was put by Senator Baume who was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the coalition Government from 3 November 1980 to 7 May 1982 and who served that office with great distinction. The same might be said about Senator Chaney who preceded him in the period from 5 December 1978 to 3 November 1980. It is a fair proposition that both those gentlemen would much better serve the Aboriginal community than would many of the State Premiers and State Ministers responsible for Aboriginal affairs. These two honourable senators who have so eloquently and properly served the Aboriginal community want to abandon the opportunity to do that again and to give power over to the States which have been criticised by both sides of the House today. Senator Baume or Senator Chaney said that the New South Wales legislation left a lot to be desired. The sort of legislation in operation in Queensland has been criticised by this side of the House. There is no doubt that the record of the States in the area of Aboriginal affairs has been very poor indeed. How can we as a conscientious parliament clothed from 1967 in powers to enter into this field abandon that power? Is there any situation that Senator Baume, Senator Kilgariff or Senator Chaney can envisage in which they would use this power to override the States under section 109 of the Constitution to overcome an injustice that the States were perpetrating toward Aborigines? Senator Peter Baume —Yes. Senator COONEY —If there is such a situation what is it? In a situation in which Aboriginals, as Senator Macklin said, have been denied land rights for decades is it not proper for this Parliament to deal with the land rights by using the power with which it is clothed under section 51 (XXVI)? Senator Chaney was quite correct when he said that there is great opposition to land rights and that it has developed in recent years. His answer to that was to say: `Leave it to the States. Let each State work out its own destiny'. That proposition must result in a situation in which some Aborigines would have better and more extensive rights than others because their rights would vary from State to State. The very proposition that the decision be left to the States or a Territory suggests that. Would it be a good thing to have Aboriginals around Australia with different rights depending on where they live? If they lived one mile to one side of a border, they could have secure rights; if they lived one mile to the other side of the border, their rights could be very much reduced. Senator Kilgariff —That is similar to the situation in the Territory and the States now. The Territory's rights are on a different basis. Senator COONEY —That is absolutely correct. As Senator Kilgariff says, that very sort of thing is going on at the moment because there is no national land rights legislation. Senator Kilgariff has made a suggestion which must inevitably lead to the proposition that there has to be some uniform land rights legislation. Senator Kilgariff said: `Leave it to the States. Leave the legislation to the Northern Territory'. Is Senator Kilgariff willing to guarantee that, if tomorrow this Parliament gave the Northern Territory Assembly the right over Aboriginal affairs, the Northern Territory would retain the excellent Act which his Government enacted in 1976, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act? How long would the provisions in that Act last if it were left to the Northern Territory Government? Senator Kilgariff —They are giving land rights to Aboriginal people on parts of leases where there is no legislative back-up now. Senator COONEY —Do I take it from Senator Kilgariff's answer that, if this Parliament gave the Northern Territory Assembly such power, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 would remain in operation? Senator Kilgariff —You can never go back on what exists. Senator COONEY —So we have a guarantee from the senator from the Northern Territory that the Northern Territory will preserve the full impact of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle spoke on that Bill in 1976. I see she is here now and I believe she ought to be quoted in this context. She said: I believe that the passage of legislation to grant land rights to Aborigines in the Northern Territory will be a most significant and progressive step in the social and political history of this county. It will at long last signal Australia's acceptance of Aborigines as a people having a unique and distinct culture within Australian society. She was not then minded to say that this would apply within the Northern Territory, within South Australia or within Victoria. She referred to Australia. I suggest that in those days, in the halcyon days when there was a bipartisan policy, the legislation was seen as a matter of national triumph-indeed, a step that I am sure Senator Macklin would have welcomed. What has happened to the bipartisan policy? It is said that the Government has destroyed it. But there is an easy way out of that. Senator Chaney said that the Government has been in a dilemma. He said that it had made promises and had had the effrontery to raise the expectations of Aborigines. That was one of the criticisms. I do not think he meant it in those stark terms but the inference from what he said is that nobody should raise the expectations of Aborigines; that they should be left in the state they are in now. Again, that has been eloquently described by Senator Macklin. But does the Opposition say that it is wrong to raise the expectations of people, in particular, Aborigines? Does the Opposition believe it is wrong to suggest that there should be legislation to enable Aborigines to live on the land of their origin, that they cannot go back to any land occupied by their grandfathers or great-great grandfathers and so on? Is it wrong to raise their expectations? That is the criticism made by the Opposition in this debate. Senator Peter Baume asked us to think about the history of this country since European settlement. Again, that is a reason why this legislation should be left very much in the hands of the Commonwealth. We should think about the policies that took place before the 1976 land rights Act, the policies of protection and segregation which led to children being taken from their parents. There are Aboriginal people, now in their late twenties or early thirties, who do not know where their parents are or who they are. This happened as a result of policies perpetrated, no doubt in all sincerity, by the States. That is the reality of the matter. Are we to go back to the days of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s? In the 1950s Sir Paul Hasluck developed a policy, certainly at a Federal level, to have Aborigines integrated into society. Again, that did not prove successful. Land rights policies after all those years have proved successful; they are policies of the national government. In 1967 the people of Australia, by the greatest majority ever in a referendum, said: `Look. You, the Commonwealth Parliament, should look after these matters'. If that is the will of the people, we as the Commonwealth Parliament are obliged to do something about it. There is one way that it can be done. Senator Reynolds pointed the way. She said that we ought to have a bipartisan policy on this issue in the way that we had in 1975-76. Senator Chaney, who preceded her in the debate, also said this. Of course, Senator Chaney said that the Government has a clear majority in the Senate to be able to get Aboriginal legislation through because it has the support of the Australian Democrats. He asked why the Government did not have the political courage, as he put it, to put through this legislation if that is what it wants. Of course, that is one way of looking at it. But the trouble is that it is not only a matter for the Parliament; it is also one for the people outside the Parliament, the electorate. The one way to overcome the opposition of the electorate, to show the electorate that there is a way forward, is for the parties in this Parliament to have a bipartisan policy. I suggest to the Opposition that that is how to overcome the problems which it says rack this issue. Why do not the parties in this Parliament get together and solve the problems in a bipartisan way, as they did in 1975-76? In that context I wish to quote a statement made by Mr Whitlam in 1972. He got the land rights issue under way. He laid the background for the legislation which was introduced by the coalition in 1976-the legislation which, if it were left to the State branches of the Opposition parties, would soon be dismembered. In 1972 Mr Whitlam said: More than any foreign program, more than international obligations which we meet or forfeit, more than any part we may play in treaty or agreement or alliance, Australia's treatment of its Aboriginal people will be the thing upon which the rest of the world will judge Australia and Australians-not just now, but in the greater perspective of history. What is done by the Western Australians, the South Australians, the Queenslanders or those in the Northern Territory is not seen in terms of that State or Territory but in terms of what Australia will do. Australia has an obligation primarily to the Aborigines. It also has an obligation to its own reputation. The sorts of things that are said about Africa and South Africa should never be said about Australia. The opportunity should never exist for that to be said. In Australia's own interests, it should act as a country and should exercise the power that the people of Australia in 1967 so resoundingly said it should have and it should bring in uniform land rights legislation. It is an abnegation, a refusal to carry out our duty if we simply say: `We are too frightened. We are not willing to take on the opprobrium of the people outside, whether they be miners or anybody else. We will not do that. We will duck behind the issue and leave it to the States. We will adopt this new policy of federalism.' But what is the policy of federalism? What does it mean? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question put: That the motion (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C,Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. 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. Georges, G. Vigor, D. B. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Messner, A. J. Grimes, D. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.07) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The legislation that brought about the development of uranium mining in the Jabiru region and provided for its administration, co-ordination and control has now been in operation for several years. When one looks at those controls and at the responsibilities of the Supervising Scientist and the various authorities relating to this development one wonders how on earth the administration of this area has been carried out with any degree of efficiency. The introduction of the annual report of the Supervising Scientist of the Alligator Rivers region states: The Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, a statutory officer appointed under the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, performs his functions within a network of interlocking legislation, agreements and regulatory instruments. These institutional arrangements recognise the regulatory responsibilities of the Northern Territory as a self-governing territory, as well as national park and Aboriginal interests, and the more general controls in relation to uranium mining and export exercised by the Commonwealth. An outline of the principal legislation and the agencies involved is given in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows that the implementation of environment protection in the region involves the Commonwealth Minister for Territories, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, The Attorney-General and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, while from the Northern Territory we have the Minister for Mines and Energy, the Minister for Conservation, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Community Development. When one peruses all these various responsibilities that these Ministers have, whether Commonwealth or Northern Territory, one sees that there is an immense horizon. The point that I put briefly to the Senate tonight is this: I believe that these various Acts which give the various Ministers authority and set up the Supervising Scientist, at times have been too unwieldy. There are too many authorities, too many regulations and too many people with their fingers in the pie. I believe that after this period-this system has been in operation for some 10 years-there should be a review of the whole administration. Surely it is not necessary to have so many agencies. Surely this system could be much more efficient and less costly to the nation. I think this is a very good point and I would like to hear from the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans as I know that he has a real interest in this area. I believe that it is time for the Government and for all those various authorities to have a review to bring about a more efficient system. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.11) —I point out that the annual report of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region is a document which, as the preceding speaker, Senator Kilgariff, said, spells out the procedures that take place. But I think we have to go back to basics. This is a national park. Uranium mining should not be allowed at all in this national park. The procedures that allow it are really immaterial; we should not have any uranium mining. On page 22 under the heading `Review and Assessment of Environmental Impact of Mining Operations', the report states: A growing company concern at Ranger is an excess of about one million cubic metres of water that has accumulated within the Restricted Release Zone. According to the report, it turns out that much of this problem was caused by Ranger itself because one million cubic metres of water in excess of requirements were imported during 1982 when it was thought there might be a shortage of water. What a terrible way to operate a mine. These people are in charge of radioactive substances. The report states: Ranger is studying a number of measures to reduce its water surplus, including spray irrigation, subaerial tailings management, better segregation of clean water within the RRZ, building a further water management/evaporation pond and discharge of water of suitable quality to Magela Creek. I have seen all these operations. In fact I went out there and talked to the people at Ranger and they said: `If we are not allowed to release water we will have to shut down by March'. Ranger itself has admitted that all these options will not work except for the release of water into Magela Creek. The report also states: Finally, neither biological science nor our knowledge of the ecosystems of the Region is adequate to enable confident predictions to be made of all effects that could arise and their ecological significance as a result of water release to the creek systems-particularly in the long term. That is in the report of the Supervising Scientist. The Government, on its part, has said as recently as 6 November 1985 that it will allow no release of water. I quote from the Canberra Times of 6 November 1985 which States: A spokesman for Mr Cohen said yesterday that the Government had already decided that there would be no water release from the mine during the coming wet season. He said that Ranger had made a `series of blunders' including over-estimating the rate of evaporation, under-estimating precipitation in the area, and miscalculating the density of tailings suspended in water. `Their mistakes have led to the problem', he said. The Government was not disposed towards the release of contaminated water into Magela Creek. That is good stuff. But what happened then? The Ranger release of water, which the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) said would never take place, was allowed. Senator Gareth Evans —He said contaminated water. That is what you read out. There is a difference. Senator SANDERS —The Minister, Mr Cohen, said that it was all right to release this water on 2 February because it was being released in an area where there was natural contamination. In fact he approved of the release of this water and it is contaminated water, make no mistake. The Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recommended that a policy of total containment be followed by that mine. Now it turns out that the man who could actually control this release is sitting in this chamber at this moment. It is the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, in whom the power resides to control releases in this area, yet apparently he is not exercising this power. I put it to the Senate and I put it to the Minister as well that the Government is simply not taking its role seriously. In the first place, mining should not be allowed at all in a national park. It would appear that Ranger has blackmailed the Government into going along with its release program by saying: `We will shut the mine down if we do not get our release program okayed'. The Government has caved in to this. I think it is high time that the Government lived up to its responsibility to the people of Australia to control Ranger in a manner which will make it safe for the environment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The tabling of the science and technology statement must be a significant disappointment for the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). The statement is a drastic diminution of the Minister's top project, the national technology strategy. It no longer represents a statement of government intent but rather is merely a vague framework to assist in the formation of other policies. I know not why the Government has taken this attitude towards such a project. The shelving of the strategy will mean that more than two and a half years of continuous preparation by a number of task forces and departments, as well as 250 submissions from industry, government and community groups, will all come to virtually nothing. For all that, the Opposition supports many of the aims set down in this statement although, of course, we may differ on the means of achieving those aims. The Opposition agrees that there is a need for increased student participation in education and the Opposition adds that measures that would lead to increased study in the science and engineering should be encouraged. The Opposition supports greater research effort by industry, increased interaction between research institutions and industry and greater use of technology by industry. The Opposition in particular will promote collaborative undertakings between industry, universities and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation as we believed the technology strategy was going to do. The Opposition supports the principle that industry contribute directly to these and related public sector institutions-a move which will almost certainly bring about a greater degree of relevance of research and lead to greater utilisation of Australian's technical resources. The Opposition also supports much greater exchanges of personnel between industry and research institutions. According to the statement, one of the priority actions that the Government believes will lead to increased private sector spending on research and development is the 150 per cent tax concession on research and development expenditure. Although the Opposition is heartened by the apparently strong response to the announcement of the concession there are a number of concerns about possible deleterious effects of the move. The first concern relates to the bias in the legislation against individual inventors, partnerships and smaller innovation-based firms. The bias against these smaller inventors and innovators is manifest in the following ways. Firstly, the foreshadowed criteria explicitly rule out the concession being available to individual partnerships or trusts. Secondly, applicants must be able to point to past performance on research and development and this severely disadvantages new and small firms, as does the third criterion, that is the requirement that spending on research and development in a particular year exceeds $50,000. Do we want out research and development, or do we not? The Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office points up the folly of such a policy. For example, individuals account for 71 per cent of new domestic-based applications for patents, but 79 per cent of such applications lapse. Clearly, ideas for potentially exciting new projects are not reaching production stage, yet the Government's policy flagship on research and development ignores and indeed discriminates against this important reservoir of innovative talent. So many might-have-beens fail to get off the ground because support at the vital stage is not available. Other reservations the Opposition has include the possibility that the concession will lead to a distortion of the most efficient distribution of investment resources. The experience of the effect of a similar tax concession, for instance in the film industry, is illustrative in this way. Quantity, not quality, was the result. Such a prospect occurring in research and development must be carefully considered and avoided. Another concern is one related to potential abuse of the concession by firms not genuinely interested in research and development. Finally, the Opposition, with these concerns in mind, would like a commitment that the greater than expected cost of the tax concession will not mean a reduction in other research and development programs which are of greater benefit to smaller innovators. In closing, it must be noted that the Opposition has serious reservations-and this is by no means an exhaustive list-about the flagship of the Government's technology statement. But the Opposition supports the aim of the statement. The statement is a useful handbook but unfortunately no more than that. The high prospects of 1983 have gone. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.22) —The statement on science and technology documents the policies and activities, and to a certain extent the budgets, of an extraordinary large number of departments and government and semi-government organisations which are grouped under the umbrella of science and technology. The number is extraordinarily large in the terms of the normal meaning of the term science and technology, because this document includes research into such matters as the social sciences and the humanities. The amount of money spent on research and development in the whole area of science and technology would seem huge. One wonders why Australia has not benefited from this large expenditure of money. Why have we not benefited to the extent that other western nations have from such a large infusion of capital? It is quite clear from reading this statement why Australia is falling behind its competitors. First, we are spending on research and development nowhere near the amount of money being spent by such countries as the United States of America, Western Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands, all of which have in excess of one per cent of their entire work force employed in research and development, whereas Australia has only 0.65 per cent. Similarly, the United States of America, Western Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom spend over 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product on research and development, whereas Australian investment, from all sources, amounts to only one per cent of GDP. We obviously are not taking this matter very seriously, and it shows our declining status in relation to the western world. Secondly, those elements in our society who should benefit most from this technology and scientific achievement have generally refused to accept a great deal of responsibility for funding the necessary research. In the United States, for example, the business community spends more than three times the amount on research and development than does government. Similarly, in Switzerland business enterprises spend eight times more on research and development than does the Swiss Government. By contrast, Australian business contributes only one quarter as much as the Government does. As the Minister points out, the problem in Australia is not so much with government funding of research and development but with private sector funding. It is ironic that millions of dollars are available for investment in corporate takeovers which are virtually non-productive, but very little is available for entrepreneurial development. Unless we make heroes of the research scientists rather than the Holmes a Courts of this world, I do not think the situation will improve a great deal. Until the private sector does more to help itself, we will continue to suffer from lack of international competitiveness. Thirdly, Australia has achieved excellence in many areas of science. Our universities are held in high regard, particularly the larger ones, and we have a wealth of internationally regarded scientists and researchers in the universities and government laboratories. But unfortunately many are leaving this country because there is not enough scope or money for further development and achievement. Just last year we lost three of our top polymer graduates to the United States. As a result Australia's future opportunities to cash in on this area remain grim compared with many European countries. Polymers are crucial in aerospace, electronics, and medical fields. Also they are used in techniques to purify water, techniques which could be vital to a country such as Australia. But rather than invest in our future, we allow out top scientists in this area to be pirated by our competitors. Fourthly, it would appear that many of our research projects that receive funds are of questionable merit of application. Considering the limited resources we have, I believe we must apply those funds to the greatest benefit for future development. For business to become more involved in research and development, the universities would need to change some of the scope and direction of their research in order to apply more of their funds to applied work for the benefit of industry. Research must become tailored to the market and to the development of products and processes which can be turned to national advantage. In other words, universities could direct more of their research towards industrial research and development. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.28) —In making some remarks on the Science and Technology Statement 1985-86, there are three matters to which I wish to draw attention. First, it is most disturbing to look at the figures which appear in the table on page 19 of the report. They show the extent to which private enterprise in its contribution to gross expenditure on research and development in Australia has been dragging the chain. The figures there indicate quite clearly that from 1968-69 when private enterprise provided 32 per cent of the total funding as a percentage of GERD that figure declined in 1983-84 to a figure of 17 per cent, the lowest figure it has ever reached. My colleague Senator Archer said that, while the Opposition welcomes in principle the establishment of the 150 per cent tax concession for private sector expenditure on research and development, we feel that there are a number of problems in this sphere. I wish to point to three. The first is the extent to which the scheme is likely to benefit foreign companies at the expense of Australian companies; secondly, the extent to which it is likely to benefit existing and established companies at the expense of start-up and innovative companies; and the third, without going into details, is the question of expenditures which under the current guidelines are not allowed but which in my view ought to be allowed. Of those I believe the most important and significant is the expenditure on patent and copyrighting. Anybody who has any knowledge of the significance of patent and copyright legislation in turning good ideas and good research into commercially viable undertakings will come to appreciate that not to allow substantial costs in that area as a deduction under the scheme will prejudice its operation. In particular I refer to those occasions where a company has to apply for and file patents outside Australia and has to keep those on foot by renewing them in the United States and in Europe on a fairly regular basis so that they do not lapse. This is indicative of the rather sloppy attitude taken by the Government to the published guidelines. It is a disgrace that at this stage all we have to go on is a series of Press statements by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). Despite the fact that this scheme has been in operation since 30 June last, the scheme still has no legislative backing. Indeed, we have not seen a piece of legislation subject to possible amendment by this Parliament as to what is and what is not an allowable deduction. It is a disgrace that we are almost twelve months down the track of the scheme's operation and have not seen any degree of legislative backing for it. I wish to emphasise a point made by Senator Archer. I refer to the craven abandonment of the national technology strategy by the Government during the course of this year. All the hype and hyperbole which has come to mark Mr Barry Jones's administration of his Department has once again turned to dust in his mouth in terms of any concrete achievement for the Australia scientific and technical sector. The last point I wish to make is referred to in passing on pages 2 and 3 of the statement. I refer to the analyses which have been conducted this year of the various research and incentive schemes. For example, we have had this year a report by the Australian Science and Technology Council on computer-related technologies in the metal trades industry; a report by the Centre for Technology and Social Change on high technology indicators. We have also seen a report from Nicholas Clark & Associates; the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences report; the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board report; the Bureau of Industry Economics report; the Price Waterhouse report; and three other ASTEC reports dealing with research funding in Australia. None of those has yet been substantially replied to by the Government. They all advocate changes. They all advocate needed improvements. Yet the Government has taken no steps to indicate what it proposes to do about any of these schemes in terms of the recommendations with which they have been presented by a number of expert bodies. To that extent, once again, the paucity of action compared with the superabundance of rhetoric we have had from the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) in the operation of his portfolio stands as a very sorry condemnation of the record of this Government in what is a vital sector for Australia and the Australian economy. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.31) —It is very pleasing to see that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), unlike his Government, remains committed to the link between science and technology. Currently there is general concern about Australia's poor export performance and our dependence on massive imports of high technology products. Most experts agree that this situation can be improved only through the transfer and development of research results into technological manufacture of high value-added products. For this reason I view with great concern the trend towards decreasing research and development investment in Australia. This is exactly what the science and technology statement tells us. As the Minister points out, the major cause of the trend is the very low level of private business investment in research and development. The private enterprise share of research and development funding decreased from 32 per cent in 1968 to 17 per cent in 1984; that is, the proportion of research and development done by business in Australia has almost halved in less than 20 years, as Senator Puplick has pointed out. The Government has taken some measures to stimulate private investment in research and development through its 150 per cent tax deduction scheme offered to businesses for research and development. But, as Senator Puplick also has said, it relates only to existing large companies and does not handle the small company. The Australian industrial research and development incentive scheme is also a very valuable help to industry. However, the dominance of Australian business by overseas-owned parent companies, whose primary loyalties lie outside Australia means that this problem is likely to continue unless the Government obtains commitments from the parent companies to invest in Australian research and development. The offset policy has not been a success. I might even go so far as to say that many firms consider it to be a farce. Most offset investments in Australia have been of low level technology, such as label engineering. Occasionally they may involve some technology transfer. However, positive research and development investment has not resulted in any large extent from the offset program. The figures showing trends in Commonwealth Government support for research and development are also fairly disquieting. These figures show that even government-funded research and development is getting a decreasing share of Australia's gross domestic product. Since 1981, the Hawke Government's total outlays on research and development have decreased from 0.51 per cent of GDP in 1981 to 0.48 per cent of GDP in 1986. The trend is continuing. This means that Australia is reinvesting less and less of its output in research and development. The long term effect of this is quite frightening. Already we are suffering from the lack of research and development investment in the past. It is noteworthy that Australia earns its major export income from its rural and mineral industries and that it is in these areas that most of Australia's research and development effort is and has been concentrated. If we concentrated some research effort on some other areas we might be able to compete in them. Another example is defence spending. Defence spending has decreased over the years. It is extremely important, if we are to keep a strong, independent Australia, that we give affirmative support to Australian industry and, particularly, use some of our defence money to promote both defence and the development of local products we can support locally. In manufacturing, whilst there has been a small increase in research and development expenditure, the failure of this trend to reach our business enterprises means that we are not likely to see a turnaround in performance in this area. The time-lag between the investment of research and development moneys and its payoff can be of the order of ten years. We have ten years of problems ahead of us because we have not been investing in the manufacturing sector. We have been neglecting the energy field. We are screaming about the cost of energy. The most disturbing trend is the rapidly diminishing research and development effort in transport. In a country as large as Australia, with such long distances between its cities, such wide and sparsely inhabited inland, a country so far from the major markets of the world, whose defence and trade are so vulnerable to transport problems and whose public transport systems are in tatters, this trend is incredible. We have to start spending more in these areas. In conclusion, I point out that Australia has dropped back in its research and development effort compared with most other member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement on the subject of water release from the Ranger uranium mine in response to comments made by Senator Kilgariff and Senator Sanders earlier in the debate. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think it may be helpful to clarify the present situation with respect to water release at Ranger in the light of comments that were made by Senator Sanders, in particular, in his discussion of the report of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region. It is important to appreciate that there are two separate situations. One is in relation to water accumulations outside the restricted release zone. The second is the problem of water accumulation within the restricted release zone. I believe that there has been some confusion in a number of reports about developments at Ranger as between those two areas. In the first place I shall deal with the water release which has recently occurred at Ranger and which has been subject to some Press reports that contaminated water has been released into the Magela Creek. The water that has recently been released came from retention pond No. 4 which is located outside the mine's restricted release zone. This pond is a storage pond which collects rainwater runoff. It certainly does not contain contaminated mine water. Nevertheless, it is tested before it is released and is released only if it meets standards which have been agreed to by parties represented on the co-ordinating committee for the Alligator Rivers Region, including the Aborigines and the Kakadu National Park management. I make it quite clear in that respect that, insofar as water has been released, it has been from outside the restricted release zone. Certainly no authorisation has been given by me or anyone else for the release of water into the Magela Creek from within the mine's restricted release zone. No such application for such release of water has even been sought or has been made. Senator Sanders —Are they going to transfer contaminated water into that area? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will get to other situations in a moment. Just to finish my comments with respect to the recent water release, I am advised that there have been reports that large quantities of mussels have aborted following the release of water recently into the Magela Creek. However, those reports are wildly exaggerated. Whilst it is true that last year there was some `fish avoidance'-as described by the scientists-and short term impairment of the reproduction of mussels in the vicinity of the outlet pipe, the significance of this, honourable senators will be pleased to know, is, I am told, unclear. The Supervising Scientist, whose staff reported the early release of mussel larvae, is of the view that the release of the retention pond No. 4 water recently will have virtually no environmental effect. As to the larger, continuing problem of accumulations of water within the restricted release zone, which are prima facie contaminated, the situation is as follows: It is the case that high rainfall and less evaporation than originally forecast, and maybe some of the other factors that Senator Sanders referred to, has led to the build-up of excess water within the restricted release zone at Ranger to the point where mining could be impeded. Senator Sanders will no doubt regard that as a good thing, but nonetheless so long as the mine exists and makes the contribution it does to our resource sector, that is a situation the Government would wish to avoid. Ranger had hoped to release so-called clean RRZ water to the Magela to reduce its water holdings. The Supervising Scientist was of the view that this would not imperil the environment, but a number of groups with interests in the region remained concerned and alternative measures were sought. Ranger then submitted a report to the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments in which it set out its proposals for the best practicable technology in water management. That report was considered by the co-ordinating committee in December and was felt to be useful. However, the Supervising Scientist is of the view that the report does not go far enough to serve as a basis for determining the best practicable technology. Ranger has now agreed to bring into commission a water treatment plant and, in the absence of a settled BPT regime, the unanimous consensus of the co-ordinating committee was that water treated in this plant to agreed criteria could be safely disposed of by spray irrigation. Provided there is no extreme rainfall, water treatment and irrigation should permit continuing operation of the mine without the need to consider the release of water and should slowly reduce the water holdings. Only in extreme circumstances, I am able to assure the Senate, would the question of water release be reconsidered and then only of rain water accumulated in the project area. I conclude by saying it is the case, as I understand it, that as the Minister for Resources and Energy I have ultimate authority under section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act to set conditions, including the authority to impose a condition prohibiting absolutely water release of the kind that is in issue here. I make it clear, however, that many other authorities are vested with responsibility: Indeed, Senator Kilgariff identified a number of them. It would be only in exceptional circumstances that I think it would be appropriate for me to come in over the top. However, I have very strong personal views about the undesirability of there being a water release from within the restricted release zone and would certainly need an enormous amount of persuasion for any other form of release than that which has occurred so far and been accepted as appropriate by the co-ordinating committee to take place. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated under Sessional Orders for the consideration of Government papers has expired. Consideration resumed from 12 February (on motion by Senator Sanders): That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 12 February (on motion by Senator Collard): That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 12 February (on motion by Senator Archer): That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 12 February (on motion by Senator Collard): That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.45) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would like to make a few comments on the operation of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. I start off, as I usually seem to, by giving credit to Mr Jim Fitzpatrick, the Chairman of the organisation, for the way he has got the business organised and runs the ship. He runs it very well. A couple of interesting things have arisen and need to be referred to. Firstly, I mention arrears. The report states that there was a relatively low level of claims and that this was matched by a significant fall in the numbers of arrears cases as at 30 June 1985. This is one of the marks that go with a period of rising prices and buoyant markets. When those circumstances arise and in times of apparent prosperity on the part of home buyers, arrears are very low. There is a reverse to this situation. If the situation changes and the market starts to fall, or the appearance of economic growth ceases to take place, we could expect a change in the level of claims and arrears. I shall draw attention to another matter because it is in line with business generally and is an Australian disease at present. The financial results show that premiums earned rose at a slower rate and were up 10 per cent to $9m and that operating expenditure increased by 19 per cent. It needs to be borne in mind that business generally cannot continue to be run when expenses are rising at nearly double the increase in incomes. The report again draws attention to the secondary mortgage market. In 1964 I was involved fairly substantially in the housing business. At the stage when the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation was being formed we were looking to the formation of a secondary mortgage market which was properly organised and which had the necessary legislation to make its operation quite simple. The position now is that there is a small secondary mortgage market but it is not operating adequately. There are still restrictions which make its operation less than easy. For the time ahead of us when we will be dealing with a tight money supply and difficult business circumstances, I urge the Government to consider seriously taking away any impediments to the establishment of a proper secondary mortgage market. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.48) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I take this opportunity of making a few comments about the Health Insurance Commission which, in its report, addresses some of the facts and figures that it is very important for honourable senators to know. They are certainly figures that are sometimes modified or bent, depending on how the argument needs to be shaped. Certainly Medicare has taken its fair share of abuse. I draw honourable senators' attention to the details and facts contained in this report. They should allay the fears about Medicare. The data indicates the facts about Medicare. We should not skate over the issue because of what I sometimes think is prejudice by some honourable senators. It has been quite interesting to observe the establishment and continued development of Medicare, and in fact its consolidation over the year 1984-85. I think it is reasonable to accept the report's claim that Medicare has become accepted by the people of Australia as a stable, effective and understandable health benefits scheme. Also in this report, under the heading of `Medibank Private', is a brief description of the fortunes of Medibank Private, which in fact showed a fall in membership with the introduction of Medicare, and then a rise in the early part of 1985, to the point where Medibank Private covered 1 3/4 million people up until June 1985. This, says the report, supports the claim that the Australian population wishes to maintain a dual, that is, a public and a private, health care system. This is certainly evidenced by the acceptance of the Medicare scheme and by the participation in a private health scheme, as outlined in this report in the Medibank Private history. The Medibank Private operations over the year actually resulted in a national surplus of some $43.8m, compared with a surplus of $27.4m in 1983-84. So I would presume Medibank Private could take some heart from that. That is interesting, given the report of some fall in membership before a kick-up again. The total figures for Medicare make interesting reading, too. A total of $2,296.2m was paid out in Medicare benefits during the year and $107.6m in management expenses, which very closely approximated the Budget appropriations for those two categories. In fact, over the year under reporting, there has been no major change to the health insurance arrangements. However, the change with the arrangement between the Federal Government and New South Wales on 2 April clearly has implications for both Medicare and Medibank Private-in particular for Medicare because of a reduction in the number of patients having Medicare status in public hospitals. I would presume that the implications of that will flow more into next year's annual report. It is also interesting to note that in this report there are some very comprehensive statistics on how many people have been issued with cards and how many people are on cards for individuals as against those who have cards that cover more than one person. I am very surprised to find that some cards cover 12 and more people, although very few people in this country draw their Medicare benefits under a card with 12 persons listed on it. The report contains very useful information and hard data, so I hope it is referred to by honourable senators in future deliberations on Medicare. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.54) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I am pleased to rise to speak to the annual report of the Commonwealth Department of Health for the year 1984-85. Again, I am not sure that other senators will take the same interest as I do in the remarkable tables, but if they want to go to the back of this report they will find there the most entertaining bedside reading. I discover that there are notifiable diseases listed in the report of the Commonwealth Department of Health that I have never even heard of, much less am able to pronounce. Even to pick out some of the diseases that I do have some recognition of makes for a most interesting understanding of the health status, if not of the illness status, of the Australian population. For instance, I find it quite shocking to discover that leprosy still occurs in Australia and that there were cases of leprosy reported for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Australia, albeit in small numbers. I was also interested to observe the numbers of tuberculosis cases that were notified in the year of this report. If one wanted to be mischievous one could go to the breakdown by State of the notified cases of venereal disease and draw some very interesting, albeit insufficient, conclusions. But I do not wish to deliberate on that section of the report except to make comments on the comprehensiveness of these statistics and their usefulness for looking at notifiable diseases and also at benefits, bed days, occupancy rates and any number of statistics of all sorts that are the concern of this Commonwealth Department. The report is interesting because it has a new format. The report starts off: Regular readers of this Report will not have failed to notice changes in its format . . . I would be very interested to meet a regular reader of the Commonwealth Department of Health annual report. I suspect that such people are largely within the Department of Health. But I take account of the fact that there is a new format, and perhaps it is because of the way that it is set out that so many of these tables and statistics and so much of this data are so readily obvious and available to anybody looking at the report. The change in format of the report matches the change in structure of the Health Department, which has undergone considerable re- arrangement. The report talks about the anatomy of re-organisation, and these sections are headed `Change by Government decision', `Change by Ministerial decision', and `Change by management decision', followed by further descriptions of the various sub-sections in the Department. The report is, for anybody interested in the Commonwealth Department of Health much less the many areas covered by this Department, a very lucid elaboration of what the Department's structure is now and the reasons for how it has been so arrived at. I wish to commend the Department not only on the comprehensive coverage of any number of other areas-such as the drug matters, the Better Health Commission, the Institute of Health, and even the difficulties with which the Commonwealth Department of Health has had to contend as a result of the presence and increase of acquired immune deficiency syndrome in the Australian community which is a most worrying problem-but also I would perhaps as predicted, like to commend the report on its clear, obvious and comprehensive section of women's health and equal employment opportunity matters. I suppose Health is a department that might be expected to have a fair awareness of women's issues. It is true, as the report says, that the Department has perhaps been slow in looking to the needs of women and women's health in times past, but this is currently being redressed both within the Department and its structures and within the areas of health and preventative health provisions covered by the Department. In 1975 there was, to correspond with International Women's Year, a highly successful conference, `Women's Health in Changing Society', and in 1985, the period covered by this report, a second national health conference was held in South Australia to which the Commonwealth Health Department contributed $30,000. It was a very useful, comprehensive conference which looked at issues concerning women's health. In the few seconds remaining to me I draw the attention of honourable senators to this report. It is excellent, comprehensive and very clear. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.00) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australian research grants scheme provides grants for research to individuals and groups who are not employed directly by the Government. While the scheme does allow for funding of private research projects, it is noteworthy that in 1985 only seven such projects were funded out of a total of 1,453 grants awarded. Is it possible that the failure to transfer research effort into viable technological industry is related to the concentration of our research efforts in universities, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other such institutions? Most universities and colleges are government funded. Research is an essential component of the work of both lecturers in universities and colleges of advanced education lecturers and of the education of tertiary and post-graduate students, yet it is very difficult to get accurate figures of the proportion of university and college grants that go to funding the research activities within these institutions. So much so that science and technology statements by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) have omitted these figures from the reported figures of government spending on research and development in universities and colleges; just simply, these figures are probably not available. However, most university and college staff are united in agreeing that this funding is most inadequate. Most of the ARGS funds are spent on supplementing the universities through another door rather than stimulating greater levels of research in Australian industry. The competition for ARGS funding by university departments is a matter of life and death to those departments. If a department fails to win grants for at least some of its staff to undertake reasonable research projects, that department stands to lose its better qualified and most energetic teaching staff, its students lose the opportunity for post-graduate research and look for other avenues in other departments, and so student numbers fall in those departments and possibly in the whole set of courses serviced by the departments which so suffer. Since universities fund departments on the basis of their student numbers, the rot sets in and it can take many years for a department to recover from even a year's hiatus in its research grants from ARGS. The consequent imbalance in teaching quality has a major effect for many years on the graduates who move from those departments into industry, commerce, teaching and other occupations. In 1968 Australia was amongst the middle range of research and development performers in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. It was comparable to Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and Italy. In 1986 Australia is barely above the median level of the research and development investment of the small research and development performers of the OECD. These countries include Finland, Norway, Denmark and Austria, which spend more on research and development than Australia. New Zealand, Ireland, Iceland and Portugal are below, and only just below, Australia in their research expenditure. For a country of such great natural wealth, with a population which has selected the most adventurous immigrants from amongst many nations of the world, this performance is very hard to understand. How have we let ourselves fall to this level? How long will it be before we pull ourselves together to work for the future? The OECD report on science and technology in Australia underlines Australia's falling research and development expenditure and its low level of expenditure compared with similar OECD countries. The OECD report also underlines the dramatic decline in funding available to individual university researchers compared with researchers in the government sector. The report also points out that, in carrying out their work, many universities have to put up with obsolete equipment which has high maintenance costs. I commend the ARGS system and I wish that the Government would put a lot more money into the scheme because Australia needs longer term planning of research programs and teaching commitments through a planned triennial funding of research grants. The ARGS grants are on an annual basis. Australia needs greatly increased funding of normal research programs for university and college within their normal funding; increased funding of individual projects through ARGS funds and extra ARGS funds for upgrading equipment; and funding for the training of research and technical assistants who are essential to good research. I commend the ARGS report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 5 December 1985, on motion by Senator Durack: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(6.06) —In October last year I addressed the annual conference of the Marriage Guidance Council of Australia in Hobart, which I regarded as something of an honour. Included in my remarks at that conference was the recognition of the fact that the limits of tolerance of ordinary taxpayers, many of whom have had to keep their marriages and families intact in difficult times, had been reached in regard to funding the abdication of responsibility by a father or mother who could afford to contribute to the maintenance of a child of a dissolved marriage. We all know that the Institute of Family Studies has done considerable work in this area. Not only the information from the Institute but also the information available from many voluntary and community organisations impresses one. The cumulative evidence shows that there is very strong argument for higher maintenance orders which are enforceable. That latter phrase, `which are enforceable', needs to be emphasised. To take only one statistic, sole female parents, as shown in the Institute of Family Studies report, on average were $78 worse off vis-a-vis their pre-separation position, and non-custodial men living alone were $72 better off. In other words, many men could afford more than the $20 per child which seems to be the norm, the rule of thumb, and which, as I say, in any case is not vigorously enforced. The Melbourne-based family welfare agency, the Mission of St James and St John, in an independent survey-I do not know how scientific its basis really was; nevertheless, it made a very interesting finding-found that some 75 per cent of fathers it surveyed, and who were divorced or separated, ignored rulings by the Family Court of Australia on maintenance payments for their children. That was an extraordinarily high number in the area of concern to that particular voluntary organisation. The fact is that these matters are well reported and known, I think, to the general populace and have led to a strong sentiment amongst ordinary Australians that the resources of the non-custodial parent should be the first consideration in determining the size of a maintenance order. At that stage the impact of available social security benefits should be ignored. Of course, if those resources are inadequate to provide a reasonable standard of living for the custodial parent and the dependent children, the Court should take into account the social security system. The general thrust of the first clause of Senator Durack's Family Law Amendment Bill 1985 is one that many would agree with in principle; namely, that the public purse should be used as a last resort and should not be dipped into as a substitute for parental responsibility, if I can put it in those terms. I understand that that is the main thought behind the private member's Bill which Senator Durack has presented to the Senate. I may have got a little carried away in that particular conference forum because I put an emphasis on government expenditures, which are considerable in this area. Senator Durack pointed out in his second reading speech that expenditure last year on the supporting parent's benefit rose to some $889.6m, with 153,589 recipients receiving that particular benefit. An enormous amount of money is being paid by the community in support of parents who have dependent children and meagre resources to call on of their own. I do not want to put the first emphasis on the matter of protecting revenue, nor would one want to do as some have done-I do not accuse Senator Durack of this-in placing a moralistic insistence on the obligation of the non-custodial parent, which is coloured sometimes in language which suggests that we are trying to put a pecuniary penalty on the non-custodial parent for the divorce and separation. Rather, we should be concentrating on the terrible poverty into which children and the single supporting parent are so often degraded upon separation and the dissolution of the marriage. Indeed, it is well known that in the last decade or so patterns of poverty in Australia have changed. Certainly when I was a child we would have expected poverty to be amongst the elderly; now the situation quite clearly has changed and poverty is amongst young children, particularly in households where the only income to sustain them is the supporting parent's benefit. Our real focus should be on the obligations of both parents, custodial and non-custodial, and then of society-in that order-as is suggested by Senator Durack's Bill, in dealing with and trying to alleviate the poverty that develops upon separation and divorce. I am sure that the rest of the community is prepared in a practically compassionate way to come to the aid of such households only when it is clearly perceived-this is the question of equity, fairness and justice as understood in the community-that the non-custodial parent has not sufficient resources to call on to aid sufficiently the household that has only meagre resources. Of course, it is not merely a question of setting a maintenance payment which is adequate, but of enforcement and compliance with the maintenance order. I will come to that later because I believe that that is the weakness in the overall scheme of Senator Durack's approach, which I think he admits. He cannot do everything in his Bill. It may lead the Senate to think that it is not appropriate at this stage to pass the Bill into law without some of the further elements to do with compliance and enforcement which are so important and essential and really the key to the successful lifting of many poverty-stricken Australian households for their situation. Senator Walters —But it would be a first step. Senator TATE —It would be a step to be taken in conjunction with the other steps which are necessary. It is quite correct to place primary responsibility on the non-custodial parent. That goes to the matter of equity and fairness which the gallup poll shows is a matter of great concern to all Australians. I do not know whether Senator Durack has had a chance to look at the gallup poll of 21 January 1986. It indicates: Most Australians (76%) believe parents who do not pay child maintenance when ordered to do so by the courts should be forced to do so. Almost two in three people surveyed (64%) also approve of the Government collecting child maintenance and then paying it directly to the child's supporting parent. In a sense, that answers Senator Walters's question. Questions are put to people and they answer in the context of a series of steps which need to be taken. It is not merely the inadequacy of the $20 rule of thumb, it is the matter of compliance with and enforcement of the order which is also perceived by the public to be very important. We need to pay attention to that. It may also be of interest to know that the following question was put to the respondents to the gallup poll: In some countries, child maintenance is collected through the Tax Department. The Government directs the employer to deduct the maintenance from the parent's pay each week. The Government then pays the maintenance directly to the child's supporting parent. They were then asked `Do you approve or disapprove of the Government collecting child maintenance?' . . . 64 per cent of those surveyed said they approve of the Government collecting child maintenance, while 16% disapprove and 7% can't say. Once again, that is an important indication of what the Australian community now perceives to be necessary in a move away from court-based compliance and enforcement strategy to one that uses administrative procedures. I keep emphasising this because I believe that it is important. I will return to it. Let us look at the Bill. Senator Durack purports to tackle some of the legislative mechanisms which are said to have encouraged this situation to develop. I am greatly attracted to the principal amendment, clause 3 (1). Proposed new sub-section (3) in part states: The Court shall not take into account . . . the eligibility of a party to a marriage claiming main- tenance . . . for a pension, allowance or benefit under the Social Security Act 1947 or the Repatriation Act 1920 . . . but shall determine the proceedings as if there were no such eligibility-- when awarding maintenance. On the whole, that is a principle to which I am attracted but in my view it ought to be stressed that that clause emphasises an approach which the better judges anyway of the Family Court of Australia take to be the law. For example, Mr Justice Fogarty in a celebrated judgment in F and F (1982) FLC *91-214 stated: The problem arises from other payments (such as widow's and supporting parent's pensions). There a good deal of pragmatism is required because of the divergencies of fact which arise in individual cases and also it needs realistically to be taken into account that two family units frequently impose financial burdens which one income is unable to carry. The community in those circumstances may be obligated in the interests of its members, but more particularly the children, to shoulder part of the burden. But to say that is not to overlook the fundamental circumstance that the primary responsibility for maintenance is that of the respondent, that is the other spouse or parent as the case may be in an individual case. To the extent that that respondent is able to contribute out of his or her own income or other financial resources maintenance for the support of the other spouse or children then he should be ordered to do so. That statement by Mr Justice Fogarty, which I know is followed by Mr Justice Wood in Tasmania, really indicates the situation although there is an element of discretion which the clarification in this Bill-which is how I would describe this clause of the Bill-would do away with. It would make it very clear where the primary obligation falls and where the community obligation comes in. Senator Walters —Why not just pass the Bill? Senator TATE —Please allow me to develop my remarks. I think that I have been rather generous so far. I now move to those clauses which I do not find quite so attractive. For example, proposed new sub-section (4) contained in clause 3 (1) requires the court to give priority to: The needs of a party to the marriage or of a child of the marriage over responsibilities or commitments assumed since the marriage as is just and reasonable in all the circumstances. As I understand, particularly from Senator Durack's second reading speech, it is really designed to give priority in the disposal of income of a non-custodial parent to the first family over the current-second-family situation in which that person finds himself. I find it difficult to find satisfaction in the notion that the Parliament should assume that one can ignore the requirements of the new dependent wife and children. Senator Missen —It goes against nature, does it not? Senator TATE —I find it difficult to understand why Australia should not allow deduction for current dependants. No other country, by the way, with similar legislation does that. As I understand it, this is what Senator Durack's Bill would bring about. The consequence could be that there would be two families in relative poverty. It seems to me that to deny support to a current wife and dependent children in favour of a former wife and dependent children in an absolute way, as seems to be envisaged by this clause, is to be too dogmatic. As Senator Missen said, it is perhaps even against the natural urges of a person in that situation. I agree with the Family Law Council which has suggested something along the same lines but to the effect that other financial obligations of the parents certainly should take second priority, in other words, payments for a hi-fi, a car, a holiday, a trip or whatever. The first priority for disposable income should be the support of both the current household and the spouse and children of the former marriage. The assertion in this clause that the first family should always have priority over the current family in the distribution of the disposable income of the non-custodial parent does not seem to me to be very wise. Senator Durack —What about step-children of the second marriage? Senator TATE —Senator Durack is bringing in even more complications. There is another clause in the Bill that I find not particularly attractive in its absolute status or approach. It states: A maintenance agreement made after the date of commencement of this sub-section shall not make provision . . . as regards the rights of a party in respect of the maintenance of a child of the marriage. It cannot be denied and it is a fact that many of these agreements amounted to sweetheart deals which were designed, among other things, to maximise pension entitlement and to bring about a situation in which a court-approved agreement denied a reasonable contribution to the maintenance of the former spouse and dependent children. Once again, the Family Law Council has come up with a better suggestion, namely, that if one were to legislate in this area, one would require the court to ensure that a balance is achieved between the public interest and the interests of the parties. Clearly, the public interest does not lie in the maximisation of pension entitlements and the abdication of responsibility by the non-custodial parent to provide reasonable sums of money for the preservation, if possible, of a reasonable standard of living for the former spouse and dependent children. To exclude altogether from such agreements any arrangement in respect of maintenance seems to me to be too draconian. It should also be noted that a matrimonial property inquiry is being conducted at the moment by Professor David Hambly of the Australian Law Reform Commission, which is expected to report in the middle of the year and which will deal very much with these sorts of matters. I think it would be wise for the Senate to await the report on that matter. Finally, the increased use of imprisonment in this Bill as the sole offering as a means of securing compliance with and enforcement of maintenance orders seems to me to reveal something of the inadequacy of the approach of the Bill. Senator Durack, in his second reading speech, quite freely admits that in this respect the Bill is deficient. It certainly is because it seems that the purpose of the deletion of section 107 of the principal Act is to bring about a situation in which a person could be imprisoned for simple default in maintenance payments. I can understand imprisonment being retained as a last resort to be used against somebody who wilfully and persistently is in contempt of court in refusing to go along with repeated injunctions by the court to make payments. But to present a Bill to the Senate, when there is widespread discussion in the community about the means of compliance and enforcement, and to rely simply on imprisonment as the means which the Senate should endorse, seems to me to be totally inadequate. It seems to me that, if one could locate a defaulting person in order to imprison that person, it would be far better in the normal run of events to leave that person in the community to earn a wage or salary so that that person could make a contribution to the former spouse and dependent children. It seems to me to be too draconian a means of compliance and enforcement. As I showed in my reference to the gallup poll, 64 per cent of Australians are prepared to countenance a situation in which the Government, through the Australian Taxation Office, would use administrative means to take money weekly from the pay packet of a person against whom a maintenance order is made, or who has entered into some maintenance agreement. This seems to be one possibility, although I do not say that it will necessarily turn out to be the preferred option. Senator Durack —But the Government has spent three years talking about doing something like this. Senator TATE —Yes, various models have been put forward. One suggestion has been the maintenance collection and enforcement agency, which seems to me to be a very costly and cumbersome creature. I am certainly not convinced that that is the answer. The New Zealand model is sometimes put forward. As I understand it, it is called a liable benefit contribution scheme and the beneficiaries get a particular benefit. Under the scheme, the state collects money from the liable parent but the money goes directly into Consolidated Revenue. There is a breaking of the link between the liable parent, the non-custodial parent, and the household to whose maintenance the person should be making a contribution. That scheme does not appeal to me very greatly. But the idea that maintenance should be collected automatically out of income, like a tax-not simply by garnisheeing wages which is normally done after some history of default, but right from the start, every week, so that the tax system is used to take money out of the pay packet of the person against whom the order is made-seems to me to be a very sensible and efficient means of ensuring the enforcement of maintenance orders. It is fair to say that among those possibilities there are at least some options that ought to be considered by the Senate before it gives its imprimatur to this Bill, which would lead to an impression in the community that the Senate is so bereft of ideas that it has resorted to imprisonment of defaulters as the sole means of dealing with this problem. Senator Durack —But the Senate could not actually set up a scheme requiring further government expenditure, like the tax one. The Government would have to co-operate. Senator TATE —I agree that there are some difficulties, But, as I understand it, this Bill has the status of a private member's Bill. As I understand it, therefore, it is not a government Bill; also I would be interested to hear whether it has the status of a Bill endorsed in its entirety by the joint party room of the coalition parties. Senator Walters —Of course it is. It is our policy. Senator Missen —No, it is not. Senator Durack —That does not matter. We have a constitutional problem about introducing legislation to set up a new burden on the people, have we not? Senator TATE —I did not see anything in the second reading speech which indicated which of those various other models Senator Durack would prefer, in supplement to imprisonment, if that is what he is saying. From the dispute on the Opposition backbench at the moment, it is not clear to me whether this is merely Senator Durack's Bill or whether it comes from the coalition as an endorsed project. But I am not here to go into that. I do not want to score political points. My point is that the first and basic principle which I think Senator Durack has tried to incorporate and embody in the first clause of his Bill is something which on the whole many members of this chamber would be attracted to but I do not believe that the Bill as a whole deserves the support of the chamber at this moment. I believe it would be fair to leave it to the Cabinet, which has publicly stated that it has set itself a three-month task to determine the best means of dealing with this problem. Dr Meredith Edwards has been seconded to the office of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in order to do further work on this project. We know that these things are going on. It is good that the Senate should, as it will do in the course of this debate, express its concern about and support for the principle in a non-partisan way. As to the machinery to be adopted, it would be of greater service to the community if the Senate were to have the benefit of further deliberation and consideration of this matter. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.00) —The Family Law Amendment Bill is a private member's Bill introduced by Senator Durack in an attempt to reflect the community's attitude to family responsibilities. I was particularly interested in Senator Tate's speech because in Tasmania in October last year Senator Tate advocated changes to the Family Law Act along the lines of this Bill. It was then that I explained to him, through the newspaper, that he had voted against the amendments put up by Senator Durack in September 1983. However, he now agrees with the amendments and agrees basically with Senator Durack's Bill. Senator Tate's speech tonight was an attempt to hide behind the fact that Senator Durack did not spell out exactly what system of maintenance should be implemented. Senator Durack pointed out that the Senate was not the place to put forward such changes and that the Government should formulate a maintenance policy. His Bill specifically asks the Government to take a step in that direction. Senator Tate admitted tonight that he was in favour of such a step, so I do not understand why he is rejecting the Bill. He quoted from the Bulletin, which indicates that 75 per cent of the community says that, as a general rule, the parents of the children should take responsibility for the maintenance and bringing up of children and that, in the case of divorce when custody is awarded to one parent, both parents should equally be responsible for the bringing up of the children. The Family Law Act, introduced in those heady days of Mr Whitlam and Senator Murphy in 1975, certainly has a lot of problems attached to it. Until recently we never had the violence that has been directed to judges of the Family Court of Australia. We are all well aware that there has always been bitterness in this area but the violence that has recently erupted as a result of decisions made by the Family Court is a great problem. It is seen by the community as a whole as an area that needs much attention. Senator Durack's Bill is one step towards fixing just one of the problems. As I said earlier, in September 1983 Senator Durack put up amendments to the Family Law Act, but they were voted against by both the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party. Yet now Senator Tate says that he is rather attracted to Senator Durack's Bill but, although he supported these ideas in the Mercury back home, evidently he is not attracted enough to vote for the Bill. I challenged him at that time and he has not taken up the challenge. Since the introduction of the Family Law Act supporting parents benefit payments have increased tremendously, but that area alone does not give the whole picture. We must also look at class A widows. In the ten years from 30 June 1974 to 30 June 1984, in the class A widows section, the number of divorced wives with dependent children receiving pensions has gone up 255.4 per cent. Deserted wives with dependent children also come under the class A widows category. The supporting parent's benefit group is the one we usually refer to, and the figures for those separated wives receiving a supporting parents benefit has gone up 782.3 per cent, from 9,442 to 83,305. Ten years ago the supporting parent's benefit did not apply to husbands but now nearly 9,000 men receive it. The number of beneficiaries formerly in de facto relationships has also gone up incredibly, by 481 per cent from 3,160 to 18,381. The costs are quite incredible. In constant 1983-84 dollars supporting parent's benefit payments went up from $115m on 30 June 1974 to $889.6m on 30 June 1984-an increase of 673 per cent. According to the Institute of Family Studies the figure is now $1 billion. Also receiving payments is a small group of just on 43,000 never-married mothers-it is not usually understood that that group is so small. Payments to them, along with payments to others in the family break up category, went from $281.8m in 1974 to $1,247.4m in 1984. That is the cost, in pensions alone, of family breakup. Those figures have been disturbing us in government and in opposition, and because of those great increases in costs this Government has now become interested. These higher costs and the attitudes that have developed since those heady times of the early 1970s have been encouraged by legislation because section 75 of the Family Law Act says that judges, when considering the maintenance of children, must take into consideration the eligibility of either partner to a social security pension or benefit. Consequently, judgments now require husbands to pay just enough maintenance so that wives' entitlements to social security are not affected. The result is that the taxpayer picks up the tab which in many cases should have remained the responsibility of the parents. As Senator Tate indicated in his speech, we have a whole new group of poor people. Single parents-usually single mothers-are not being paid any additional money by the other spouse for looking after children. We have figures which show that 40 per cent never pay maintenance and 20 per cent pay only partial maintenance. Indeed, the Family Court estimates that the figure is not a combination of that-60 per cent-but that 70 per cent of parents who should be paying maintenance never pay it. So we have a situation where large numbers of mothers with dependent children are now very poor and are surviving on the supporting parents benefit. There are, of course, cases of hardship. Those cases of hardship certainly should be getting social security. There is no reason why the taxpayer should not be supporting those children. But in those cases where the father is well off financially there is no reason why he should not support them. As I have said, Senator Durack's Bill is trying to overcome those trendy attitudes of the early 1970s and get back to the family responsibility that 75 per cent of the community believes we should get back to. As a member of the joint parliamentary committee which reviewed the Family Law Act I know that we discussed this matter very thoroughly. Indeed, an argument put to us as to why the taxpayer should pick up the Bill on all occasions was that there would be security in regular payments to the mothers; that they should not have to wait for maintenance to be paid by husbands who were either late in paying or just did not pay at all. Another argument was that if access was not a happy affair a father would refuse to pay and just say: `If I cannot have as much access as I want I will not pay for the bringing up of the children'. When I asked Justice Evatt what possible reason there could be for the husband not to support his children she said that the second relationship should not be hurt in any way. She said that, if a husband takes on a second relationship following a breakdown in his marriage and a divorce, he should be able to freely look after that second family and that relationship should not be interfered with. When I said that surely he should think about that before absolving himself of his first lot of responsibilities, the judge thought that that was a ridiculous statement. So the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill. Many women object very strongly to being reliant on the taxpayer. They say that their husbands can well afford to look after the children and support them while they are bringing up the children. Indeed, they say that he is just having a good time and living in a very high fashion while allowing the taxpayer to take over his responsibilities. Senator Tate said that this matter has been debated in the community for several years. As I have said, in September 1983 Senator Durack put up amendments which the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats voted against. Senator Durack —Just that one amendment which Senator Tate says he now supports. Senator WALTERS —This is what I said earlier. Senator Tate has now said that it is a very good idea but he voted against it on that occasion. He is suddenly seeing the light but he still will not vote for it in this Bill. He is at liberty to make some amendments and we can look at the amendments but he is not prepared to do that. I am afraid that he has been caucused and will vote according to party lines even though he has expounded his own private opinions in the Mercury. But I have already gone into that. Senator Tate —Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of explanation, I have not been caucused on this. I made my remarks of my own free will. Senator WALTERS —Then all I can say is that Senator Tate's statements in the Mercury are at complete variance with what he has told us he is going to do tonight. Senator Tate —How do you know what I am going to do tonight? Senator WALTERS —Senator Tate may be voting with us, and I sincerely hope that he will. I take him up on that interjection. I sincerely hope that he will cross the floor and vote according to his conscience. We, as a committee, put forward a recommendation to the government of the day that the Department of Social Security should assess the ability of a spouse to pay maintenance and that the Social Security Department should pay the maintenance and collect what it thought was a fair thing from the spouse who should be paying the maintenance. The Family Law Council has put forward a recommendation. It said that the Australian Taxation Office should make the claim. The Institute of Family Studies also put forward the suggestion that the Taxation Office should pay. Two years ago the Government set up a national maintenance committee and it came out with a report. I do not blame Senator Tate for saying that its recommendation was something he would not agree with because I would not agree with it either, but that committee recommended the setting up of a complete Commonwealth authority at a cost of $2m and, guess what, an annual running cost of an additional $13m. I do not blame Senator Tate for saying that. I am sure that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, would have something to say about that, too, if he were here, as it could be done very successfully by either the Taxation Office or the Social Security Department. Senator Tate spoke about the provision in Senator Durack's Bill which refers to the fact that there should be no prison sentence for default. The Family Law Act states that there should be no prison sentence for default. Senator Tate has criticised the part of Senator Durack's Bill that states that that should be reintroduced. He said: `If they were in prison they could not earn the money anyway and therefore there was not much point in sending them there'. He would know the practical situation because he is a lawyer, even though I do not think he has practised law privately. That situation is that if one says to a man `You are behind in your payments to the tune of $X and unless you pay up, mate, you will go to gaol', the man suddenly finds the money and pays up; he does not go to gaol. The garnisheeing of wages is a possibility but none of these things is entered into seriously. Indeed, the Family Law Act abolished the provision that allowed for the gaoling of someone who defaulted on making maintenance payments. I was interested to hear Senator Tate agreeing that a prison sentence should be available for legitimate cases as a last resort-I think those were the words he used-for people who deliberately-- Senator Tate —Persistently. Senator WALTERS —For people who persistently and deliberately refused to pay maintenance. All I am asking Senator Tate to do is to make a small amendment if he does not like Senator Durack's exact words. He should put forward his amendment and we will see whether we can accept it. He agrees that the family should accept responsibility. Perhaps I should read from Senator Tate's news release in the Mercury. He said: The ordinary taxpayer is having to pick up the tab for a partner who won't come to the party on maintenance . . . The limits of tolerance have been reached and Parliament must change the Family Law Act to reflect this. The article in the Mercury continued: Senator Tate said that the first claim for maintenance should be on the resources of the non-custodial parent, and that social service benefits should be seen by the courts as `a last resort'. I wrote to say that I was interested to see Senator Tate advocating a change in the provisions of the Family Law Act which requires the court to take into account the fact that a parent should look after the child. In a letter I challenged Senator Tate to vote with us because, I pointed out, he had voted against that very thing in 1983. I also pointed out that we would be bringing the matter up, and indeed that Senator Durack was already framing a Billl. I said that the Bill would be brought up in February and that it would give Senator Tate the opportunity to vote. I shall be most interested to see which way Senator Tate votes tonight. I know that he always votes according to conscience. I admire that unusual streak in a member of the Australian Labor Party. This is the very first step in the change to the Family Law Act. It is a step in the right direction-a direction that even the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, has been advocating. The Family Court, or at least some Family Court judges, has been advocating this for quite some time. If all these reputable bodies, including the Family Law Council, the Institute of Family Studies and the national maintenance organisation which was set up by the Government, say that it is imperative that something be done about the position, surely Labor senators will vote for the first step in that process, a process put in train by Senator Durack tonight. I assure Senator Tate that this will be watched very carefully by all Tasmanians, by the Mercury editors and by the journalists who have printed his stuff in the past. They will be watching carefully to see how he votes on this occasion tonight. (Quorum formed) Senator HAINES(South Australia)(8.24) —The Family Law Amendment Bill is a private member's Bill which has been introduced by Senator Durack and which makes a valiant attempt to correct some of the problems inherent in the Family Law Act with regard to the provision of maintenance following the breakdown of marriage. Among other things the Bill would amend the Family Law Act 1975 to prevent the Family Court in determining a person's liability to pay maintenance from taking into account the eligibility of a party to the marriage for any benefit under the Social Security Act 1947 or the Repatriation Act 1920. This part of the Bill has caused considerable concern to some people who believe that in an attempt to ensure that the custodial parent has regular income, judges are taking into account the custodial parent's access to social security benefits under the supporting parents benefit and then using maintenance from the non-custodial parent as a sort of top-up measure. Many people in the community rightly believe that it would be more equitable if the reverse were the case, namely, if the non-custodial parent were to accept a primary responsibility for contributing to the maintenance of the children and the social security department were left to pick up any excess. The Bill would also give the obligation to maintain a spouse and children from a former marriage priority over obligations subsequently acquired, whether by a subsequent marriage or by entry into a de facto relationship. Again, a large number of people in the community believe that a person's responsibility for their children does not end when the marriage ends and that some acknowledgement should be made of the children that result from a first marriage. Certainly it becomes particularly ludicrous when not only does the non-custodial parent's responsibility to, say, a second family get taken into account but when that person's responsibility in other economic areas is considered-for example, when a commitment to a finance company is taken into account. It is possible therefore for some non-custodial parents who want to pay very limited maintenance to run themselves up a sizable financial burden on their incomes and have that taken into account. Senator Durack —What about the step-children of a second marriage who may have a non-custodial parent who should be looking after them? Senator HAINES —Indeed, it can ripple out across the board, as Senator Durack implies, but, as Senator Tate said, it becomes particularly ludicrous when hire-purchase agreements for cars, boats and videos are also taken into account as an excuse, shall we say, for not expecting the non-custodial parent to pay a reasonable amount towards the upkeep of the children from an early marriage. The third element in the Bill seeks to prevent court-approved maintenance agreements being used as a mechanism to evade the obligation to pay maintenance for the children of a marriage. Indeed, we have all heard of numerous occasions when tidying agreements have been reached between departments of the marriage that has been or is being dissolved so that the non-custodial parent, for example, picks up the tab for the children's private school education, or the tab for the mortgage on the house in which the custodial parent and the children are to reside, or that the non-custodial parent will provide the custodial parent with a new car on the dissolution of a marriage, which from that point onward would limit the financial assistance in terms of actual cash to a minimum. This is encouraged by the fact not only that courts take into account the availability of social security payments to the custodial parent but also that the taxation office regards maintenance payments as income and therefore as eligible to be taxed. It is therefore in the interests, particularly of wealthy families, for non-cash arrangements to be agreed on by the parties concerned which then leaves the taxpayer picking up the tab. Finally, the Bill intends to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to enable persons to be imprisoned for failure to comply with maintenance orders. Frankly, I share Senator Tate's concern that that is a rather illogical and futile position to be taking as it gets us back to a Dickensian situation whereby people were put into gaol and debtors' prisons simply because they had run up debts which they could not pay on demand. While they were in prison, of course, they were not in any position to earn any money in order to pay off the first lot of debts, so they stayed there indefinitely. Indeed, Dickens and a number of his contemporaries suffered that fate for some time. So there is certainly very real concern about the fourth part of Senator Durack's Bill. Certainly, most people in the community and, I imagine, most people on both sides of this chamber would agree with the general principles expressed in Senator Durack's Bill, even if they do not necessarily agree with the method by which Senator Durack is going about correcting an increasingly concerning problem. There is a very real concern in the community about the poverty in which many women and children are currently living following marital breakdowns because their ex-husbands, the ex-fathers, are defaulting maintenance payers and the social security benefit is particularly low. Furthermore, having got themselves into the situation of being reliant almost entirely on social welfare payments and very limited maintenance, if it is forthcoming, they are immediately prevented from lifting themselves out of that poverty trap by being able to get into the work force. Even though the Government has allegedly moved to eliminate poverty traps by raising the exempt income level, it is very difficult for most women who have dependent children to look after to get above it. There are very few part time jobs around and certainly a very limited number of permanent part time jobs. Even if they were available, accessible child care is just as limited. Women who are able to get part time child care are in a minority. It is extremely expensive in comparison with full time child care. Either way, they are going to lose. There is growing concern in the community, too, about the increasing number of non-custodial parents-mainly male-who are flouting their responsibilities and the law and getting away with it. They are getting away with it for a number of reasons. First, whilst the courts are extremely anxious to enforce access orders, they are a little less enthusiastic, it seems to me, and it certainly seems to those people who are on the receiving end of all this, to enforce maintenance orders. Senator Durack —Their powers are restricted. Senator HAINES —That is certainly true. Nevertheless, it takes a woman who is owed maintenance quite a considerable amount of trouble to try to get an order enforced, and not just an amount of trouble, but a large amount of cost. Senator Durack —Because their powers aren't adequate. Senator HAINES —Certainly. Senator Durack —If you supported this Bill the powers would be much greater and much more simple. Senator HAINES —I am coming to that. Do not rush me. The fact is that at the moment it is extremely difficult for these women to get maintenance orders enforced. They are very rarely entitled to legal aid. By the time they have been to and from several lawyers it is economically non-viable, to use a fairly unpleasant expression, to proceed any further. The experience of the women who come and see me indicates that men are very rarely absolute defaulters in the sense that they never pay any money. In the main they are, shall we say, malicious or nuisance non-payers of maintenance in that they have a tendency to hold off payment of maintenance until they are about to get into serious difficulty. They then pay enough to get out of it and the whole cycle starts again. In the meantime, their ex-spouses have given up trying to get orders enforced and are struggling as best they can on the supporting parent's benefit. There are men who disappear entirely, change their names, move to another State and so on, but they are in the minority. I gather that they are the people whom the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, and other enthusiastic supporters of identity cards are aiming at. However, I suggest that if Dr Blewett thinks he is going to stop the process of maintenance defaulting through the identity card, he has rocks in his head, because simply identifying somebody is not going to make him pay up. So there is no doubt at all that there is a very real problem in the community, both for those who are on the receiving end of the supporting parent's benefit and what little they can get from the non-custodial parent and for those who believe that their taxpayer's money is being, if not misused, at least perhaps excessively or unnecessarily used. Senator Archer —Less than adequately. Senator HAINES —Less than adequately and certainly less than equitably, when one considers that most women would probably be better off if the defaulting parent paid a fair share into the first family's economy because that is commensurate with the responsibility that defaulting parent should have for the children of the marriage. Senator Walters —Wouldn't it be a good idea to accept the recommendations of our Committee that said that social welfare should assess the ability of the spouse to pay? Senator HAINES —I am just about to come to a system which has been mentioned tonight and which I think perhaps we ought to give a little more attention to before we rush into anything else. I refer to the much talked about New Zealand system whose social security people assess-in concern and after discussion and consultation with everybody else concerned; it is not some sort of dictatorial thing-what the non-custodial parent is entitled to bear by way of financial responsibility. Some time down the track, if circumstances change significantly, there can be a request for reassessment. What happens in that instance is that, once the assessment is made about the capacity of the non-custodial parent to pay, the Taxation Office effectively takes over. The money is then deducted from the salary or wage of the maintenance payer-as is tax, contributions to health funds and insurance companies and all the deductions that many of us have taken out of our salaries-paid along with tax into Consolidated Revenue, and goes back to the custodial parent. The scheme has been operating in New Zealand since April 1981. Its predecessors go back to 1973. It operates concurrently with the private law main- tenance scheme. In New Zealand income support for lone parents-that is custodial parents with dependent children-who are not able to support themselves and who are not receiving maintenance through the private legal system comes in the form of what is known in New Zealand as a domestic purposes benefit which is essentially for the purposes of this debate equivalent to the supporting parent's benefit. To qualify for the domestic purposes benefit the mother or father of each child in the custody of the applicant must be identified in law. So safeguards are built into the system. The non-custodial parent is then required to contribute to the cost of the domestic purposes benefit. The scheme, which was referred to earlier by Senator Tate, is called the liable parent contribution scheme. Maintenance orders are suspended during payment of the domestic purposes benefit and the liable parent contribution scheme comes into effect. Once a liable parent is identified that person has to reveal full financial details to the Department of Social Welfare. The Department then assesses the level of contribution applicable in terms of the New Zealand Social Security Act. Contributions never exceed the level of benefits paid. Care costs of living are taken into account for the liable parent and a minimum contribution of $15 applies. It seems to me that the New Zealand system is a particularly simple system and one that Australia could look a little more seriously at adopting since the only people who are able to avoid payment are those who cross the Tasman. Of course that will happen whatever system we operate under. At least this one gives the maintenance paying parent less discretion about whether that parent will or will not pay all or some of the maintenance on time. Therefore it makes for a much more stable living situation for the custodial parent and the children. Comment was made earlier about the fact that this Government has done nothing in order to combat the problem of maintenance defaulters. I remind the Senate that something like 12 months ago the Bankruptcy Act was amended so that people who were owed maintenance were classified as creditors and this has been of some use to some women. For example, I have had cases of women writing to me complaining that their husbands are being very tardy, not to say unenthusiastic and unco-operative, about paying the maintenance that is due and they are doing things like rearranging their business affairs and then threatening to have themselves declared bankrupt. The last letter I received on this matter was about three months after we had passed the amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that allowed women who were owed maintenance to be classified as creditors. I wrote back with some glee to the lady concerned and said: `Don't wait for him to declare himself a bankrupt. He is probably only bluffing you anyway in order to encourage you to stop pestering him. Just write to him, let him know that the Bankruptcy Act has been changed and tell him that if he does not come good with the money, you will petition for his bankruptcy'. The Senate will not be at all surprised to know that that matter was satisfactorily sorted out. Senator Durack —Just a few threats have always worked wonders. Senator HAINES —They do in all sorts of circumstances. I go back to the concerns that have been expressed by everybody who has spoken so far this evening. Maintenance is reaching a position where governments will have to adopt quite stringent methods to make sure that not only is maintenance paid when it is due but also that a reasonable amount of maintenance, under whatever the circumstances are, is paid and that the social security system is not relied on absolutely as a first port of call, so to speak, for family income support after a marriage has broken down. I am not by any means sure that Senator Durack's Bill is the right way to go about it. I am certainly not happy about the enablement of persons to be imprisoned for their failure to comply with maintenance orders. Senator Durack —A very effective method. Senator HAINES —It is a fairly effective deterrent, I would certainly agree. However, I am at a loss to understand how people can raise the money once they are imprisoned. Senator Durack —They don't go in any more than they go bankrupt. Senator HAINES —It is almost the equivalent of bankruptcy but one has to realise that the custodial parent has to go through some quite long and expensive procedures to get a person in that state, I suggest longer and more expensive procedures than they are currently forced to go through. However having said that I have to say that Senator Durack is to be commended for the concern he has shown about this issue. He has had the time and the patience to put together some sort of solution to this problem even if it is not one with which everybody agrees. As I have said I would prefer, as a first instance, for this country to look at the New Zealand system. It is simple; it involves consultation between all parties; it provides the social security system as a backup but it places the primary responsibility for the care of children on both parents and does not allow the one who does not have custody of the children to escape that responsibility. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(8.46) —We are debating the Family Law Amendment Bill which amends the Family Law Act 1975. Senator Durack's private member's Bill is designed to overcome one of the big problems that are in this law. We do not disagree about the problem; we disagree about the solution. A solution of a failure to pay maintenance has been sought in many countries which have the same problems but they have not yet achieved an agreeable solution. Maintenance is one aspect of the Family Law Act which is obviously not working satisfactorily. There have been many other problems in the early stages of the Act because I think some attempt was made to implement it `on the cheap'. A lack of judges, a lack of suitable premises and many other problems led to early difficulties, but they have largely been overcome. However, maintenance remains an outstanding one, one which has worried those who have been interested in this subject for quite a long time. I want to demonstrate to honourable senators that it is not just a question of the enforcement of maintenance; the whole problem is also one of the assessment and collection of maintenance. The whole system has broken down. Undoubtedly there are a great number of cases where maintenance orders are not met and where people are flouting the obligations which they could, by any reason, pay. The result of all this is that something like $500m is paid out in social security payments to deserted wives for themselves and children, and that amount is unquestionably too great. It could be and would be reduced if maintenance payments were enforced better. The 1980 report of the Joint Committee on the Family Law Act completed a lengthy investigation of this matter. The all-party Committee considered the problem and the solution which Senator Durack has now put forward but it did not favour it. However, it affirmed that a maximum of nearly 40 per cent of Australian orders are fully complied with and that from the very start somewhere near 40 per cent of Australian orders were never paid at all. So the non-payment of maintenance orders has been occurring to a very considerable degree. As the orders have got older compliance has been worse, and that factor is found regularly throughout Australia. The fact is that no simple solution we find will cure this situation entirely; there will always be some people who refuse to pay maintenance. Studies in other countries indicate, in a rough fashion, the presence in each system of a large and irreducible group of cases where support from the absent father is not and will not be forthcoming. That appeared in a study by one Mary Anne Glendon in 1981. The survey also shows that a great deal of poverty is involved in single parent families who are often forced to rely on pensions and do not get any contributions from absent husbands who could well pay. In 1981-82, up to 60 per cent of all single parent families had incomes below the poverty line, an increase of 38 per cent over 1978-79 figures. So the position has been getting increasingly worse. Moreover, in an international comparison, taking Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures on government assistance given to families with children, Australia ranks fifteenth out of 19 developed countries. This, of course, justifies the conclusion which the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act drew, that `persons without adequate means of support should be entitled to sustenance from the state to the extent of their need'. So we will not eliminate the need for some sustenance. It is people in this situation who often suffer from poverty and this makes it all the more important that the assessment of maintenance and collection of it is taken into account, not just the enforcement of it. If one looks at it in a different way, widows class A pension recipients are very often deserted wives and likewise for the supporting parent's benefits. In August 1975, not long ago, only 25 per cent were receiving maintenance from a non-custodial parent, so there is a very considerable need in those cases for people to receive more income from their husband or spouse. Another important factor to bear in mind is a survey which McDonald of the Institute of Family Studies made in 1985, which showed that 77 per cent of female sole parents were worse off than they had been at the time of separation by a factor of $78 a week. In contrast, 75 per cent of unre-partnered men who were living alone when interviewed were better off financially than they had been prior to separation by a factor of $72 per week. So there is a very considerable difference, to the detriment of wives and of children, who are generally with wives, following a separation. These are important factors which we must bear in mind when looking at this problem. We must consider whether the solutions proposed, for example, in this private member's Bill are adequate or whether the many other suggestions should also be considered. I have here piles of documents which I have studied for a considerable time and which bring forward various suggestions. But let us look first at the four proposals in the Durack Bill. Frankly, I do not find them adequate to cover the situation which we have before us. One of the suggestions, which was also put forward before the Joint Committee but which was not accepted by it, is similar to an amendment moved in 1983 when amendments to the Family Law Bill were made, to the effect that we should substantially delete the clause which allows a reliance on social security so that that could be taken into account by people making maintenance orders. Certainly the terms set out in this Bill are a little different from that, but it is basically the same proposition, which I did not then find acceptable and which I do not find acceptable now. It seems to me that to wipe out that consideration may well lead to larger maintenance orders, but large orders may well lead to more people going to north Queensland, the north of Western Australia and the more remote parts of Australia, and to more husbands who no longer take any interest in their families. There is, economically, no reason why they should stay around when they cannot, they may feel, meet the payments and are not prepared to do so. That important fact of life must be taken into account. There is no point in making a decision on this Bill or any Bill which punishes the children and does not punish the parents-because the children will be punished if in fact more parents are not around to give some assistance and guidance to the children in their early years. Such a person might not be a very good husband and might not be very good at paying maintenance, but if he is around the children do have a better chance of a normal and stable upbringing. I find that the proposal to remove this clause to say that account will not be taken of social security is not adequate at all. A better suggestion is made by the National Maintenance Inquiry which suggested the amendment of section 75 (2) (f), the taking into account of social security, by inserting such words as `with a view to ensuring that resort to social security eligibility in reducing the quantum of maintenance is only to be had where the total resources available to the respondent are inadequate to meet the need of the applicant without causing the respondent financial hardship'. In other words, it is a more limited method-if the spouse has the means, one does not take any account of the social security benefit, but one does where he does not have the means. What I am suggesting in the whole of this speech is that we should not want to pass any such Bills at the moment, but we should really investigate and put together the ideas that have come forward and see what is the best of all solutions. That is the first proposal which is in the Bill. The second is a proposal which I think has not been mentioned tonight, except by Senator Tate. That is that section 87 agreements should not include any reference to maintenance. This is putting the cart before the horse. What has gone wrong is that, under the implementation of the Act, we did not put into the hands of the Family Court, with the counsellors, the financial advisers and other people, these questions of the approval of maintenance agreements and maintenance orders. They are to be done by any magistrate-a magistrate who has no expert assistance whatsoever. It is true that he gets constantly put before him agreements which are convenient for the parties. The husband may give property to the wife-he may give a car, he may give other things-but give her the minimum amount of maintenance so that she has the maximum of social service benefits. Of course, those things should not be approved. The answer is not to say that they cannot be approved, but to say that the right body should be approving them. That body is, of course, the Family Court. I proposed this in the minority report which I made to the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, the idea was floated by the Family Law Council and was supported by the Law Council of Australia and by the judges of the Family Court. It has never been put into force, and it is a disgrace, in my opinion, that that has never been done. In my consideration, it is a much better solution than the solution that is in this Bill-namely, that we cannot allow child maintenance in agreements that are approved. The third of the proposals made is the idea that the responsibilities of maintenance shall be taken ino account only for the first family and not for the second family. To suggest that somehow this will work and that people who have left the first family and are living with another family, having re-married and then had other children, will somehow not provide for sub- sequent children goes against any sense of nature. One may say that the first family deserves quite a bit of encouragement and ought to have some preference. Perhaps that is so. But let us look at what happens in other countries in the world, because it is not as though we have the last word in understanding in this matter. The overseas practices vary tremendously. In the United States of America, legislation generally reflects priority for the first family, although the actual practice is quite different. It does not work out that way in practice. In New Zealand, on the other hand, the legislation explicitly allows for liability for non-custodial parents to support earlier children to be reduced as new responsibilities are taken on. I think it is reasonable that they should be reduced where that is a responsibility for the upkeep of children. As Senator Tate and others have said, it is not right that people should be buying expensive items and putting those things ahead of their later responsibilities. But in New Zealand, it is a matter where obviously there can be change. In Sweden, the principles are that every child of a taxpayer has a claim to an equal treatment and where the non-custodial parent's means are limited, priority of claim is given to the children of the current family. So there is no uniformity around the world on this matter. I think it is unwise to rush into a situation in which we may find that we are imposing orders that are too great where orders are to pay full amounts for the first child and therefore the husband cannot pay for the maintenance of his wife and children. It is punishment for the children of the second marriage. Recently, in Sweden and the United Kingdom in particular, there has been great concern that the amounts of child maintenance have been set too high and that they are possibly jeopardising the viability of the current family. So we would have not only one destroyed family but a second destroyed family if we pursued this line. Therefore, one has to be very careful before that idea is taken up. The fourth proposal is the suggestion of a general right of imprisonment instead of imprisonment for contempt, for example, for wilfully failing to pay a maintenance order. This would revert us to the pre-1975 situation. I sat on the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee when it considered the Bill at that time and I remember that people who gave evidence before us variously described the imprisonment of people as contrary to human rights, a barbarous practice and an evil extreme of sex discrimination. Senator Durack and others have said tonight that if imprisonment is threatened, people will comply. I practised in this jurisdiction for 25 years before I came into this place and I know that many people went to gaol determined not to pay and others disappeared because there was a great risk of imprisonment. Therefore, one must be very careful before we revert to what was a very bad system in the pre-1975 situation. It is true that a court can punish for deliberate dis- obedience and it is true that this power is under-utilised at present and should be utilised more; but the National Maintenance Inquiry, which considered this matter at length, did not favour that and thought that contempt proceedings should be more widely availed of. It did not believe that there should be a general recommendation of imprisonment for failure to pay. Although the object is desirable, and we all agree on that, I do not think that the proposals in the Bill are the solution. I propose to go now to the other matters which have been suggested as solutions because I think it is desirable to lay them before the Senate. I will move an amendment later suggesting that all these things be considered by a Senate committee because I do not think we should resolve on one only solution tonight. The Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act finally reported in 1980. Its report has never been fully implemented but, to the credit of Senator Gareth Evans, parts of its recommendations certainly have been. The recommendations in regard to maintenance were handed over to interdepartmental committees and lost in the sands of time. A brief summary of the recommendations is as follows: Firstly, the establishment in the Department of Social Security of a national agency modelled on the Western Australian or South Australian enforcement agencies. I will come to that later because that is more extensively dealt with in the National Maintenance Inquiry. Secondly, the administrative assessment of maintenance rather than it being left at large at the discretion of a judge. There have been later studies which have indicated strong support of that by many experts. Thirdly, there were new provisions based largely on the New Zealand liable parents contribution scheme to enable the Department to assess maintenance payments to be made by a liable parent and to act directly to recover them. That is referred to later. That obviously finds commendation in the eyes of Senator Haines. I think a liable contribution may be part of the solution, but not the whole solution. Certainly it has some desirable effects. The Department of Social Security has shown little eagerness to have this responsibility and that is a problem. Lastly, the Joint Committee suggested various improvements in the method of enforcement provided under the Family Law Act and regulations, and a number of those were introduced. The recommendations have not been vigorously pursued by governments since that time and I think that is a great pity. I will not go into the question of the liable parent benefit, which was an important part of the recommendations, as Senator Haines has dealt with that. I think that that, together with the suggestion that one may determine maintenance not by a judge's discretion but by an administrative formula, provides us with two recommendations that deserve very close attention. When the present Government came into power it appointed the National Maintenance Inquiry, which produced a report in 1984 entitled `A Maintenance Agency for Australia'. Senator Gareth Evans —A fine report. Senator MISSEN —I think it is a good report. We are in agreement on that. However, I do not understand why it was not debated in the other chamber and when it came into this chamber it was debated for only 10 minutes. Senator Haines was about the only person who made much of a contribution to it. I think that report, which is a massive report-- Senator Gareth Evans —Law reform is a bit unfashionable and I think we have to acknowledge that. Senator MISSEN —I do not know that it is unfashionable. I regard this report as very informative as to what happens in other countries and what efforts they have made. It also recommends that there should be a separate national authority, one which would have the job of collection of maintenance and one which would have interstate connections. It is true, as someone said tonight, that it would cost about $13m a year, but it is estimated that it would save the Commonwealth $46,300,000 a year. Nobody can guarantee those figures but certainly it seems it would be a valuable thing. I notice there that we will not get rid of the $500m, no matter what we try, but I think we can get rid of quite a bit of payment, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, by a more effective method of doing this. The National Maintenance Inquiry also considered the idea of the taxation treatment of maintenance, which I believe is currently favoured by the Government and is being considered, but it did not find this a very desirable way of doing it. I will come to that matter in a moment. The report has been attacked by a writer who said that it had very limited terms of reference. I think that is true. The writer said that the report did not offer a very cheap alternative, but to my mind it remains the best. I say that we must consider all the recommendations that have been made. There is then what one might call the child support tax-the proposal which was put forward in recommendations in two papers by Harrison, Harper and Edwards called `Child Support-Public or Private', and `Child Support; Obligations of Parents, State Responsibilities and the Rights of Children', both Institute of Family Studies works of last year. These papers adopt a rather different method. They also point out the very low rate of maintenance. It is all right to say yes, take the maintenance orders, if in fact they are sufficient to keep the children in reasonable order. However, it is suggested by the survey by the Institute of Family Studies called `Economic Consequences of Marriage Break-down' that non-custodial parents in the lower income capacity were only contributing about 19 per cent of their income in child maintenance, those between $250 and $349 were only contributing 13 per cent, and above that even less. It suggested that there is also a necessity to concentrate on a better assessment of maintenance, to have a formula which will set it out and thus get away from the sporadic decisions which judges tend to make and which very often do not properly cover the needs of the family. I feel that this taxation system has various answers which should be considered. Questions must be asked. Is the Taxation Office here to handle family problems? If some mechanism such as PAYE is used, will there not be additional costs imposed on employers required to handle payments? How well will the Office deal with the necessary variations of maintenance or tax as the circumstances of the parties vary? Will employers take steps to rid their firms of such employees so as to reduce administrative costs? I therefore say that there are very many unanswered questions. The proposals are very similar to those which the Family Law Council adopted in December 1985 and which are now reported. I think it would be convenient to honourable senators if I sought leave to incorproate in Hansard the 18 recommendations in that report which set out the structure which the Family Law Council then adopted. Leave granted. The recommendations read as follows- In December 1985 the Family Law Council adopted a Report which is, in essence, an expansion of this scheme incorporating both the ``formula'' method of assessment and the use of the Taxation Department as the method of enforcement. For convenience I set out below the 18 recommendations then made by the Family Law Council. They are: (1) The determination of amounts of child maintenance payable should be set by a formula which should be kept as simple as possible. (2) Child maintenance payments should be determined in the first instance, administratively rather than judicially in all cases where the custodial parent is in receipt of a social security pension or benefit. Alternatively it could also apply in all other cases where an application for maintenance is made. (3) There should be a right of appeal to the Family Court against administrative assessments of maintenance liability. (4) The formula should be applied to the disposable income of the non-custodial parent. (5) A percentage levy should be made on the ``disposable income'', the percentage increasing with the number of dependent children for whom the non-custodial parent is required to pay maintenance. (6) The income of the custodial parent should be taken into account where it exceeds a certain maximum. (7) Step-children living with the non-custodial parent should only be treated as his/her dependent children when their natural (non-custodial) parent is not supporting them. (8) Where the custodial parent remains in occupation of the former matrimonial home assessment of child maintenance in accordance with the formula should be capable of adjustment. (9) The Council strongly favours locating as part of the Taxation Office the Agency responsible for assessing and collecting child maintenance and locating non-custodial parents. (10) Under the administrative system the amount of maintenance to be paid could be assessed by the Child Maintenance Agency within the Tax Office in accordance with the formula and collected along the lines of the PAYE system or the provisional tax system. (11) If a court-based system of maintenance is regained for those cases where the custodial parent is not in receipt of a pension or benefit legislative provision should be made to ensure that court orders for child maintenance are consistent with maintenance assessed under the administrative system. (12) If a payer of court ordered maintenance falls into arrears of two weeks or more, the matter could be referred immediately to the Agency to arrange for collection of future maintenance and the arrears through the taxation system. The amount of future maintenance to be collected would be in accordance with the court order. (13) Custodial parents should be responsible for providing information about the non-custodial parent e.g. his/her whereabouts, employment, information necessary to establish paternity. (14) The Council considers that it should be possible to suspend or remit maintenance payments during periods of extended access. (15) The Council considers that the proposed child maintenance system could be phased in over a two year period. (16) The cost to establish the proposed child maintenance agency should be considerably less than that quoted in the Report of the National Maintenance Inquiry for establishment of a new separate Agency. (17) There should be considerable savings to Government revenue under the proposed system. (18) The Council is very firmly of the opinion that in order to increase the standard of living in sole parent families there should be a guaranteed minimum child maintenance payment. Senator MISSEN —That is the method, in more detail, by which the taxation system could be used. It may well be that this may be the final method. All these things amount to a statement that we must not settle suddenly on one proposal and say that this is the only thing that can be done. I do not think that punitive measures are really the things to adopt. It would be more effective to have a probing agency and possibly the use of taxation and possibly a liable parent scheme or something of that sort. It is desirable that this Bill come forward to be discussed. For too long it has remained on the Notice Paper, being fobbed off by a lot of people. It is important that it now be considered well. I think that a Senate committee should do that. I do not think that we should go ahead with adopting one of the proposals. Therefore I move as an amendment to the second reading motion: Leave out all words after `That', insert `debate on this Bill be deferred to enable consideration of the reference to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, or such other standing or select committee that is able to handle the inquiry, of the provisions of the Bill and other proposals already made or subsequently brought forward to provide a scheme for the effective assessment, collection and enforcement of maintenance payments (whether by order of a court, agreement or otherwise), so that both parents and spouses will pay adequate maintenance from their own resources before reliance is made on pensions or other payments by the Government'. We must bear in mind that we are in general agreement that the system has broken down; clearly the Government is paying moneys that should not be paid and perhaps payments are not enough in some respects. We must find the best method of collection. We can do this. I know that the Government is considering a tax scheme. It has people in the departments doing so. It would be useful for a Senate committee to look at the mass of detail which has come forward as a result of a lot of people's study and to put forward some recommendation at the same time. It is inherently in the interests of this Parliament to do this rather than run into a divisive Committee stage debate on this Bill. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(9.12) —We are debating a private member's Bill presented by Senator Durack, the Family Law Amendment Bill. It seeks to amend the Family Law Act in respect of payment of maintenance. The measures proposed in this Bill which we are assured reflect the thinking of the Opposition on this matter have two serious defects. Not only do they fail to provide an improved mechanism for the payment of maintenance, which is surely one of the crucial deficiencies of the current system, but also they introduce an unacceptable rigidity into the decision-making process of the Family Court of Australia and a degree of punitiveness which I believe is unacceptable. Newspaper reports of this Bill have already engendered anxiety in the community, especially that aspect which provides for the use of imprisonment as a routine method of dealing with defaulters. Although we all know of cases in which defaulters could easily fulfil their commitments and, in fact, go to great lengths to avoid doing so, a more frequent state of affairs concerns the stretching of meagre resources where inability to earn a living will certainly not solve any problems and in the vast majority of cases will simply exacerbate them. Imprisonment may also introduce bitterness and a desire for vengeance into an otherwise reasonable relationship, not to mention the expense to the community and the dubious value of gaoling debtors. If punishment is necessary I would like to see it more adequately fit the crime-for hard cases something like a community activity, preferably in the service of destitute women and children. There is another serious problem with these amendments-the arbitrary requirement to give priority to the first family. Surely it is desirable, if not essential, that judges of the Family Court have the maximum discretion to view all the relevant facts in every case. There are so many variables as we all know-earning capacity of the partners, home ownership, health of the partners and children, age of the children and other dependants who may be within the family relationship, not to mention variations of relationship in reconstituted families. It seems to be naive in the extreme to believe that one formula such as that advocated in these amendments would possibly be appropriate more than occasionally. It is unwise to assume, for example, that stepchildren have another parent accessible and able to provide maintenance, as was suggested earlier by Senator Durack. This will often be the case but, as we all know, parents are mortal and they may be ill, disabled, unemployed, simply inaccessible, too old to work, for some other reason unable to work, or have a new young family of their own to support on a low wage. In fact, there may be a chain reaction of marriage breakdown if priority is given arbitrarily to the first marriage. Undoubtedly, as a result there would be increased reliance on social security so that rather than saving money that is currently being paid in benefits we may find that we are paying more. This Bill's attempt to have social security eligibility disregarded in setting maintenance has a superficial attraction but only if it is reasonable to assume that the level of maintenance awarded is likely to be much higher than at present. According to our calculations if the proportion receiving continuing payments doubled and the circumstances of the recipients were similar to those of existing recipients, the savings would be marginal. This assumes that these payments will be made. Here we come back to the essential weakness of these amendments, the lack of any mechanism by which there would be a minimisation of default and a way by which it could be made difficult for the non-custodial parent to avoid properly determined commitments. This Bill will not solve any of these problems for the Government or individuals. It may well impose greater hardship on supporting parents. Western Australia has a model of relatively effective maintenance collection and the matter is under active consideration at the Federal Government level. I believe that it would be redundant and a duplication of effort that has already been made for the Senate to refer this matter to a standing committee as advocated by Senator Missen. He has quite accurately canvassed many of the questions that remain to be addressed, that have to some degree been dealt with by the inquiries into maintenance collection. But as far as hard policy decisions are concerned there is still an enormous amount of work to be done. This work is in hand. Within a matter of months proposals will be before this Parliament to deal with some of the more difficult questions, such as the initiation of maintenance action, under what circumstances should maintenance action be a condition of Commonwealth support, should it be a condition of Commonwealth support and is other action required to encourage sole parents to seek maintenance. With good reason a very high proportion of supporting parents feel that it is far better for them to be assured of a fortnightly social security payment than to be desperately waiting for that cheque in the mail which never comes from an unwilling ex-partner. The question of whether maintenance arrangements should be common to all sole parents or whether special arrangements should be made for social security recipients has yet to be addressed. What about non-custodial parents who wish to opt out of any special arrangement? What guarantees should we require of them to allow them not to be covered by any sort of systematic payment of maintenance? How should we treat other than natural parents; for example, a parent who is a stepfather, a legal guardian or, for that matter, a stepmother? There is a wide range of assessment options. What should be the appropriate basis for maintenance contributions? Should we look at guidelines or a formula having regard to the capacity of the non-custodial parent to pay? How do we view the income and relevant deductions to be allowed? How do we set a contribution rate and minimum and maximum contributions? These issues are so closely related to decisions that must be made as matters of policy by the Government which will actually have to carry out these policies, find the resources and put in place the structures and mechanisms that it should best be done, as is currently the case, within the portfolio of the Minister for Social Security. We must develop an appropriate approach to determine the capacity of the custodial parent to pay. As I have said, there are dozens of variables which affect that capacity. We need to know whether the operation of guidelines or a formula should be an automatic administrative process or be subject to some degree of flexibility such as a judicial or other appeal process. We want to know how to ensure timely operation of an assessment process and how non-income forms of maintenance and home ownership should be taken into account. We are all very well aware of the fact that the ownership of a home, the possession of a family home, makes a great deal of difference to the standard of living of whichever parent has the custody of the children. We may indeed have to look at appropriate personal taxation treatment of contributions paid and received. In fact, this is a form of distribution of maintenance which is receiving a great deal of consideration. We want to know what is the appropriate treatment of separate parents who share custody of their children for extended periods of access. For example, does the parent who has the children over the school holiday period receive maintenance from the other parent for that period although the other parent may for the rest of the year have custody of the children? In fact, should it be exactly the same amount or will some recognition be given to the fact that one parent buys all the clothes or the other parent pays the school fees, et cetera? On the issue of collection mechanisms, there is the extent to which simple voluntary funds transfer can be used, for example bank transfers, which I think might be the method of choice for many professional people whose incomes would not be accessible to regular income tax deductions through the pay as you earn system. These matters and a whole list of other concerns are currently before the Minister. They are receiving urgent attention. As I have said, I believe that within a very short period we will be in a position to put before the Parliament a series of firm recommendations that will allow the degree of flexibility that we do not find in Senator Durack's Bill, that will allow a degree of discretion with Family Court judges who will need to take into account a wide range of variations in circumstances and that will not simply add to the burden on supporting parents in Australia. Senator PARER(Queensland)(9.23) —I rise to support the Family Law Amendment Bill 1985 which was introduced by Senator Durack. I was rather intrigued by the remarks of Senator Giles when she said that this matter is under active consideration by the Federal Government and that we can expect something within months. The problems associated with the Family Law Act of 1975 have been known for quite a long time. Senator Durack brought in a Bill in 1983 that did not get anywhere. He brought in this Bill in 1985 and we are just debating it today. So much for the urgency portrayed by Senator Giles. This whole business of the family and the breaking up of families is a very important matter, not just in the costs that might be incurred in supporting the broken families but also the social costs. I often wonder how these matters get into such a mess. It has been said that, if one wants to muck up something, one puts it in the hands of academic lawyers or a committee. Families have had the unfortunate and disastrous attention of both over a long time. It is not coincidental that, since the passage of the Family Law Act 1975, there has been an extraordinary increase in the number of divorces and people receiving social security benefits as a result of that. Between 1974 and 1984 there was an increase of 255 per cent. The total number of beneficiaries as a result of family break-up has increased from 50,416 to 171,488 which is an increase of 235 per cent. The total cost in constant 1983-84 dollars has increased from $282m to $1,250m. In 1986 the direct cost to the Commonwealth Government is estimated by Mr Jim Crawley of the Marriage Guidance Council of Western Australia to be $1.5 billion with a further $1.5 billion in other costs to the Commonwealth and State governments. This represents approximately $500 per year for every taxpayer in Australia. We are confronted with two very serious problems. The first is the growth in the divorce rate which is devastating on families, and in most cases a severe trauma on one of the partners, and the children who are the innocent victims. The other problem is the enormous burden that family break-up has put on to the taxpayer. The two are closely related. Under section 107 of the Family Law Act, no one can be penalised by being sent to gaol for not paying maintenance ordered by the courts. In addition, the potential to obtain social security payments is taken into account when determining maintenance. I know that concern has been expressed about using gaol as the ultimate penalty for people who do not pay maintenance. However, something has to be done. Those people who have practiced in this field will appreciate that often the threat, the warrant served, will serve to get the recalcitrant party to pay the maintenance due. This has brought with it two attitudes. People may walk away from the responsibilities they have created and have no concern for contributing to the maintenance of those responsibilities. In the main, although not entirely, it is women with children who are disadvantaged. I would like to quote the remarks of Mr Kim Beazley, a former Federal Minister for Education in the Whitlam Government. Mr Beazley is reported in a newspaper as saying: I can desert my wife, divorce her and the law courts will do virtually nothing to collect maintenance. In the article he then referred to the principal of a school with which he was involved and said that the principal was getting six letters a week from mothers saying that their husbands had taken off. The article, quoting Mr Beazley, continues: ``When the Family Law Act was being debated-and it was really the work of Mr Whitlam, Senator Lionel Murphy and Keppel Enderby, all QCs with as much idea about poverty as Marie Antoinette-they said that justice would be done in the sharing of property,'' . . . ``They couldn't conceive apparently the people without property.'' Mr Beazley further said that he found that one of the problems, which I think is something that we have all struck in situations where a split has occurred, is that the remaining parent looking after the children tends to take out the bitterness on the children. He said that teachers were going back to the kindergarten four nights a week to teach the mothers budgeting, cooking and child care because some of the women were bashing their children. The Chairman of the Family Law Council, Mr Justice Fogarty, has also made numerous criticisms of maintenance and maintenance enforcement. He is quoted as follows: . . . maintenance enforcement in Australia was scandalous. Forty per cent of orders were ignored and another thirty per cent were only partly complied with, he said. ``There's an ethic in our society these days and you're a mug to pay maintenance because no one else does.'' Mr Justice Fogarty said abuse of the maintenance system attracted the greatest criticism of the Family Court, but the court could do nothing about it. ``Only the Government can act and it must have the will to do so . . . He agreed that the existing system encouraged the practice of determining maintenance agreements, using the supporting parent benefit as a starting point. ``We want to see that change,'' Mr Justice Fogarty said. ``What courts should do is judge what a husband can reasonably afford and disregard social security payments. ``But what you get is sweetheart deals among lawyers, who come into court with a consent maintenance agreement between the parties with the husband agreeing to pay $40 a week. You know full well that they're just topping up the social security and there's nothing you can do about it.'' An amendment is sought to section 75. There is no doubt that parents should be required to fund their original responsibilities before funding their new responsibilities. This in itself would be a real incentive to make people think before walking off in a fit of pique. It would be a curb to false pride. Parents must be made to realise that even though their marriage may come to an end, whether it be the fault of one or if there is no blame, their duty to support their children does not end when the marriage ends. It is their first responsibility before they move to another relationship. The Bill seeks to amend section 123 to make provision for the enforcement of maintenance orders. I doubt whether there is a person in this chamber who has not been told by a constituent or has had even a closer experience of solicitors involved with Family Law Court matters telling clients that they are wasting their time seeking maintenance as for practical purposes it is impossible to enforce. The Bill to amend the Family Law Act is a step towards redressing the major problems which have been found through experience to exist in the implementation of the Family Law Act 1975. The amendments seek where possible to make people responsible. They do not seek to affect adversely those in genuine need, who suffer because of marriage breakup. Quite the contrary. There are families on the bread line in Australia whose ex-partner or ex-parent could be termed wealthy. This is occurring because of the implementation and practical operation of the 1975 Act. As mentioned earlier, it is the anomalies that are being corrected by this amendment Bill. It is not just a matter of equity for the partner who has the children that is important, but the unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(8.32) —Senator Durack's Family Law Amendment Bill seeks to amend the maintenance and enforcement of decrees provisions in the Family Law Act 1975. We would all agree that something has to be done to redress the situation whereby the cost of the supporting parent's benefit has risen dramatically since 1975 whilst the payment of maintenance by fathers has become almost non-existent. Senator Giles told us that the Government was going to do something about it. That sounds very good but prior to the introduction of Senator Durack's Bill the Government had been very slow to think about it at all. It is sad to say that 10 per cent of children have experienced the divorce of their parents by their 10th birthday and 18 per cent by their 18th birthday, so we are talking about a large number of children having to be maintained other than in a normal family situation. Senator Parer outlined for us the tremendous cost to the nation of maintaining all these children. All people in society depend for their security on a package consisting of family, work and the state, and the components change over the life span. Various figures suggest that work and the state are assuming more responsibility and the family less. At the International Society on Family Law world conference held in Brussels last year it was pointed out by a number of experts that the current reluctance of men to support their children after divorce was foreshadowed by legal precedent and deeply ingrained norms. One lobby group, the Campaign for Justice in Divorce, argued that it was quite happy for husbands to pay for children but not for the women who provide care for them-a statement which, according to the Institute of Family Studies, sits poorly with the pitifully small amounts of money being transferred. Clearly the responsible attitude for parents to take is to regard the child's support and welfare as the most important factor, not the hostilities between themselves. The family is the basic unity of society. We have to be cognisant of the need for support and welfare of the child. Unfortunately, however, achieving that will require the restructuring of a system which has been built up over centuries. A myth which has been inculcated into our system of law for centuries-that of fear of supporting the parasitic woman-has resulted in the shaping of laws designed to facilitate the escape of fathers from dependent children. As a result of this entrenched disregard for main- tenance responsibilities the taxpayer is now faced with the enormous and unjust burden of having to pick up the pieces and provide additional taxes for maintenance payments. The figures cited by Senator Parer were certainly large. It is costing the Commonwealth Government $1.5 billion to help fathers escape from their dependent children, meaning that the Federal Government has to pick up the pieces and collect additional taxes in order to make maintenance payments. This is the main reason Senator Durack has felt the need to introduce this Family Law Amendment Bill. I certainly congratulate him on so doing. I acknowledge the point, which some legal people make, that fathers become bitter when courts find in favour of the woman in custodial cases and in so doing order fathers to pay maintenance while severely curtailing or completely restricting their visiting rights. Another situation brought to my notice concerned wives going interstate, so the husbands are unable to have access to their own children and hence refuse to provide maintenance. I can see some substance in this excuse but I cannot understand a father's refusal to provide his children with the financial support necessary to ensure their education and well being. It does not seem to indicate much love or responsibility on the part of the father. Then again, I suppose that if he goes off and leaves his family, that does not show much love on his part in any case. Regardless of what animosity he has towards the mother, and vice versa, the children are his and not the taxpayers' collective responsibility. I suppose it seems fairly easy these days to go off and leave one's wife and children, or in some cases one's husband and children, when the Government is going to pick up the tab and one does not have to be responsible for the maintenance of the children. I guess some people do not have the capacity to pay. It is just a case, as I see it, of walking away from one's responsibilities. I am one of the old brigade who still maintains that young children need a mother. It does not help when the mother is forced to go and take a job because she is receiving insufficient maintenance from her divorced husband to care adequately for her children. Honourable senators might say to me that there are other cases, of course, where husbands are left with the children and the wife goes off. I suppose that this is where child care comes into being. Most certainly there is a great need in cases such as this for adequate child care. I believe that the best child care of all is that which I saw not so very long ago in one of our Brisbane suburbs-women in a district are willing to take children after school and look after them until the mother or the father is able to get home in the evening. The first six years of life are the most crucial to the development of a child's full range of capabilities. It is during these six years that the child will form his or her personality and coping mechanisms. The added stress of a marriage breakdown does nothing to instil in the child a sense of belonging, of being loved consistently and of being cared for in a happy family situation. Why would anyone want to make his or her child suffer more by refusing to provide the financial security which is also so vitally important? I certainly support Senator Durack's Family Law Amendment Bill. I am glad that he has brought it into the Senate because there is a very big need for it and I am hopeful that fellow senators will also see the need to correct this glaring anomaly, not just for the sake of saving taxpayers' money, but also to help promote a more caring and more responsible approach to family life in this country. It most certainly is very much needed, and we do not want to forget that children are this nation's greatest resource. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! Under sessional orders, the time for general business has expired. Debate resumed. The Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.43) —by leave-I move: Page 2, clause 3, after definition of `Schedule airport' insert the following definition: ` ``securities'' includes stocks, debentures, debenture stocks, notes, bonds, promissory notes, bills of exchange and similar instruments or documents;'. Page 3, clause 3, at end of the clause add the following new sub-clause: `(4) A reference in this Act to dealing with securities includes a reference to- (a) creating, executing, entering into, drawing, making, accepting, endorsing, issuing, discounting, selling, purchasing or re-selling securities; (b) creating, selling, purchasing or re-selling rights or options in respect of securities; and (c) entering into agreements or other arrangements relating to securities.'. Page 31, paragraph 56 (4) (c), line 2, before `the basis', insert `shall specify'. Page 31, paragraph 56 (4) (d), line 4, before `the reason', insert `shall specify'. Page 31, paragraph 56 (4) (d), line 4, before `the reason', insert `shall specify'. Page 37, paragraph 72 (2) (c), line 43, leave out `offices', insert `officers'. Page 38, paragraph 72 (3) (c), line 21, leave out `offices', insert `officers'. Page 38, sub-clause 72 (3), line 24, leave out `(e)', insert `(d)'. Page 38, sub-clause 72 (3), line 30, leave out `(f)', insert `(e)'. I think the amendments speak for themselves. Amendments (1) to (4) are amendments to clarify, for instance, the definition of `securities' and to make more clear the language in a couple of clauses of the legislation, particularly clauses 3 and 56. Amendments (5) to (8) result from typographical errors in the Bill. These would normally be sorted out in the other place by what are called chairmen's amendments. In this place they would not be sorted out at all; we would just change them. However, obviously someone in the other place is in a particularly nit-picking mood and feels that we should do this by formal amendment. Therefore, I have moved these amendments. Senator MacGibbon —You would not think it was sloppy government? Senator GRIMES —It is nothing to do with the Government, Senator; it is to do with the House. I think it is a combination of the Clerks and a few other people over there. But these are typographical errors which in this place we would have fixed, quite sensibly, by just changing them. But these people on the other side think we have to do this formally, so I suppose we will do it. Amendments agreed to. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.45) —I move: Page 4, after paragraph (2) (b), insert the following paragraphs: `(ba) ensures that, as far as is practicable, the level of noise at airports is not such as to be detrimental to the communities near airports; `(bb) ensures that, where land at a Federal airport is to be used for a purpose not directly related to aviation, being land in respect of which a lease, licence or authority has been granted to a person (other than the Commonwealth), the use would, if the land were not in a Federal airport, be allowed by the law of the relevant State or Territory (including laws made by a relevant local government body); `(bc) ensures that where a building is to be erected on land at a Federal airport for a purpose not directly related to aviation, being land in respect of which a lease, licence or authority has been granted to a person (other than the Commonwealth), the design and construction of the building would, if the land were not in a Federal airport, be allowed by the law of the relevant State or Territory (including laws made by a relevant local government body); `(bd) ensures that the Corporation and the communities served by Federal airports are good neighbours;'. These amendments are basically to ensure that the Federal Airports Corporation Bill takes into account the wishes and desires of local government agencies. Members of the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council-AMAC-originally came to the Australian Democrats last year with a list of 12 requests as to where the Bill should be amended from their viewpoint. Nine of these requests were later dropped but three remained. Basically they involved, firstly, environmental functions of the Corporation, secondly, the planning, development and building control of the councils over the FAC and, thirdly, the payment of rates to the councils. We had a good look at this. We listened to AMAC and we consulted the Department of Aviation, through the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), and we found that there were areas in the Bill which were unsatisfactory. One of those was the environmental area. It is extraordinary that the FAC has no environmental functions, when we consider that we are dealing with something as contentious as aircraft noise; there are no environmental functions in this Bill. The report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise entitled `Aircraft Operations and the Australian Community', which has been tabled but not responded to by the Government yet, states that the FAC should take into account the environmental aspects in its legislation. Recommendation 30 of the report states that the legislation establishing the FAC `should specify consideration of environmental functioning of the Corporation'. Yet the Bill does not consider this. Unfortunately the control over flight paths, which is basically the major concern for local communities, is not within the jurisdiction of the FAC. In other words, people are far more concerned about aircraft noise when aircraft are flying over their heads than they are when aircraft are running up on the ground. However, this is no reason for the FAC not to undertake, within its jurisdiction, to abate noise and operate as a good neighbour-an operation which will not offend its neighbours. Amendments (ba) and (bd), circulated on the good neighbour principle, are drafted to be reciprocal as is the case where the good neighbour principle is used in agreements. Another issue brought up by AMAC which we, as Democrats, considered and agreed to had to do with the planning and development and building controls of the FAC. There is no reason why the FAC should not adhere to local building requirements. The possibility of the FAC allowing a 15-storey hotel in a local environment where only five-storey buildings are allowed must be foreshadowed and dealt with in the Bill. In fact there is a case at this time concerning Jandakot Airport in Western Australia where the local government has strict controls over the usage of its own land or area under its own control. The Department of Aviation has allowed a go-kart track to be built, much against the wishes of the local residents and local government but, since it is on govenment land, the local people have no control. This bothers the local people. It bothered the mayor in that area, who came to see me. This must be guarded against. But the local council should not be in a position to stipulate how buildings specifically related to aviation can be built. In other words, if the local government regulations call for a certain type of structure and this would be in conflict with the aviation needs of that structure, the aviation needs should receive precedence; it is only logical. The Democrats amendments (bb) and (bc) are designed to resolve this dilemma responsibly. Where buildings, et cetera, are not directly related to aviation they must adhere to the relevant State or Territory laws, including local government regulations and ordinances. The amendment agreed to by the Government is attached. There is a third area considered as important by local government, and that is the payment of council rates. The councils would like the FAC to pay rates rather than have the present situation where the Government pays rates minus services and land taxes already paid for by the Commonwealth in the form of guaranteed ex gratia payments. All subsidiaries of the FAC and activities outside the direct area of operation of the FAC will pay full rates and taxes under the legislation. The problem is that section 114 of the Constitution exempts the Federal government from payment of local government taxes and rates. Tenants and lessees are Federal government tenants and lessees on Federal government property, and under the existing contracts the Federal government assumes responsibilities for such things. To alter these agreements would be fraught with enormous difficulties, if possible at all. On the other hand, it would be constitutionally difficult with widespread ramifications in other areas for the Government to reverse section 114, and this has quite a bit of legal opinion behind it. As a solution the Democrats have asked the Minister to agree to give an undertaking on behalf of the FAC that the ex gratia payments will be no less than the applicable rates and taxes. This statement has in fact been made by the Minister, who in the House of Representatives said this week: The Democrats raised with me the matter of ex gratia payments in lieu of rates of FAC airports. I would like to place on record that it is the intention that the FAC will be required to conform with Government policy to make such payments and to continue without diminution the payments currently made by the Commonwealth in regard to commercial activities on airports. I draw honourable members' attention to the reference to this matter contained in my speech in the second debate. We have attempted to take a good look at this Bill. We agree with it in principle. We felt that it needed some amendments to make it more acceptable to the community. We have moved those amendments and recommend them to the Committee. Earlier much was made of a media release from Bruce Lloyd, shadow Minister for Aviation and National Party member for Murray, about exactly what it meant and whether it referred to privatisation. The media release is fairly loosely written, as would be expected, because the Opposition did not really understand the issue very well, as could be seen from earlier contributions. In the first place the coalition parties believe that another quango or statutory authority subject to excessive ministerial direction is not the best way to achieve greater efficiency and public accountability of aerodromes such as Mascot and Tullamarine. Later in the release the Opposition states: The Opposition believes that there are too many statutory authorities, and that the better way to efficiently manage our major airports is to establish individual boards of management. This would create a body that is separately accountable and would allow more independent management decisions. When these two statements are taken together, one sees that the Opposition is either promoting privatisation of the airports or promoting the transfer of airports to State governments or local government or the establishment of separate statutory authorities for each airport. If the Opposition argument regarding quangos is accepted, the third option disappears. So we are left with privatisation or the transfer of airports to State governments or local government. If privatisation is to be adopted, which is the stated policy of the Opposition, there is an assumption that separate companies could be formed to take over the airports, otherwise only profitable airports would be taken over and the balance would remain a burden on the taxpayer. The likelihood of the Government being able to sell off all airports, even if it wished to do so, is highly questionable. One wonders about the business acumen of the Opposition. Privatisation of a monopoly would also require the imposition of considerable government control to ensure that the public interest was protected and the monopoly situation not exploited. The imposition of such controls would run counter to the concept of independent management espoused by the Opposition. The Opposition argument therefore tends to defeat itself, which it often does. The transfer of airports to State or local governments could be achieved only if those governments were prepared to take them over. South Australia and Queensland have already indicated that they would not be prepared to do so in respect of major airports. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Are these arguments relevant to your amendments? Senator SANDERS —No, probably not, but I find that much of what goes on in this House is somewhat on those lines. The Opposition will no doubt spring to its feet complaining mightily about these amendments, but it will probably not have done its homework on these amendments as it did not do its homework on this media release or on the Bill itself. I take your implied criticism on board, Mr Chairman. Since I have already obviously explained with great clarity the amendments and the need for them, I will resume my seat and urge the Committee to accept the amendments in the spirit in which they were meant, which is to improve an already excellent Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.55) —I and the Government do not have much trouble with the first three of these amendments. Senator MacGibbon —Aren't you thinking? Senator GRIMES —Your criticising my thinking would be something akin to Satan condemning sin. They are good amendments. They ask us to ensure that the level of noise at airports is not such as to be detrimental to the community, and that is fair enough. No one can argue with that. I suppose no one can argue with the first three amendments. However, I have a bit of a problem with the fourth one. I would perhaps ask Senator Sanders to put his mind to that because it asks us to ensure that the Corporation and the community served by Federal airports are good neighbours. I am not sure that constitutionally the Federal Government can legislate to ensure that people are good neighbours. I am not sure that it is possible for anyone to legislate for people to be good neighbours. I like good neighbourhood as much as I like motherhood and all those sorts of things, and it gives me a bit of a warm inner glow to see such an amendment. At times we should perhaps make it clear in our legislation that we have feelings of this type. I do not sneer as do Opposition members. Senator Walters —Make it compulsory. Senator GRIMES —There are several things I would like to make compulsory about you, Senator, and surgery would be one. I would question whether the fourth amendment would be worthwhile, but I would not go to the barricades on it. It is important that we talk about good neighbours and all those good things because too many bad things are talked about in this place. However, I ask Senator Sanders perhaps to question in his own mind and in his colleagues' minds whether we can constitutionally do that. The rest of it the Government has no objection to. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.58) —I wish to speak very strongly against the first of these amendments by the Australian Democrats or whatever flag they are flying today. I do this in the hope that the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, and other members of the Government will give up the habit of trying to think on the run. They are not too good at thinking at any time, but when Senator Grimes and Senator Evans try to think on the run, we often come unstuck. I am very concerned about the business of noise at airports. The Australian community has a very large investment in airports. We abide by general noise requirements which apply through the International Civil Aviation Organisation and other bodies and standards are set as to what noise aircraft can make. I have no quarrel with that. But the proposal put forward by Senator Sanders reflects his abysmal ignorance of the whole aviation scene and of the Australian community in general. He knows nothing about either field. Senator Grimes —He probably flies more than you do. Senator MacGIBBON —I doubt that. I have probably been flying for considerably longer than Senator Sanders, but I do not get up and slap myself on the back and talk about my involvement in the American aerospace industry, and it is probably bigger than Senator Sanders's involvement in the American aerospace industry. I do not want to get into that sort of thing. I am happy to stand by my record. I do not have to promote it. Having listened to Senator Sanders talking about aviation, I realise that he knows as much about it as I know about theology. The point I wish to make is that the Australian community has a very big involvement in real estate in airfields. I am opposing amendment (ba) on behalf of the aviation industry in Australia and the interests of the Australian community. I say to Senator Sanders that the facts of life are that the airports in Australia preceded the urban development around them in nearly all cases. As for my own State, as I consider the airfields that serve Queensland, I cannot think of one that was ringed by houses when it started. The point I would like to make briefly and succinctly, so Senator Grimes can understand it, is that people chose of their own free will to buy land around airports. They bought it because it was cheap at the time. That might have been 30, 40 or 50 years ago. I would like Senator Grimes to consider the fact that airports are an essential part of the Australian infrastructure, both for overseas travel and for travel within Australia. In a very real way airports are comparable to seaports in a bygone age, a century ago. The community has an investment in travel and communications within the country. People who, for whatever reasons, chose to buy land by airports did so in the full knowledge that aviation was taking place on that mile square field or whatever it was thirty 30 or 40 years ago when the airports started. It is absolutely unconscionable for those people to weep now and say that they are upset by the noise of a light aircraft flying overhead, or something like that, or coming the act, as people do around Archerfield and Acacia Ridge, of saying that a light aircraft might fly into a school and kill 50 or 100 people. As an aviator, I would be terribly distressed if an aircraft went through a school and occasioned injury to anyone, let alone killed a number of people. However, the facts of life are that the airfields were there first. The very important point is-if Senator Grimes had the maturity to understand it and look at it objectively-that the community has an interest in maintaining this asset. The Government cannot win this argument. Let us take the case of Melbourne, whose airport was moved from Essendon to Tullamarine. All the smarties, the rapid real estate developers, moved in and ringed Tullamarine with houses. We do not need to set up a new airport for Sydney. All we need is a parallel runway system. A move in that direction would save the Australian aviation industry maybe $20m or $30m a year in fuel burn. If we did that we would not need another airport at Badgerys Creek, Wilton or wherever the Government wants it to go in New South Wales, wherever Nifty wants to hive off a bit of real estate. If the airport goes out to the bush, one will soon find a housing development around it and within 10 years there will be pressures for a new field. So, on those grounds, I do not support amendment (ba). It is entirely contrary to the interests of the aviation community of Australia and to the best interests of the Australian community. I move: Leave out paragraph (bd). Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.03) —I wish to get some information from the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, regarding a couple of provisions of this Bill before I turn to other matters. My concern is the inter-relationship between the provisions in clause 10 (1) (b) and clause 71 of the legislation. Clause 71 of the legislation transfers to the Federal Airports Corporation the responsibilities currently exercised by either the Minister for Aviation or the Department of Aviation under the Airports (Business Concessions) Act. That includes the power to call for, adjudicate on and award contracts and tenders. Clause 10 (1) (b) allows the Corporation to establish, form, or participate in the formation of a company that would be a subsidiary of the Corporation. What I want to know from the Minister is whether the Corporation can form a subsidiary company and then, under the Airports (Business Concessions) Act, award it one of its own contracts or tenders. Let us take the example of catering, parking, duty free facilities, cleaning or whatever. If the Corporation establishes its own company and then, under the Airports (Business Concessions) Act, awards the contract to its own company, I want to know whether it is anticipated that that would be the sort of activity in which the companies formed under clause 10 (1) (b) would be engaged in relation to the Airports (Business Concessions) Act or whether, within the legislation or any Government directions, there is any prohibition to prevent that from occurring. I support the comments of my colleague Senator MacGibbon about the Australian Democrats' amendments and those made by Senator Grimes about the good neighbour amendment. Senator Sanders is fast establishing a reputation in this chamber as the most notorious pilot since Pontius. Nevertheless, one wants to establish some degree of rationality in this debate. Before Senator Sanders goes on to wash his hands of any involvement in a piece of Commonwealth legislation by inserting in it a provision that it is to be required that the Corporation and the communities served by Federal airports are good neighbours-I presume not on the principle that good neighbours are made by high fences-one needs to know not only what it is that is to be done to the Airports Corporation if it does not behave as a good neighbour but also, more importantly what is to be done to the local communities if they do not behave as good neighbours. The legislation we will be passing will be the first occasion when, by legislative fiat, communities served by airports are required by law to be `good neighbours'. I would hate to take a city such as Launceston as an example, but let us consider, for instance, the case of a committee established in Launceston, representing the local community, which decided that it did not want to be a good neighbour to the Launceston Airport. Senator Grimes has looked up. I thought that comment might provoke Senator Grimes to some degree of interest in this matter. Let us take what Senator Grimes had to say this afternoon about local communities in Launceston or, as he would say, the denizens of Launceston, that is, those inhabitants of Launceston who are not troglodytes. Under the passage of Senator Sanders's amendment, one could contemplate Senator Grimes and his colleagues coming to the conclusion that the communities served by the Launceston Airport are not behaving like good neighbours. Presumably, poor old Senator Watson, Mr Smith and Mr Newman would find themselves in strife under the terms of the Federal Airports Corporation legislation and would be hauled up, undoubtedly, before the Human Rights Commission in order to demonstrate that they should not be punished for not being good neighbours according to the terms and conditions of the Sanders amendment. Senator Walters —But they wouldn't know who was making the allegations. Senator PUPLICK —Not only that, but they probably would not get the right to defend themselves anyway. I believe that that example indicates the nonsense of putting up an amendment to a significant piece of Commonwealth legislation to ensure that people, corporations and communities are `good neighbours'. Senator Grimes has indicated that he is very concerned to ensure that legislation is in its best form. According to him, the only people who muck up legislation are the Clerks and people in the other place who cannot get the legislation straight, and it needs to be corrected as a result. I am even prepared to tolerate the sly look of the Clerk because he is very even-handed about these matters. He is giving me the same look as he gave Senator Grimes when Senator Grimes was speaking, so I really do not mind. The Government will see the sense of opposing at least amendment (bd). In relation to amendment (ba), Senator MacGibbon quite accurately described the situation, particularly in terms of the relationship between airports and residents. It is exactly the same problem, for instance, that is currently being faced in Sydney. Complaints are being made by residents about the Australian Atomic Energy Commission establishment at Lucas Heights. The establishment has been there for a considerable period. As the result of various local government activities and development, communities have moved closer to the reactor and thus there are now complaints that the reactor ought to be picked up and moved somewhere else. Exactly the same principle applies to airports and this vexed question of aircraft noise. I believe that as the Government has not responded to the House of Representatives committee inquiry dealing with aircraft noise, amendment (ba) which the Opposition will oppose will, I hope, be opposed by the Government. Therefore I hope that Senator Grimes might be persuaded, at least to see some light and some reason for some of the Democrats' amendments, and that he might also be in a position to give me some information about the inter-relationship of the two clauses in terms of commercial operations of the Corporation. It is a matter which I have raised. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.11) —I briefly support the comments made by both Senator Puplick and Senator MacGibbon on paragraph (ba). Senator Archer —That is exactly what it is. Senator COLLARD —When one sees such rot coming from a political party all one can say is `bah'. Senator MacGibbon has quite rightly indicated what happened at Tullamarine Airport. A deliberate decision was taken by the Government at the time to build a new airport where it would not worry anybody. I can recall-I suppose many honourable senators can-driving to that airport and seeing signs `You are under the flight path approach to runway XYZ. If you build here you will be subject to airport noise'. I do not know what else one can do to protect people from themselves or from their own folly. I stand corrected but when the Major Airport Needs of Sydney study was done it was found that a high percentage of people-about 80 per cent-living around Sydney Airport had bought there since jet traffic started operating. Of course we are a lot further down the track now and we have much quieter jets operating. People obviously bought there because the land or the houses were cheaper. They wanted to take advantage of that fact. The old phrase caveat emptor certainly pertains in this case. Maybe a good case can be made for local authorities. When a new airport is built-people in Brisbane are very lucky in this regard-the area around it will be zoned industrial land or something like that so it cannot be built on by people who want to take advantage of cheap land and establish houses on it. When the new Brisbane Airport opens we will be very lucky because, as I understand it, the old airport will become industrial land or ancillary land to the new airport which is bounded by the river and the bay. We will be very lucky so far as noise problems and curfews are concerned. This is really a nonsense amendment. This chamber would do well to get rid of it and treat it with the contempt which it deserves. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.14) —I want to make a couple of brief points firstly on proposed amendment (ba). I have problems with some of the wording. I am not quite certain what it means; I am never quite certain what the phrase `as far as practicable' means and I am certain that Senator Sanders has no idea what it means. The practicality of a situation where there is an airport is that there is noise. If practicality is to be the measure, the practical fact is that aeroplanes make noises when they come in and take off. The next part of the amendment states: `is not such as to be detrimental to the communities'. I am not quite certain what the word `detrimental' means in this context. Does it mean affecting people's health? Senator Sanders —Mental wellbeing. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Their mental wellbeing? Obviously some members of the Australian Democrats have been living too close to airports for too long. Is it their psyche? Does it mean affect people's dogs, for example? Obviously dogs do not like aeroplanes sometimes. I am not quite certain what this kind of waffly wording is really supposed to mean. The amendment states: `. . . detrimental to the communities'. I suppose the word `communities' can be defined in all sorts of quaint ways. If the Australian Democrats really want to ensure that there are no airports where there are communities they will set out to cost the Australian taxpayer untold millions of dollars. If this clause does not mean that, it is meaningless and is here simply to appear to be aimed at another special interest group that the Democrats spend all their time trying to appeal to in this typically phoney way. I would think that the odds are that rather than having some meaning, which is obscure anyway, this phrase is absolutely meaningless and is another of their fairly tawdry, sordid attempts to buy some votes. I would now like to deal with one problem concerning the response of politicians to questions of votes. To a degree it is unfortunate that the Federal Airports Corporation will not have the power to impose some sort of economic rationality on decisions about where to site airports. In New South Wales we have had an incredible situation where for years there has been all this toing and froing about where the second airport site for Sydney should be, if one is needed. The clear economic case is for another runway at Mascot and a more efficient use of existing facilities. Where that clear case exists there has been enormous endeavour to defeat that clear case. For example, as I understand it, the Federal Government will make a decision on Monday about a second airport site for Sydney, that is if it does not find it too difficult a decision to make and if it wants to spend another three years-the number of years it has been in power-scratching whatever is appropriate, to bring forth whatever flame comes from its oiled lamp. The curious matter about which I have been advised is that the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran-who is known, as Senator MacGibbon says, by another name-as I understand it on good authority, has been heavily lobbying for Badgerys Creek to be listed as the second airport site. I do not know why he would want Badgerys Creek to be the site. Maybe he feels that the ground fog there in the morning is particularly attractive and useful for an airport. Maybe he is enthralled by the fact that it has inadequate transport and would cost the Federal Government extraordinary amounts of money to provide it with any kind of links into the city. Perhaps he considers that there are some political advantages in the St George area by removing the problem in order to sustain some position in the State seats around Botany Bay. After all, he has already shown his enthusiasm for doing anything, no matter how detrimental to the economy in that area, by refusing to allow a coal loader, which would be totally enclosed, to be built. Certainly economics, rationality and what is best for the community generally bear no relationship to what Mr Wran would seek to do. If my information is correct-as I certainly believe it to be-I think it would be proper if Mr Wran publicly stated his clear preference for Badgerys Creek so that people would be able to know who to blame if the Federal Government were foolish enough to make that decision on Monday, that is, of course, if it makes any decision at all. The absurdity of going to Badgerys Creek does not simply rely on the fact that obviously a second runway at Mascot is more appropriate, but it is compounded by the fact that if we are going to go anywhere we may as well go to Wilton. I assure the Senate that this is not simply because Wilton is only about half an hour's drive from my electorate office in Wollongong; Wilton is in fact on the main freeway, the Hume freeway into Sydney. It is on the new Dombarton to Picton rail spur, which is slowly being converted from an election gimmick by the Wran Government into a partly built section of track, and which links in to the main Sydney-Melbourne rail line. It clearly has available land that can be purchased at a fraction of the cost of land at Badgerys Creek and, as I said, has these appropriate facilities and is also convenient to my electorate office. In this situation, I should stress that rationality demands that the second Sydney airport be in fact a second runway at Mascot. Whatever happens, I urge the Government this time to actually make a decision, because the people of Badgerys Creek, for example, have been unable to get any development applications approved by their council for at least the last 18 months. People cannot build anything on their land; they cannot put pools in or whatever it is they want to do such as build extensions or granny flats. The thing is that the Government cannot leave people for this amount of time not knowing what on earth is going to happen to their houses, their land, maybe their total assets or perhaps the small business they have in that area. This has become a total nonsense and all I can do is to urge the Government, when it comes to make this decision-which I hope is Monday-not to do an oil price on it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.22) —I would like to point out that this is a very tolerant House. We have just heard a speech from Senator Michael Baume pushing his local barrow which has very little directly to do with this legislation. I just make the point that I find it extraordinary that Senator Michael Baume should get up here and castigate this Government for not making a decision about the second Sydney airport in three years when in seven years of government Opposition members made no such decision at all. They waffled around the place, carried on, and in fact in the years before that they did nothing; but Senator Michael Baume comes in here and complains, has a crack at Neville Wran, who he does not like for holding a record term as Premier of New South Wales and who looks like staying there for another 20 or 30 years, and then really says what it is all about-that he really wants the airport near his electorate office which is in the area that he used to represent. It really is a backhanded way of putting in his bid for what he wants. I can assure Senator Michael Baume that we will make a decision. The decision will be made on the basis of all the facts; the decision will be made after hearing the views of the citizens of New South Wales, including those in Badgerys Creek and of Wilton; even the Premier of New South Wales may have something to say about it. Senator Peter Baume —Another seven years? Senator GRIMES —That decision will be made before seven years. It will certainly be made in a much quicker time than Senator Michael Baume's Government took when it was in power. Senator Puplick referred to clause 71 and clause 10, and I think I can also refer him to clause 8 of the Bill. Clause 71 of this legislation says: . . . in accordance with Part IV, a Schedule airport or another airport becomes a Federal airport, it ceases to be an airport within the meaning of the Airports (Business Concessions) Act . . . That means that the Airport (Business Concessions) Act no longer applies. What it means though, as Senator Puplick suggested, is that it is theoretically possible for the Corporation to participate, form a company, I am advised, and a subsidiary, and that that subsidiary could take over, if allowed to by the Corporation, the functions that Senator Puplick suggested. I fail to see why it would not; though I doubt that it would. I will seek further information from the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), but on our reading and on the advice I have given here, what he says is true. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.25) —I thank the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for that answer. I express a little surprise at the way in which he says that if a subsidiary corporation were established he doubts that it would participate in certain activities. He will recall, no doubt, that when the contract for duty-free shopping came up some years ago in Brisbane, after tenders had been called from the private sector they were all then unilaterally ignored by the Department, which gave the contract to the then Commonwealth Hostels organisation in order to ensure that in that particular area it retained a revenue raising capacity which had traditionally been within the private sector. I suspect that as a method of revenue raising, that is precisely what will occur because some of the concessions such as the duty-free concession, the catering concession and the parking concession, are in fact very substantial concessions. If my memory serves me correctly, the payment to the Commonwealth by the last tenderer at Sydney was a multi-million dollar payment because multi-million dollar revenues are expected out of that particular operation. I must say that I am highly suspicious of an organisation which, by forming companies under clause 10 and awarding itself contracts under clause 71, will in fact be able to transfer out of the private sector into its own hands the capacity to run a number of commercial operations, some of which are extremely large money takers. Looking at the duty-free industry, we are talking about revenue of $70m to $80m a year. If this is the Government's plan, particularly with the introduction of inward duty-free, to which I have referred on a number of occasions and which was the subject of discussion the other day when the Industries Assistance Commission report on passenger concessions came before us, I must say that I am highly suspicious of the Government's intent in moving out of the hands of the private sector and into subsidiaries of the Federal Airports Corporation major commercial undertakings for the purpose of increasing its own Commonwealth revenues. Senator Grimes —Why? Because they make money? Senator PUPLICK —Well, they make money at the moment. One suspects that there is a reasonable prospect that if the Government's record on this is as good as its record in some of the other areas of administration by the Department of Aviation, they would soon become net losses to the Revenue. There are two other matters about which I have some concern immediately. One is the rationale for clause 69 in terms of scheduled airports no longer being airports within the meaning of the Airports (Surface Traffic) Act and the extent to which the regulations, which include some of the regulations which deal with the question of security, are to be properly replicated in airports under the control of the Federal Airports Corporation. The last matter I raise will turn to the Australian Democrats' amendments, and in particular to amendment (bb). Does the Minister contemplate with the passage of this amendment, the last part of which refers to laws made by relevant local government bodies, that in any undertaking, say, to build a hotel, the Corporation would be bound by, say, the local council's parking ordinances, that it would have to abide by the local council's liquor restrictions or noise restrictions, or, indeed, by local council regulations which might deal with the showing of in-house movies or whatever it happens to be? In other words, is the Federal Airports Corporation to have one set of rules under which it can operate? Let me take for example New South Wales. To which local council will Kingsford-Smith Airport in Sydney pay attention? There are six local councils which for the purposes of this amendment would be relevant local government bodies. They do not have all the same planning rules. They do not have all the same laws; they do not have all the same restrictions. Which of the codes of the six-or is it all six-have to be abided by by the Corporation? The same is true of Bankstown Airport. More than one council is involved there. Certainly at Hoxton Park and Camden there are more than one, and I am sure that in respect of Coolangatta Airport there would be a difficulty between the restrictions of the law as it effects both New South Wales and Queensland. One is talking there about which set of local regulations or State laws-the laws of Queensland or the laws of New South Wales-will require the Corporation to obey in relation to Coolangatta Airport. Senator Grimes would undoubtedly be aware that it may well be an offence, if it is the Queensland laws, for three people to assemble in the grounds of Coolangatta Airport without a permit because that happens to reflect the laws of Queensland. It will be interesting to see, therefore, if a demonstration takes place at Coolangatta Airport against airport noise, whether the regulations governed by the laws of Queensland are the ones in force. I will continue my remarks at some later stage. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Giles) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question that I do leave the chair and report to the Senate. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —Order! Pursuant to sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.31) —Earlier this week I asked Senator Walsh, as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, certain questions about a community employment project in Victoria in Mr Willis's electorate of Gellibrand. The project involves the construction of a new swimming centre in the suburb of Footscray at an originally estimated cost of $2.8m. I would like tonight to provide the Senate with additional information about this project and to ask several further questions in relation to it. I have mentioned to Senator Walsh and the office of Mr Willis that I would do so. I do so not only because this project has become, at best, a scandalous fiasco, but also because it raises issues which go to the very heart and integrity of the whole CEP program; it goes to the whole question of whether the unemployed are receiving the benefits that the program was designed to provide. I remind the Senate that the CEP program, which the Hawke Labor Government introduced in a blaze of favourable stage managed publicity in the latter half of 1983, has already cost the taxpayers of Australia more than $1,000m. The Government has recently announced that the program will continue for a further three years. On past trends this will involve a further $1,000m or more of taxpayers money. These are enormous amounts. The Government has a fundamental obligation to the taxpayers of Australia to ensure that CEP funds are spent wisely and responsibly, and that their use is fully monitored, audited, and accounted for. In other words, the Australian public deserves and demands total confidence that the CEP program is being properly and responsibly administered. The story of the CEP Footscray swimming pool project is important in this wider context, as well as in its own particular right. It is a sad story-indeed a tragedy, to quote the Footscray City Council. It is a story which must put an enormous dent in the Australian public's confidence in the administration by the Hawke Government of the whole, enormously expensive, CEP program-and indeed in its overall administrative competence. It raises important questions of both principle and detail that must be addressed by the Minister urgently. Failure to do so would be a grave dereliction of his ministerial duty. I turn to the details of the Footscray project. Footscray had an old swimming pool which was in need of repair and upgrading. The estimated cost of this was $2m to $3m. The Footscray City Council did not have sufficient financial resources to undertake such a project. For the ratepayers of Footscray to fund the project would have caused a 6 per cent rate rise for every ratepayer. The Council saw the establishment of the CEP program in the latter half of 1983 as a possible source of funds. It appears that on 30 November 1983, some two to three months after the CEP program was introduced, the Footscray Town Clerk made the City's first application for CEP funds. It appears that because of what have been described as `other problems', which are said to have been union problems, the Town Clerk subsequently advised the officer in charge of the CEP program that a management committee had been established to handle the project, rather than the Footscray City Council, even though the Council was the applicant for the CEP funds. The project was approved on 6 August 1984. Senator Peter Baume —How long did it take to get approval? Senator SHORT —It took a period of about eight to nine months. Senator Peter Baume —It was not unduly quick? Senator SHORT —No, that is right. The initial application was at a time when the unemployment market was very different, and so on. The total cost of the project was put at $2.8m, to be funded to an amount of $1.974m from the CEP, and some $800,000 from the Footscray City Council. The first CEP payment of $493,556 was handed over personally by Mr Willis, as the local member and as the responsible Minister, amid considerable favourable publicity, on 8 August 1984, two days after the approval had been granted. On 19 September 1984 three people began work on the project-a civil engineer, a mechanical engineer and one CEP grant person. In early October, a further 14 CEP workers commenced employment. Thus, for two months after the first funding was received, there was little progress in using the funds to employ the long-term jobless persons of the area. On 10 October 1984 a shelf company by the name of Elate Pty Ltd was purchased and the Footscray City Engineer and the Footscray Town Clerk became directors, according to documents from the Corporate Affairs Commission. On 22 March 1985, six additional directors were appointed to Elate, of which only two were city councillors. On 3 April 1985-that is, a couple of weeks later-the name of the company was changed from Elate Pty Ltd to Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd, and since then eight CEP grant payments have been made, the latest for $408,000 as recently as eight days ago. Payments to date, according to the CEP secretariat, now total $2,350,593-already in excess of the $1.97m originally approved. Under the original agreement between the Footscray City Council and the CEP authorities, the Council is committed to contribute $800,000 to the project. However, Council's actual contribution to date has been only $200,000. The remaining amount of $600,000 has been frozen by the Council, according to the Town Clerk. My office has been advised that the CEP secretariat was unaware that the Council had taken this action. This raises serious questions about the extent or lack of monitoring of the project. I will come back to that matter later. It also raises the question of whether, by holding back the $600,000, the Council is breaking its contract with the Government. A visual inspection of the site reveals very little result for the $2.5m spent so far. As well, the project is seriously behind schedule and the cost overruns have been massive. As of today, some 30 per cent of available man weeks of work on the project have been lost through absenteeism and industrial disputes. It appears that the project will never be capable of completion under the existing contractual arrangements. Why was a separate legal entity, originally called Elate Pty Ltd and subsequently renamed Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd, formed to manage this project? According to the Age newspaper today, the Footscray Town Clerk, Mr Ward, is reported as saying that the Council had had discussions with the Federal Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the then relevant Victorian Minister, Mr Simmonds, and that these Ministers had said that CEP finance would not be made available unless the project were administered by a separate entity. The intention, according to Mr Ward, had been to avoid industrial action which might have arisen if the Municipal Employees Union had resisted the Council's use of building trades unionists on the project. However, this ruse failed to prevent industrial problems. Again, according to Mr Ward in today's Age, the whole project was soon in great trouble as a result of action by the Builders Labourers Federation. In any event, it is difficult to understand the explanation given for the establishment of the private company. The company was not set up until October 1984, yet government approval of the project was given on 6 August 1984 and the first CEP payment was made on 7 August-two months before the company was established. It is essential that Mr Willis explain this apparent contradiction. He also needs to tell us what grounds he and the State Minister, Mr Simmonds, had for virtually forcing the Footscray Council to set up the private company. I have been advised that a trust deed exists which transfers ownership of the pool from Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd to the Footscray City Council on completion of the project. I am also advised that the CEP secretariat in Victoria is unaware of the formal existence or content of this trust deed. The Minister has a duty to tell us whether he personally is aware of the trust deed. The public must also be told of the legal status of the deed and the reasons for its existence. There is no evidence to indicate that the deed has ever been discussed at a full Footscray Council meeting. Given the major problems being faced in completing the swimming pool, the important question arises of who is the legal owner of the uncompleted pool. It appears that the Footscray City Council is not, even through it was the official sponsor and procurer of the CEP grant. Furthermore, what is the legal liability of those persons involved in the Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd and, for that matter, Footscray City councillors? I understand that tenders were neither advertised nor called for the pool project and that local government requirements in Victoria are that all projects in excess of $20,000 must go to local tender. The Minister must tell this Parliament whether he was aware that tenders were not called. He must also explain the legal implications of tenders not being called; for example, where does this place Footscray City councillors in a legal sense? Does it call into question the legal validity of the project as a whole and the CEP payments of $2.35m which have been made to date? The Minister must also tell us how the firm of Trojan-Owen and Associates Pty Ltd came to be selected as the project manager after the Footscray Council had accepted its own inability to manage the project. Trojan-Owen has wide experience of community projects in South Australia, but very limited experience in Victoria. According to corporate affairs records, Trojan-Owen has been 99 per cent owned by a company called Newdok Pty Ltd since July 1984, shortly before the pool project was approved for CEP funding. Since public moneys are involved, full details of the financial arrangements between Trojan-Owen and the Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd, or the Footscray City Council, should be made available. It appears that the establishment of the Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd has involved the project in significant additional costs. State payroll tax has had to be paid and much higher workers compensation premiums have been paid. How much are these additional costs and how have they been funded, because they were not included in the original project estimates? It is also obligatory for this Government to advise the Parliament as to the financial audit procedures that have applied to the project to date. I understand that the CEP secretariat in Victoria has conducted certain audits of the project through the accounts of Trojan-Owen. However, I am advised that the secretariat has not audited the accounts of Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd and had never even heard of the company Elate Pty Ltd until several days ago. The Corporate Affairs Commission has no recent balance sheets from these companies. It also appears that regular reports have not been presented to the Footscray City Council. I have recently had a lengthy and constructive meeting with the Footscray Town Clerk, Mr Ward, and the principal of Trojan-Owen, Mr Owen. They told me that, under existing circumstances and arrangements, the project could not be completed even for $10m. The lack of suitably qualified long term unemployed building tradesmen, the attitude of certain of the building unions and the specific guidelines of the CEP program make completion under existing arrangements virtually an impossibility. These gentlemen are extremely concerned about the existing state of affairs, as are the residents of Footscray. I assume that the Footscray City Council is also concerned. However, I am deeply concerned that, at a meeting of the Council three days ago, a motion was passed without debate delegating to a small group of council officers the power to pay accounts for an unlimited time. I find this decision extraordinary, given the grave circumstances surrounding the whole matter. As all CEP funding for the project now appears to be exhausted, and the pool is very far from complete, there must, firstly, be an urgent examination into past expenditure and the failure to complete as specified in the original estimates. Senator Peter Baume —Do we know that the money was used for employment generation? Senator SHORT —I will come to that in a second. Secondly, a statement of the Government's refinancing intentions is also essential. It is alarming that of the $2.5m already spent almost $1m has gone on workers compensation, payroll tax, equipment and Trojan-Owen fees and only $1.5m has gone on wages for the CEP participants, despite the very purpose of the scheme being to employ and pay those persons. Only a fraction over 50 per cent has gone in that direction. The people of Footscray and the long term unemployed in the western region of Melbourne and the taxpayers of Australia demand and deserve no less than an urgent and full investigation into this matter. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.49) —I want to talk about some more financial fiddling but on a less grand scale. Senator Walsh —You would be an expert on that. You are an expert at it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It relates to the Labor Government and the release today- Senator Peter Baume —I rise on a point of order. Senator Walsh has clearly breached the Standing Orders. He made an improper reference about an honourable senator. I ask that he withdraw what he just said. He said that Senator Michael Baume would be an expert at financial fiddling. I regard that as a breach of Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —If Senator Walsh made that comment, I ask him to withdraw. Senator Walsh —On the grounds that it is a breach of Standing Orders, I will. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw his remark. Senator Walsh —I withdraw. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I want to deal with some fiddling of financial books which became evident in the release today by the Australian Statistician of significantly revised balance of payments figures which include not only some quite interesting and quite proper adjustments because of the new basis on which the figures have been collected but also some revisions which put a slightly different light on some of the extraordinary statements made by Government Ministers at the time these earlier figures were released-statements which were aimed deliberately, it now appears, at misleading the financial markets of this nation. I refer specifically to the November balance of payments figure, which was welcomed by all Government Ministers who had the hide to speak about them, particularly Senator Walsh, who has a curious desire to get involved in muck-raking. Senator Walsh found it within himself, as did many other Ministers at the time, to use the November balance of payments figure, which was a deficit of only $758m on the current account, to try to demonstrate that perhaps these figures did not show in their five-month trend the same serious consequence, the same serious message, that the Opposition was trying to point out. We now discover in the December figures that that $758m was revised upwards to about $800m. In the figures that came out today we see that there was another $200m left out of the November figures. A document which came out today states that there was a further revision of $200m now revealed due to `an unusual backlog in processing of import entries'. This unusual backlog has taken until February this year to be revealed. It lifts the November figure to about $1 billion. Had that figure been available at the time the Government Ministers, including Senator Walsh, would not have had the opportunity to sound forth about the unreliability of the figures on which we were relying to demonstrate that there was a most unfortunate trend in the balance of payments which was in no way ameliorated by the November figures which are now shown to have been phoney. Senator Walsh got great pleasure from stressing the significance of those figures which are now shown to be phoney. I do not expect him to apologise to the Senate for that. It is not his style to do so. But I will say that, as a result of these corrections to the figures, we now have a six months balance of payments deficit on current account of about $7.5 billion. This represents a 30 per cent increase revealed in the revised figures over the balance of payments deficit for the same six months of the previous year. Yet when the Opposition called, as it has repeatedly, for the Government to revise its obviously incorrect forecasts, long-standing incorrect forecasts, in its Budget of last August of what the balance of payments deficit would be, we were continually told that it was on track. We were told: `Don't worry about it. We know what we are doing'. I quote from a notice of motion I gave in the Senate on 17 October, which, of course, has not been debated: That the Senate: (a) expresses its concern at Australia's worsening balance of payments position evident from the 18 per cent rise in the current account deficit for the September quarter . . . I repeat that that is now a 30 per cent worsening. The notice of motion also stated: (b) requests the Treasurer to make available any advice from the Treasury on which he relied for his forecast at an Economic Society meeting yesterday that the current account deficit would fall to 4 per cent of GDP by June next year and then continue to trend downwards; Since then, as a result of continual pressure from this side, and of course the requirements of the market, the Government has reluctantly admitted, having been dragged screaming to do so, that maybe its target should be extended and that instead of being $10.75 billion it should be about $11.25 billion. There is no chance whatsoever of the $11.25 billion being reached in this financial year and the Government must face up to this reality. It must face up to the fact that, to achieve only $11.25 billion, it will have to cut the average monthly current account deficit to about $0.5 billion and yet the average for the six months so far of this year has been something like $1.2 billion. The Government will have to have an enormous reduction in the rate of deficit per month and there is no chance of that. All I am asking of the Government is that it do what it failed to do last year-to come clean with the Senate, to come clean with the financial markets, about the real forecast of the current account deficit for this year. In the Australian this morning there is a leaked story about advice by an advisory committee to the Government that in fact the deficit for the financial year will be at least $12 billion and probably more. This Government has deceived the markets and deceived the Senate on this issue for too long. It is about time it came clean. If it has advice that the deficit will be at least $12 billion instead of its target of $10.7 billion it should be honest about it and say so. If in fact the figure is to be far worse, in the Government's judgment, than $12 billion let us hear about it. But let us no longer hear the sort of false information on the current account deficit that Senator Walsh and his colleagues have been giving to the Senate and to the people of Australia. It is long past the time, in view of the seriousness of the current account deficit, that the Senate should be snowed by people such as Senator Walsh on this vital issue. No doubt this is all part of a scheme, judging by comments in newspapers recently, for the Government to have an early election-another early election. There are such suggestions by Maximilian Walsh in the Sydney Morning Herald this week. There is no doubt that all the economic figures we are seeing are all clear and deliberate attempts to delay, to defer, the reality of what is happening in these areas. Clearly, it seems to be part of a scheme of putting it off until later, hoping that things will not get too bad until after the Government has been able to have another immoral early election. Of course, this may be why the Government was reported in a recent Victorian newspaper as having faced Senator Siddons of the Australian Democrats with the threat of going to the polls. A report in the Age of 4 February says of Senator Siddons: He told an Australian Small Business Association lunch that his party had supported the Government's tax package, which included capital gains tax on small businesses, because Mr Hawke and Mr Keating have threatened to go to the polls. The article quotes Senator Siddons as saying: `When we were negotiating with the Government we could only push them so far,' . . . `Hawke and Keating repeatedly threatened to go to the people.' Apart from the quaint naivety of Senator Siddons in somehow thinking that that would be a terrible thing for the Australian Democrats when, in fact, obviously a double dissolution is the only possible way that, for example, he and presumably most of his colleagues can survive in politics, if Senator Siddons was accurately reporting those conversations and Mr Hawke and Mr Keating had in fact continually threatened in those negotiations to go to the polls, it is a clear warning that this Government will persist with the sort of devious activity which it has carried on in matters such as the current account deficit. It appears certain that the Government will continue that kind of activity. We should be aware of that. Nonetheless, I mention that it is rather quaint that Senator Siddons should have suggested that he was pressed by this threat of a double dissolution to accept what is in fact an intolerable piece of legislation which seriously effects the wellbeing of so many Australians. To that extent I must say that I consider Senator Siddons's comments to be bunk. If he is accurate on the matter concerning the threat of a double dissolution I can only assume that the Government needs one and Australia should be preparing itself for the sort of nonsense and rationalising that will go on when the Hawke Government finds another excuse to have an early election. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.01) —I find it quite mind-boggling that an ex-Patrick Partner could have the audacity to say that anybody should come clean. As for an early election, the only person around here who wants an early election is Senator Michael Baume's friend Mr Howard in order to preserve his tottering leadership of the Opposition. In regard to Senator Short's comments I do have a page of notes supplied by Mr Willis which covers much of the ground over which Senator Short has gone but it does not cover all the items with which he dealt. I will seek a response from Mr Willis on the new matters raised. I can report from this note that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has had recent discussions with parties involved with a view to identifying and resolving the difficulties with the project, and also that the Footscray City Council was the approved sponsor and signed the funding agreement on 10 August 1984. The Council proposed that Trojan Owen and Associates Pty Ltd manage the project and this was approved on the condition that the fee for Trojan Owen be met from the sponsor contribution-the sponsor, of course, being the Footscray City Council. On advice from the State Industrial Relations Task Force the State Ministry of Employment and Training requested that an independent company be established to act as the construction company in order to overcome union demarcation problems between the Municipal Employees Union and building and construction unions. To comply with that request the Council purchased the shelf company Elate to which Senator Short referred. The Council appointed directors and changed the name to Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.03 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act- Correspondence and a Statement relating to an extension of a specified period of time for presentation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Annual Report 1984-85. Order under section 19BA (3), dated 12 December 1985. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1986 No. 1-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Committee to Review Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education, dated 27 January 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 519) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) How many Australian airports are equipped with X-ray equipment, and/or metal detectors. (2) As a result of the operation of such equipment, how many passengers were detained and searched at Australian airports in the years 1983, 1984 and to date in 1985. (3) How many charges were laid, and how many convictions recorded as a consequence of such procedures. (4) How many concealable firearms, and how many explosive devices were detected on intending passengers at Australian airports during the years 1980-85 inclusive. (5) Are any plans in place for an upgrading of the present arrangements in view of increasing alarm amongst would-be airline passengers over airport security. (6) How many security personnel are employed at airports. (7) Are the private security firms employed by the individual domestic and overseas airlines, or by the Federal Government; if so, which private security firms are employed and what security checks are carried out on their own personnel, and by whom. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 13. (2) and (3) My Department does not keep statistics on passengers detained, charges laid or the outcome of proceedings in these matters. (4) Explosive devices are not categorised in a specific group. The categories in which offensive articles were grouped and the numbers of such articles discovered since 1980 are listed below. Explosive devices are categorised under the generic group ``other offensive articles'' on the table listed. 1980-81 Firearms... 128 Knives... 517 Other... 648 Total... 1,293 1981-85 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 Dangerous Articles- Knives (offensive)... 275 536 253 378 Flammable Goods... 321 499 439 1,089 Spears... 383 376 221 242 Swords... 109 181 122 146 Firearms... 158 169 172 117 Ammunition (occurrences)... 70 99 149 239 Other offensive articles... 183 528 1,138 1,192 Sub-Total... 1,499 2,388 2,494 3,414 Potentially Dangerous Articles- Knives (domestic and working)... 3,219 4,464 3,696 4,104 Scissors... 1,115 1,915 1,551 1,711 Artificial firearms... 648 1,451 804 773 Tools... 692 1,200 752 1,049 Clubs (sporting)... 81 265 157 392 Sub-Total... 5,755 9,295 6,960 8,029 TOTAL... 7,254 11,683 9,454 11,443 (5) Security of aviation in Australia is under constant review. Procedures for rapid upgrading of security are in place should they be required. (6) Department of Aviation airport staff have various security responsibilities among their other duties. In addition the Australian Federal Police provide a presence at all major and international airports in Australia under the control of the Commonwealth. Staffing numbers are a matter for the Commissioner. All aircraft owners and operators are responsible for the security of their aircraft, associated facilities and areas specifically allocated for their use at all aerodromes. Security personnel necessary to meet this responsibility are a matter for the individual owners and operators. (7) Private security firms are contracted by airlines to perform certain security procedures. I am advised that contractors presently engaged are: MSS Norfolk Island Security Services Port Hedland Security Co. Property Protection Pty Ltd SNP Security Services TNT Group 4 Wormald Security Security checks on personnel are a matter between the security contractors and the airlines. (Question No. 642) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 November 1985: (1) Will the Minister for Communications enquire into the service provided by Telecom in the Australian Capital Territory, particularly the inadequate number of staff provided for any of the services associated with reminder calls, telegrams, directory assistance or difficulties and faults. (2) Will the Minister enquire into the lack of adequate lines to lodge STD calls interstate as soon as off peak tariffs apply. (3) Could the Minister instruct that more staff be recruited to assist those men and women presently on staff who perform their arduous and overworked functions in a most cheerful and efficient manner in view of the enormous profits which Telecom makes each year. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Telecom is aware that the heavy demand for some operator assisted services in the ACT has had an adverse effect on the level of the service. Whilst the staff provided is usually adequate to maintain a satisfactory service some difficulties have been encountered due to absences on sick leave. Measures have been taken to increase recruitment and it is expected that there should be a marked and sustained improvement in the existing service in the coming months. (2) The telecommunications network is designed to handle expected telephone traffic during normal business hours and is planned in such a way that it enables telephone calls to be generally connected at the first attempt. However, when concessions are offered on STD calls in off-peak periods both increased traffic and a slight increase in calls failing due to congestion are expected. Regular monitoring of the network is carried out to ensure that calls lost due to congestion or switching malfunctions are within acceptable limits. Where performance is not within limits corrective action is initiated to restore it to normal. To overcome the problem in Canberra an urgent programme has been implemented to increase trunk circuits. Major relief to the congestion problems was achieved during December and work on this problem is expected to be completed by March 1986. (3) See (1) above. (Question No. 677) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 13 November 1985: (1) When was the decision taken to hand over the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Schools Authority media services film and sound recording studio to Film Australia. (2) What was the reason for the decision. (3) What alternatives were considered. (4) What notice of the decision was given to the teachers who will be affected. (5) What agreement has been made with Film Australia to service the needs of ACT Schools. (6) What was the cost of operating the studio in 1984-85. (7) What are the contractual arrangements made with Film Australia for the service to be provided. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) The audio-visual studios of the ACT Schools Authority at the O'Connell Education Centre will not be handed over to Film Australia. Ownership and control of the studios will remain with the Authority but Film Australia will use those facilities in servicing Commonwealth agencies and in return will provide audio-visual material for the Authority. The decision was taken to enter into such an arrangement as part of a restructuring of the Authority's production capacity which began in July and is continuing. (2) The reason for the decision was to maximise the use of the facilities. The ACT Schools Authority will have access to professional film-makers for an agreed amount of time and Film Australia will establish a low-cost production capacity in Canberra for the first time. (3) The following alternatives were considered: (a) Closing the studios and putting all work out to contractors (b) Employing contractors on an ad hoc basis as the need arose (c) Having a private company run the studios commercially and the Authority use that company to produce its materials. (d) An arrangement with Film Australia under which that organisation would produce material for the Authority in return for the use of the studios for other Government work. (4) No teachers will be affected by this decision. (5) A memorandum of understanding outlining arrangements has been exchanged by the two authorities. It has been agreed in principle that Film Australia will provide the technical staff to produce what is specified by the Authority. The arrangement is to be reviewed after 12 months. (6) Costs of operating the studios are not maintained separately from those of the former Education Media Services unit of which they were part. An estimated cost for 1984-85 is $147,000. (7) See 5. There is no formal contract. (Question No. 679) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: Does the Government have any plans at all to upgrade the Bureau facilities through the adoption of new technology, the expansion of the automatic weather station network, the more effective use of satellite data and other means in view of the comments made by the head of the Bureau of Meteorology that the system of fire, flood and cyclone warning was in need of substantial improvement. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. Submissions are being prepared to be brought forward in the Budget context, to upgrade the Bureau of Meteorology warning systems for fire, flood and cyclones and to increase capital funding to replace obsolete equipment and introduce new technology. These submissions will cover funding for measures recommended in the report `Bushfires and the Australian Environment' by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, and in reports of other Inquiries that followed the Ash Wednesday bushfires. The increased capital funding will cover items such as: the upgrading of the basic surface observation network by the installation of additional automatic weather stations and deployment of additional drifting buoys; the installation of specialised mesoscale networks of automatic weather stations for detection and tracking of cold fronts across southern Australia during fire weather season; the upgrading of satellite data acquisition and processing facilities, including the installation of satellite data reception equipment at Perth and Brisbane; the improvement of the weather watch radar network by the use of more sophisticated radars, as well as by increasing the number of radars; the installation of radio-reporting rainfall and river height records in selected river basins. In 1983 Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) supported a submission by the Bureau for an increase in funding for capital equipment from the depressed level of approx $1m per year at which it had been held during the 1970s. The Government responded by increasing the capital funding to approx $3.5m in both 1984-85 and 1985-86. ASTEC also supported in principle an increase in the Bureau's annual funding for capital equipment to $6m ($7.2 at June 1985 prices) for 1986-87 and subsequent years. This further increase was to be subject to the success of the implementation of the program over the first 3 years. ASTEC is currently undertaking a review of the implementation of the program. I am fully aware of the support for upgrading the Bureau warning systems that has come, not only from the Inquiries that followed the Ash Wednesday bushfires, but also from many organisations and community groups particularly in Northern Australia. I can also assure you that the Government recognises the importance of the Bureau's warning systems for fire, flood, and cyclones and is aware of the need to replace obsolete equipment and to introduce new technology to support these systems. These programs will be given as much support as is practicable. (Question No. 680) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What surveys have been undertaken or are planned for an assessment of numbers involved and of environmental damage created by feral animals (including buffalo, pigs, goats, donkeys and cats and rats) in Australia. (2) Is the damage caused by feral animals always worse at times of abnormal climatic conditions. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Surveys to assess the numbers of feral animals in Australia or the damage caused by them are undertaken by the States who are responsible for the management and control of feral animals. The Commonwealth co-ordinates activity at the national level. Surveys of the numbers of feral animals are usually subjective being based on opinions and random sightings by landholders, field officers, forestry workers and others. More accurate, quantitative assessments are expensive to carry out because of the difficulty of sighting the animals. For example, species such as rabbits, foxes and cats take cover in burrows, dense vegetation or are nocturnal. One example of a non quantitative survey is currently underway on a trial basis in a small area in south-eastern N.S.W. The N.S.W. Department of Agriculture is collecting data on feral animal distributions and densities through its computerized feral animal monitoring system known as FERALFIND. Another in Qld has been published. In 1981/82 the Qld Rural Lands Protection Board undertook an extensive survey of feral animals to produce a booklet entitled Vertebrate Pests of Queensland. A follow-up survey is presently approaching completion. A more quantitative survey is underway in N.T. The Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory is conducting aerial surveys of feral pigs, horses, buffalo and some camels. The feral pigs are being surveyed as a component of the jointly funded Commonwealth/State Exotic Disease (Feral Animal Control) Preparedness Program. Few national estimates of the numbers and distribution of feral animals in Australia have been compiled over the years and those that are published are rapidly outdated because feral animal populations fluctuate dramatically. Nevertheless the estimate in 1980 of the number of feral pigs in Australia, between 8-11 million, is generally accepted as being a good indication. In the future more reliable national figures should be available. As part of its program of upgrading national awareness and control of feral animals, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry recently wrote to State and Territory vertebrate pest authorities seeking to co-ordinate survey information, subjective as it is. A national computer-based mapping system for feral animals is being established. Information on feral animal distribution and density/abundance will be collated in a standardised form and entered and stored on a system capable of correlating it with other variables such as topography, vegetation, river systems, roads, railway lines and bioclimatic information. It will be used to facilitate the planning of exotic disease control strategies. With regard to your question concerning surveys of environmental damage, there have been studies by individuals, research organisations and vertebrate pest authorities on a local basis. The results of these studies and the impact of feral animals, however, have also not been assessed nationally. We do know, nevertheless, that feral animals and vertebrate pests have considerable detrimental impact on agricultural production and the environment through overgrazing and predation on or competition with native animals. Overgrazing, burrowing and wallowing cause erosion and silt up waterholes and creeks. Apart from damage to crops and to the environment feral animals also have the potential to cause millions of dollars of damage through harbouring and spreading exotic diseases of livestock. For example, cloven-footed animals both domestic and wild and cattle, pigs, sheep and goats (in that order) are affected by the highly infectious virus of foot-and-mouth disease. If foot and mouth disease were to spread to feral animals such as pigs it would be very difficult to eradicate. Delays would increase the cost of the outbreak. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimated in 1980 that if foot-and-mouth was introduced into Australia the cost in direct losses of rural output would be $2500 million in one year. (2) A simple answer is not possible to the question is the damage caused by feral animals always worse at times of abnormal climatic conditions. Much of eastern Australia experienced abnormal climatic conditions during late 1985. Although spring was delayed there was subsequent high rainfall and humidity and mild temperatures. This provided good growth conditions for crops, pastures and vegetation which thus favour both native and feral animals and increased birth and survival rates of offspring could therefore be expected. In this situation it is unlikely that feral animals would cause as much damage to crops as they would in a drought because alternative food supplies are available. Other abnormal conditions such as prolonged droughts, floods and extremely high or low temperatures assist to reduce feral animal numbers. For example, juvenile pigs are particularly susceptible to extremes of climate. They are highly dependent on water and shade and perish when these are not readily available. Consequently, although the numbers of feral animals increases in good seasons, the damage they cause is not very obvious. When conditions deteriorate their numbers decline but damage to the environment and agriculture is greater. (Question No. 686) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: (1) Was a written agreement between the Federal Government and the Bundaberg City Council entered into 2 years ago regarding the level of funding to be provided for the maintenance of the Bundaberg Airport. (2) Since that agreement was first negotiated has there occurred a reduction in the level of funding. (3) Has concern been expressed that any future written agreements between the Government and local councils could also be revoked. (4) Will the Minister for Aviation undertake to reconsider the funding for the maintenance of the Bundaberg Airport with a view to restoring it to its originally negotiated level. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, the agreement specifies that, subject to certain conditions, the Commonwealth will pay to the Council grants of one half the cost incurred by the Council in maintaining the aerodrome. (2) No actual reduction has occurred. However, in October this year the Council was advised that the level of funding for this financial year was to be reduced. (3) Yes, the Bundaberg and District Chamber of Commerce have expressed concern that future agreements between the Government and local councils could be revoked. (4) The Minister for Aviation has already examined the needs of all aerodrome owners in operating aerodromes to the required standard, and has directed his Department to make additional funds available and restore funding for the maintenance of Bundaberg Airport to the originally negotiated level. (Question No. 705) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Science aware of the alarm generated among Tasmanian pilots, and farmers and fishermen by the proposal to withdraw the weather service office from Launceston by April 1986 and from Hobart by January 1989. (2) Can the Minister assure the Tasmanian public that if these services must be withdrawn that they will continue to receive the same standard of service from the relocated meteorological office which will assume the functions of the 2 Tasmanian stations for the cost of a local phone call. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. I am aware of the concern at proposals to close the Bureau of Meteorology Weather Service Offices at Launceston and Hobart. As a result of representations received from aviation and community groups, as well as the general public, my colleague the Minister for Aviation and myself referred the matter to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. The Committee commenced an Inquiry on 14 December 1985 with the following terms of reference: To review: the extent to which airport weather service offices and observing offices have been providing non-aviation services; whether these non-aviation services should continue to be provided; the method of providing and funding these services if they are required; and the extent to which the costs of such services should be recovered and from whom. Members of the Committee have visited several of the Bureau of Meteorology Weather Service and Observing Offices, and held public hearings. The Committee's visit to Tasmania took place between 4 and 6 February 1986. Submissions have been received from a wide variety of organisations and individuals on both aviation and non-aviation aspects of the services provided by Bureau officers in provincial centres. Although the deadline for submissions has passed I understand that the Committee is still interested to hear from any person or organisation having a keen interest in the matter. The Government will not make any decisions on the proposals for closure of the Bureau of Meteorology offices until the report of the Committee has been considered. The Minister for Aviation also indicated on 6 January 1986 that the proposed changes would be phased in and there is no intention of changing present arrangements for the provision of meteorological services at Launceston airport within the next 2 years. (2) No. There will be some change in the standard of service. I will explain the background. The proposal to close some meteorological offices, including the Weather Service Offices at Launceston and Hobart, was as a result of a request by the Department of Aviation to reduce the cost of meteorological services for Aviation. These offices were established primarily to provide services for aviation and the costs of their operation are met by the Department of Aviation, which in turn recoups part of the cost from the aviation industry. If the offices are closed it will be on the grounds of expense and cost effectiveness. There would be some decrease in the standard of meteorological service but this would need to be weighed against the savings involved. In addition to meteorological services for aviation, the Launceston Weather Service Office, in particular, provides for the general community and community interests in northern Tasmania. Representations made to me indicate that these services are highly valued. Meteorological forecasts, warnings and weather information for all of Tasmania are originated from the Bureau's Regional Forecasting Centre in Hobart and would continue even if one or both of the Weather Service offices were closed. Closure of the offices would mean the loss of the input of local knowledge and expertise, local `weather watch', and detailed interpretation of forecasts and weather information, as well as a face to face briefing for pilots. There is no doubt that the standard of service will be perceived to be lower by those organisations and individuals who require a level of detail and interpretation not available for residents in northern Tasmania through an automated telephone service as well as the media. In the event of closure of the two offices there would be no relocation, only a partial redistribution of some functions and cessation of others. Additional workloads would be passed on to other Bureau offices, necessitating a review of organisation and staffing. The Bureau of Meteorology is examining various options to provide the best possible service to the community. I must reiterate that no decision on closure or alternative arrangements will be made until after consideration of the report of the Inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. (Question No. 754) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 December 1985: (1) How many programs, pilots, outlines of program concepts and film scripts have been submitted to the Children's Program Committee of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in each of the financial years the Committee has been in existence, and in each year, how many of these submissions have been rejected. (2) How many have resulted in substantial modifications after initial advice about potential unsuitability. (3) What proportion of the material either (a) rejected; or (b) substantially modified, happened because the material was not aimed specifically at an under-14 audience. (4) What have been the other main causes for rejection or substantial modification of material in each year of operation of the Children's Program Committee. (5) How many of the projects given a Provisional `C' classification during each year in which it has been used, have later been rejected, or have required substantial modification in order to obtain a full `C' classification, and what has been the major problem in each such case. (6) What has been the average time for arriving at a decision as to whether a film script should have a Provisional `C' classification since the operation of the children's drama quota, and what has been the longest delay. (7) What has been the average time for dealing with the submitted finished programs, and what has been the longest delay in assessing any such program. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice received from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I should add that the information is a result of considerable expenditure of time and resources by Tribunal staff. (1) (Nov) 1978-1979: 37 submissions, 8 rejected 1979-1980: 230 submissions, 114 rejected (in addition, further information was sought on 3 submissions and 13 were withdrawn) 1980-1981: 167 submissions, 61 rejected (further information sought on 1, 9 were withdrawn) 1981-1982: 124 submissions, 62 rejected (further information sought on 2, 5 withdrawn) 1982-1983: 99 submissions, 28 rejected (further information sought on 2, 3 withdrawn) 1983-1984: 174 submissions, 53 rejected (further information sought on 2, 14 withdrawn) 1984-1985: 84 submissions, 25 rejected (6 were not classified `C' Drama on script although retained Provisional `C' classification), further information sought on 1, 6 withdrawn 1985-23 December 1985: 39 submissions, 5 rejected, 9 awaiting a decision for `C' drama on script, further information sought on 2. (2) It is not clear how many programs have resulted in substantial modifications after initial advice about potential suitability. (3) Children's Television Standard (CTS) 2 (a) states that `C' programs should be designed specifically for children older than 5 years and younger than 14 years. This criteria is the major reason (which is in a ratio of 4:3 to the next main reason, Standard CTS 2f) for rejection and/or need for modification. (4) For each financial year, except 1979/80, 1980/81 and 1981/82, the reasons for rejection in descending order of frequency have been as follows: 1. CTS 2 (a) CTS 2 is designed specifically for children older than 5 years and younger than 14 years; 2. CTS 2 (f) contributes to the social emotional or intellectual developments of children; 3. CTS 2 (g) is appropriate for Australian children not assuming too much of the culture, dialect or environment of some other country; 4. CTS 2 (b) is designed to entertain children; and CTS 2 (e) fulfills some special need of children; 5. CTS 2 (c) is well produced technically and artistically; 6. CTS 2 (d) can be easily understood and appreciated by children; 7. CTS 2 (h) is not outdated in content or in technical or artistic production. In 1979/80, 1980/81 and 1981/82 the pattern varied with CTS 2 (f) and (g) being the main reasons for rejection above CTS 2 (a). (5) No completed program granted a Provisional `C' classification at script stage has later been rejected for a full `C' classification, although many projects granted a Provisional `C' have not yet been resubmitted as complete programs for a full `C' classification. The number of projects that have required substantial modification for full `C' classification is not clear, although some projects required modification for `C' in 1978/79 (1), 1979/80 (1), 1980/81 (3) and 1983/84 (12) in order to meet CTS 2 (a) and in 1982/83 (2) because further information/pilot was required. In 1984/85 6 scripts were rejected either because the Committee considered it could not assess the programs still at script stage with regard to CTS 2 (c) or because modification was needed to meet CTS 2 (a). (6) The average time for Provisional `C' recommendation and decision has been approximately 4 1/2 weeks. The longest delay of Provision `C' recommendation and decision has been 12 weeks. (7) The average time for `C' recommendation and decision has been approximately 4 weeks. The longest delay for `C' recommendation and decision has been 16 weeks. The timing for the recommendation/decision process depends upon when the submission is received in relation to the Committee's meeting schedule. Delays may also occur if the Committee requires further information from the applicant before making its recommendation. Senator Walsh —On 28 November (Hansard, page 2470), Senator Kilgariff asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, the following question without notice: (1) Is the Minister too embarrassed to inquire into the extent of the financial losses to our beef trade resulting from the Mudginberri Dispute. (2) When will the Minister be seeking information as to the extent of the losses suffered and when will he advise the Senate. (3) What action does the Minister intend to take to explore ways of recovering lost sales. (4) What action will he take to reassure our overseas markets that the Federal Government will not permit such a situation to develop again. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) No. (2) Information available to me indicates that overall it appears that there have been no losses to the beef trade. Any figures involving information on individual companies would include contractual information to which I do not have access. (3) See (2). Also the industry and the AMLC are continuously promoting our meat products overseas. (4) The honourable senator will be well aware that it is not possible for this or any other Government to reassure overseas buyers that such a situation will not develop again. Senator Walsh —On 10 October 1985 (Hansard, page 992), Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the following question without notice: (1) Is the Minister aware of any plans to change the format of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's news and current affairs programming by doing away with local current affairs segments produced as part of evening newscasts in each state. (2) Does the Minister agree that any such plan would be a backward step by the ABC particularly in more remote States. 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) On 1 November 1985, the ABC announced that ABC television news would be returning to the 7.00 p.m. time slot from Monday, 9 December. From Australia Day, 26 January 1986, a half-hour current affairs program would be broadcast at 7.30 p.m. The news program will be separately compiled and presented in each State seven days a week. ABC program editors and their staff have had detailed discussion on both the working methods and program presenters to be used as well as the manner in which the State-based news services are to be compiled and presented. The ABC has also stated that its aim is to present to its audience the fullest possible range, within the constraints of its limited resources, of news and current affairs at the local, national and international levels. Although transmissions times have changed, the ABC has advised that there will be no reduction in the local current affairs content. (2) As there are no plans to do away with local current affairs segments, this question is not applicable.