Monday, 17 February 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jessop (from 382 citizens) and Macklin (from 279 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 46 citizens), Brownhill (from 388 citizens), Macklin (from 19 citizens), Mason (from 97 citizens) and Reid (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Every citizen should have- 1. A constitutional guarantee of the right to vote and 2. A constitutional guarantee of the equality of votes. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should- Support the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1985 And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 108 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 in January 1983 the Latvian born nursing sister Lidija Lasmane-Doronina was arrested by the Soviet authorities and subsequently sentenced to sixteen years in a strict regime enforced labour camp with an additional three years in exile. She had been charged with maintaining contact with Baptists abroad and for being in possession of a copy of the 1975 Helsinki Accords and of having a list of the Soviet Union's transgressions of them. Since Lidija Lasmane-Doronina was only exercising her rights as guaranteed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the Soviet Union is a cosignator, your petitioners humbly pray that the members of the Senate will intercede with the Soviet authorities on her behalf and so secure her early release. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Short (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support ``The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of wide-spread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That certain Trade Unions are currently forcing employers and employees to join union-controlled Superannuation schemes through industrial blackmail, thereby extending the Unions' economic power and at the same time infringing individual rights. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: (i) Guarantee that Occupational Superannuation is a matter of individual choice. (ii) Declare illegal industrial standover tactics which force people to join superannuation schemes controlled by, or sponsored by, trade unions. (iii) Protect those companies and their employees who establish their own superannuation arrangements at the enterprise level. (iv) Ensure that union or industry-based schemes are not disguised pay rises by providing that employees must also make contributions. (v) Provide that control of the funds of such schemes is vested in the elected representatives of the contributors to those schemes. (vi) Oppose any backdoor attempts at achieving compulsory unionism. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 56 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 Senator Jessop (from 17 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That a consumption tax on the necessities of life as defined by the United Nations-food, clothing, shoes, building materials, books and newspapers-would place an unfair burden on the lower and middle income earners in our community, for which it would be almost impossible to ensure fair compensation in perpetuity. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Reject any legislation which imposes a consumption tax on the necessities of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 4,229 citizens). Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I present to the Senate three petitions which are not in conformity with Standing Orders from 89, 103 and 762 petitioners respectively, requesting that Illawarra's television station WIN-TV be not transferred from VHF to UHF transmission: We the undersigned citizens of Narooma, N.S.W. wish to register a strong protest over the proposed movement of our local television station WIN 4 from the V.H.F. band to U.H.F. band. The people of this area are in the main retired and the additional cost of providing U.H.F. reception would be beyond many of their means. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN We the undersigned wish to protest about the Federal Government's proposed termination of VHF transmission for WIN 4. Petition in protest against losing our WIN TV station. Petitions received. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate draws attention to the Federal Government's maladministration of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and- (a) condemns the Federal Government for: (i) its failure to consult the people of the ACT in its deliberations on the system and machinery of self-government of the ACT, whether by utilisation of members of the current ACT House of Assembly or by any other means, (ii) its repeated demonstrations that militant industrial action will succeed ahead of moderation thereby encouraging widespread militant industrial disputation in the ACT, (iii) its precipitate disbanding of the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission at a time of crisis and before properly determining the nature of the bureaucracy that the new authority would inherit, (iv) its failure to ensure that the National Capital Development Commission planning is sensitive to the needs and desires of the people of the ACT and failure to provide the Commission with adequate direction to ensure that proper consideration was given to community representations, (v) its disgraceful administration of the ACT housing loans scheme, (vi) its failure to provide adequate and stable hospital services and to reduce the delays for patients awaiting surgery and casualty treatment, (vii) its failure to adequately assess and meet the needs of the frail aged in need of nursing home accommodation, (viii) allowing the ACT Trades and Labour Council to dictate what secondary schools will be built and where, (ix) its failure to provide adequate long term parking in the Civic area, (x) its failure to adequately fund the ACT Schools Authority, (xi) its failure to rectify the potentially dangerous underground petrol pollution in the Civic area, (xii) its failure to provide adequate mental health facilities in the ACT, (xiii) its failure to replace obsolete or worn out vehicles and equipment in both the ACT section of the Australian Federal Police and the ACT Fire Brigade, (xiv) its failure to encourage private enterprise to provide low cost housing for rental to the homeless and low income families, and (xv) its failure to resolve with the New South Wales Government the problems of parole and remission of ACT prisoners; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to: (i) provide adequate machinery for the rapid resolution of industrial disputation, (ii) provide financial impact statements on all proposed changes in administrative or other Government arrangements affecting the ACT before implementation so that there may be informed debate, and (iii) encourage greater non-Government participation in Canberra development projects by clear demonstration that such investment is welcome and does not have to overcome favoured treatment to semi-Government authorities. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Australian Labor Party for- (a) generating fear and uncertainty in Australia's aged community by breaking specific election promises not to introduce an assets test on pensions, not to expand the incomes test on pensions and not to tax lump sum superannuation benefits; and (b) breaking its promise to the aged to raise the pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, and urges the Federal Government not to reduce the pensions of more pensioners by removing the incomes averaging provision of the incomes test. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Labor Party (ALP) for its campaign of misinformation about the Queensland voting patterns; (b) notes the fact that the National Party recorded 38.9 per cent of the vote in the last Queensland state election when it contested 71 of the 82 seats; (c) notes that on this percentage had the National Party stood in all 82 seats in the last Queensland State election it would have obtained approximately 44.3 per cent of the vote; (d) notes that the combined vote of the National and Liberal Parties was 53 per cent which gives the conservative vote a clear majority over the socialists who obtained 44.1 per cent of the vote; (e) noted that the independent Electoral Commissioner of Australia, Professor Colin Hughes, is on record as saying that he could see no evidence of a gerrymander in Queensland; (f) informs the ALP that when they get 50.1 per cent in 50.1 of the seats, they will win government in Queensland; and (g) notes that this occurrence is extremely unlikely as the ALP has not recorded more than 45 per cent of the vote in a Queensland State election in the past 25 years. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) take note of the unsatisfactory situation regarding nursing home accommodation in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), to wit the 181 elderly people who have been assessed but cannot be accommodated and are on a waiting list, (b) Request the Federal Government to: (i) review the formula as stated in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 195, 30 May, 1984, Part III-6 and Part III-8 (g), (ii) make known the composition of the Federal-ACT Coordinating Committee, and (iii) introduce post-graduate courses for geriatric nursing. 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 that the balance of payments current account deficit for the seven months to January 1986 now totals a record $8.4 billion or an annual rate of $14.4 billion; (b) recalls that the Federal Government's original Budget target for the 1986 current deficit was $10.7 billion which was eventually revised late in 1985 following Senator Michael Baume's repeated requests in the Senate to $11.25 billion, despite continual claims from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his representative in the Senate, Senator Walsh, that the deficit was ``on track''; (c) notes that the January 1986 deficit of $944m was despite the benefit of temporary factors that are unlikely to persist, including a 70 per cent jump in cereal per cent exports in January 1986 to $501m (apparently reflecting the Soviet Union's wheat purchase announced in December 1985), the ``seasonality'' factor of $241m which converted a January 1986 trade surplus of $14m into a seasonally adjusted deficit of $227m or roughly in line with the 7 month average so far in 1985-86, the record but temporary level of oil exports which exceeded imports for the first time so far this year, but which will from now on suffer from both the collapse in oil prices and fall in production, and the worsening terms of trade and dumping of rural surpluses by the European Community and the United States that are damaging our export prospects, so clearly refuting the Treasurer's claim that the effects of devaluation are now having a positive impact on Australia's balance of payments; (d) considers that the Federal Government's revised deficit target cannot be met as it would involve monthly deficits for the next five months being more than halved from an average $1.2 billion to only $550m; and (e) calls on the Federal Government to release the latest official advice it has received from the Joint Economic Forecasting Group which, according to the press, indicates a likely current account deficit of more than $12 billion-representing a massive blow-out of about $2 billion-in order that Australia's financial markets will be properly informed rather than having to rely on press leaks of internal government documents. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, will be absent from the chamber during Question Time today. Any questions normally directed to him in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to me. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —Papers have been tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation `Bushfires and the Australian Environment'-and Australian Forestry Council Standing Committee on Forestry on `The 1982-83 Bushfires'-Government response to the report by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment made in the House of Representatives on the 12 February 1986 2. Australian National University-annual report 1984 Part 2-text of a statement by the Minister for Education relating to the delay in tabling the report required under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 3. Corporate Affairs Commission-annual report 1984-85 4. Criminology Research Council-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 43 of the Criminology Research Act 1971 5. Australian Institute of Criminology-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 33 of the Criminology Research Act 1971 6. The Passports Act 1983-report No. 17 by the Human Rights Commission-pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 7. Commonwealth Legal Aid Council-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 33 of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977 8. Family Law Council-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975 9. Telecommunications Research and Development in Australia-report by ASTEC-pursuant to section 6 (2) of the ASTEC Act 1978 10. The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 16 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 11. Australian Institute of Sport-annual report 1984-85 12. National Capital Development Commission-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 24 (3) of the NCDC Act 1957 13. Parliament House Construction Authority-annual report 1984-85 14. Pork Promotion Committee-annual report 1984-85-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Primary Industry relating to the report-pursuant to section 16 of the Pork Promotion Act 1975 15. Pharmaceutical Products (Penicillin Bounty)-IAC report 16. Book Production-IAC report 17. Dining Candles from the People's Republic of China (Anti-Dumping)-IAC report 18. Automotive Industry Authority-1st annual report 24 October 1984-30 June 1985-pursuant to section 27 of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984 Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. In view of his wide canvassing last year of the question of future oil prices, and following his discussions overseas on the same subject and developments on that subject since his return, what is his current assessment of world oil prices in the next few months? Senator GARETH EVANS —They could go up, down or sideways. Senator JONES —Is the Minister for Finance aware of the evidence of the Queensland Government's poor economic management which has been compounded by its incompetent financial administration? Is the Minister aware of attempts by the Queensland Government to cover up the latest example of its total incapacity to properly manage the financial affairs of Queensland; namely, the alleged misappropriation of massive amounts of public funds by two close personal and political friends of the Premier, Allen and Judith Callaghan? Senator WALSH —It is statistically indisputable that the Queensland Government has mismanaged the State economy and that, indeed, Queensland is dragging Australia down. It has the highest rate of unemployment of any mainland State, the lowest rate of private investment in 1984-85, the lowest average weekly earnings figure for the same year and the lowest growth in motor vehicle registrations in the calendar year 1985. It does have the highest figures with regard to a couple of things. It has the highest number of bankruptcies and the highest number of industrial disputes by a very big margin. Senator Chipp —On a point of order, Mr President-and I apologise for interrupting the Minister-I point out that part of the question concerned two individuals. I do not think it matters to what extent Senator Walsh tears into the Queensland Government-good luck to him on that-but it is rather delicate ground and I think that we could be getting into difficulties if the Minister were to cover that ground and deal with the personalities mentioned. The PRESIDENT —The Minister is entitled to answer the question only in respect of his responsibilities as a Minister of the Commonwealth Government. In that respect I am allowing the question in relation to Queensland, bearing in mind the financial relations that exist between the Commonwealth and the State. In respect of that aspect of the question to which Senator Chipp refers, I will be listening with bated breath to hear what the Minister might or might not say. Senator WALSH —In respect of the two individuals who were named in the question, I understand that charges have been laid against one of them and it is highly probable, to say the least, that charges will be laid against the other before too long. I therefore will not comment on that other than to say that I expect that the Queensland Government will behave in the way in which the Marcos look-alike usually behaves in trying to close down any debate on the financial administration of Queensland when that State's Parliament resumes tomorrow. That procedure conforms to a pattern which has long been established in Queensland. Another close associate of the Premier, Milan Brych, is already in the slammer. Shrian Oskar has an extradition order against him to be brought back to Australia and probably will be placed in the slammer. Indeed, it is a matter of history that the Premier of Queensland has for many years surrounded himself with close advisers who either are or ought to be in gaol. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. When the Government appointed only two women out of the 39 people invited to participate in the work of the Constitutional Commission and its committees, was this on the basis of the Government's assessment of the number and quality of suitably qualified women, or was it a failure to match the Government's rhetoric about equal participation, merit based participation, of women with performance? Senator RYAN —I am somewhat surprised that Senator Peter Baume, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party as he does, has had the temerity and the thick-skinnedness to draw attention to our record with regard to the promotion of women to participate compared with his own. It is a matter of record that, in contrast to the Liberal Party, Labor governments throughout Australia now have women Ministers in every one of their parliaments. For example, in Western Australia two of the new Ministers who have just been elected to participate in the Burke Government are women and the Whip is a woman. I was pleased to hear, as the final results of the Tasmanian election have become clear, that three Labor women have been elected to Parliament. If we look at the House of Representatives, we find only one woman member on the Opposition side compared with many women members on our side. In this place of course, despite the outstanding record of the former Minister for Finance and Minister for Social Security, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, there is no woman on the Opposition front bench. It is a matter of record and, I think, a matter of great concern to women in the Liberal Party that participation by women in the organs of that Party and in parliaments has been in sad decline, just as participation by women on our side of politics has been increasing. Senator Archer —We have never found it necessary to make it compulsory. Senator RYAN —It is not surprising that the Liberals are now shouting and trying to distract attention from this abysmal record. When a woman in their ranks was in a position of prominence-I refer to Mrs Rosemary Foot, who was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales-she was forced to resign, apparently, according to her own words, because of lack of support from her own Party. So that is the record of the Party of which Senator Baume now leaps to his feet to speak on behalf of by drawing attention to a particular committee. I also point out that our Government has an outstanding record in appointing women of competence, women of merit, to statutory boards and authorities. Indeed, at the last count we had made some 200 such appointments. I think the most recent was the appointment of an outstanding lawyer, Deirdre O'Connor, to chair the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Of course, appointments of that kind were not made during the time of the Fraser Government. The one woman who was appointed to the Broadcasting Tribunal, Janet Strickland, resigned because of her complete disillusionment with the performance of the Government at that time. It is really quite extraordinary that Senator Peter Baume should rise to his feet and make criticisms of our Government's record in appointing women. With regard to the particular committee to which Senator Baume addresses his attention, I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss the composition of that committee with the Attorney-General, but it is my understanding that several women were invited to participate but chose not to, presumably because, as a result of our Government's policy, they are already very busy in senior positions. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware of a report in the West Australian newspaper of Friday, 14 February, that the Government looks certain to reverse its decision to take income concessions from pensioners? Can the Minister inform the Senate on the accuracy of this report? If the report is accurate, can the Minister inform the Senate on when the concessions will be restored? Senator GRIMES —The Department and the Government decided last year to phase out the earnings concession for pensioners, which has been discussed in this place and which was complex, unfair and a major cause of social security overpayments, which are frequently referred to in this place. The concession will be replaced with an alternative which will encourage work force participation. Various options are being discussed with welfare organisations and representatives of pensioner groups in the country at the moment. It was found necessary to begin phasing out the concession after the High Court of Australia had indicated that it had no basis in legislation. The concession enables maximum rate pensioners to earn up to an annual equivalent of their weekly free income, which is $1,560 for a single person, before the pension is affected. The concession led to serious overpayments at the end of 12 months because pensioners often had other income to declare. The Department then had to recover money from pensioners who had in fact received and used the concession. As earnings reduce the pension by 50c in the dollar earned, it is a serious poverty trap which effectively reduces the incentive to undertake long term employment. Having no legislative base, the concession was applied inconsistently in the various States and offices of the Department throughout Australia, where in fact it was applied at all, and in many places it was not. This, together with the inherent complexity, led to poor public understanding. The concession is being phased out over this year to November while an alternative is being developed. The Minister for Social Security will be making further announcements on this subject in the near future. Senator CHIPP —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Government determined whether or not it will withdraw Australian Government aid from the Philippines, or is it waiting until the United States of America determines its position? What more has this Marcos criminal got to do before Australia would consider withdrawing recognition of his Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I said last week, on 14 February, the Australian Government will be examining the full range of our bilateral contacts with the Philippines in the light of post-electoral circumstances. This examination will draw on the full range of advice and information which is available to the Government from a wide range of sources. Our granting of aid to the Philippines or anywhere else does not necessarily imply endorsement of the policies of recipient governments or of their conduct of elections. Australia's aid in the Philippines has been aimed at improving living standards of the poor and at fostering equitable development. I think it should be acknowledged that withdrawal of that aid would harm the urban and rural poor in whose interests we have been giving it. Senator Chipp —Are you sure of that, or would it hurt the Army? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is, no doubt, a matter for judgment in the light of all the circumstances, and the Government will be keeping all these factors in mind, as I said last week and again today. Withdrawal of recognition from the Marcos Government, as suggested by Senator Chipp, would, I think it needs to be appreciated, constitute a step which would have enormous ramifications for Australian interests not only in the Philippines but in the South East Asian region as a whole. It is not an option which is presently under consideration by the Government. All that said, it ought to be acknowledged that the scale of the abuses which did, undoubtedly, occur in the Philippines elections and which were, overwhelmingly, clearly the responsibility of the ruling party have, to put it mildly, undermined the credibility of the Philippines election. Certainly, widespread perceptions within the Australian community that the conduct of those elections was unfair will necessarily affect the environment within which our future bilateral relations with the Philippines are conducted. Senator MAGUIRE —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. I refer to an incident involving a jet airliner which was reported as having suffered a turbine failure near Canberra Airport on 31 January. Has the Department of Aviation investigated the incident and, if so, what were the findings? Was the aircraft engine involved of the same type as that which failed and caused the Manchester disaster last August? Senator GIETZELT —I recall Senator Maguire asking me a question about six months ago, troubled as he then was, as indeed were many people in the aircraft industry, about the tragedy that took place at Manchester Airport in the United Kingdom, where the problems associated with that particular engine resulted in a great loss of life. It is true, as Senator Maguire has suggested, that there was a failure in an Ansett Boeing 737 aircraft engine at Canberra Airport on 31 January this year. However, I am advised that the flight crew shut down the engine shortly after take-off and made a normal single engine landing at Canberra Airport. The safety of the aircraft and the passengers was not compromised at any stage and the engine was shut down due to an internal failure in the turbine area. The Department of Aviation is investigating the incident, but I am assured that the failure was contained inside the engine and is not related in any way to the British Airways disaster at Manchester about six months ago. Senator KNOWLES —Does the Minister for Finance believe that there is merit in the suggestion by the Government's Economic Planning Advisory Council that consideration should be given to a limited reintroduction of fees at tertiary institutions as a source of extra funds for universities and colleges? Senator WALSH —I have not read the EPAC recommendations, so I cannot comment on them. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. In view of the widespread damage and human suffering caused in northern Queensland recently by Cyclone Winifred, could the Minister inform the Senate of the steps being taken by the Commonwealth to help the situation? Could he also estimate the costs resulting from Cyclone Winifred which will be borne by the State and the Commonwealth? Senator WALSH —The natural disaster relief arrangements-I do not want to be held to the last decimal point on the figures I am about to give-are of this order: Every State is required to meet from its own resources a threshold level of expenditure. In the case of Queensland I think it is $10.48m. For the next 75 per cent of that base level of expenditure the State is required to match Commonwealth funds on a one to one basis. Beyond that level-in the case of Queensland it would be of the order of $19m-Commonwealth dollars are provided on a basis of three to one with the State. That is the main measure of assistance available under natural disaster relief. There are also personal distress arrangements and under some conditions there are carry-on loans at concessional rates of interest. Under those main provisions, the specific proposals for funding must comply with the Commonwealth guidelines which were set by my predecessor in 1984. The latest information I have, which I received at the end of last week although I have not checked it today, was that although there had been a good deal of windy rhetoric coming out of Brisbane and out of the Queensland Government in general, no set of propositions had been put to the Commonwealth by way of application for natural disaster relief arrangement funding. The long established and long honoured procedures in regard to natural disaster relief, by which all other States abided, is that the State submits a wish list, a log of claims, or whatever one likes to call it, which is then tested to see whether it conforms with the Commonwealth guidelines. The Commonwealth Government is ready to receive that list from Queensland at any time. However, as yet it has not been received. So if there is to be any criticism of governments for tardiness in this area, the criticisms should be clearly directed towards the State Government and not the Commonwealth. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and relates to the acquisition from Australia of koalas by the Japanese. Can the Minister assure the Senate that only two koalas have died in Japan? Will the Minister make available to the Senate the details of the reasons for Professor Ovington's trip to Japan in December 1985? Will the Minister also make available to the Senate the findings of Professor Ovington's visit to Japan? Senator RYAN —I do have some information in response to Senator Missen's question. It is the case that two of the seven female koalas sent to Japan in 1985 died. One sent from New South Wales died on 25 September 1985 in Tama Zoo, Tokyo, 20 days after arrival. The other died in Hirakawa Zoo, Kagoshima, on 3 October 1985, 4 1/2 months after arrival. On 25 November 1985 the koala working party met to consider reports on the deaths submitted by Tama Zoo and by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service on behalf of Hirakawa Zoo. A draft of the report has been provided to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and has been circulated to members of the working party for comment. The draft report indicates that the meeting considered that there is no need to amend the export conditions applying to koalas as a result of these deaths but that the opportunity of the meeting should be used to clarify some aspects of the conditions. The working party which considered the reports included a veterinarian undertaking research on koalas and veterinarians from several major Australian zoos with considerable experience of koala husbandry and management. It is expected that the report of the working party will be completed in the near future and it is intended that a full report will be presented to the Parliament at that time. That is the information that is available to me. I think Senator Missen's question referred to Professor Ovington's participation in this exercise. I have no information at this point on that matter but I will seek it immediately from the Minister and let Senator Missen have it. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question. I do not think the Minister gave me any direct assurance that only two of the koalas have died. It may have been five. I would like to know directly whether that is so. Secondly, I asked-and this Government has had several days' notice of my question-about Professor Ovington's visit, why he went and when his findings would be made available. There is nothing in the Minister's information that indicates anything in regard to that. Would the Minister kindly reply to that part of my question? Senator RYAN —As I just said, I will get the further information about Professor Ovington's participation as soon as I can. The information that I have given Senator Missen is that two koalas have died. Senator BLACK —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to an article in today's Courier-Mail in which the Queensland Premier is quoted as criticising the Federal Government's economic policies? Is there any substance to the Premier's criticisms or is he simply trying to divert attention from the economic problems his own Government has created for Queensland? Senator WALSH —I have seen an extract from today's Courier Mail which reports the Premier attacking the Federal Government's policies. It also reports the Liberal Party member of the House of Representatives and, I believe, still Federal Liberal Opposition front bencher, Mr Moore, attacking the Queensland Government, but more of that later. The facts are, of course, as I said in answer to an earlier question, that Queensland is dragging the rest of Australia down. There was a report in last Thursday's Australian Financial Review, for example, which showed the results of a study of the Queensland economy which had been conducted by the Department of Regional and Town Planning of the Queensland University which, among other things, attacked the high State electricity tariffs-that is, the system under which the south east and coastal cities are ripped off to provide electricity in the remotest parts of Queensland, to build thousands of kilometres of mains to provide electricity at uniform prices to the National Party friends of the Premier. It also challenged the Premier's claim that Queensland is a low tax State. In general macro-economic performance terms, I suppose that one cannot get much better than the unemployment rate. What the most recent figures show-and these are the raw figures-is that, as against a Commonwealth rate of 8 1/2 per cent, the Queensland rate is 9.6 per cent, the highest of any mainland State in the Commonwealth. Perhaps I should add that had it not been for the very large increase in the participation rate in that last month of January the national figure would have been down to about 7.6 per cent instead of 8.5 per cent. More interesting, I think, than anything I might say about the Queensland Government's economic performance is what the Queensland Liberal MHRs say about it, particularly a Queensland Liberal MHR of the stature of Mr Moore, who has been, I think, a president of the Queensland Stock Exchange, has certainly been a Minister in a Liberal government and was, as one of my colleagues has pointed out, an aspiring deputy leader of the Party only a few months ago. By now, the Liberal Party might be sorry that he was left aspiring and unrewarded. Among the other things Mr Moore cited as an indication of failure was the 9.6 per cent unemployment rate, which I mentioned, and the fact that there has been zero growth in full time employment, that bankruptcies are up 15.6 per cent, that new vehicle registrations have risen by only 5 1/2 per cent in the last year, that new housing commencements have fallen by 3.6 per cent and the private capital investment is down by 6.6 per cent. I do not think that there is very much I can usefully add to what Mr Moore has already said. Senator WATSON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Could the proposed dividend imputation system disadvantage shareholders in companies with large overseas earnings, who will in effect be paying almost double taxation? Is not this a disincentive for Australians to invest overseas? Is it a fact that off-shore profits distributed to local shareholders could attract tax as high as 75c in the dollar compared with 49c on local profits? Senator WALSH —I think the first part of the question went something like this: Is it a fact that under the imputation system Australian companies with large overseas earnings will pay a higher rate of tax? Frankly, I do not know. It is a rather technical question and I do not carry around in my head all the details of that sort of thing. I will obtain an answer to that from the Treasurer. The other part of the question, which is predicated on the answer to the first part being yes, is whether that would be a deterrent to Australians investing overseas. I really do not know what the Opposition wants. Some people may argue that it is a good thing or a bad thing-I think it is a matter of subjective choice-for Australians to be investing overseas instead of in Australia. But one thing that is unarguable is that if Australians invest overseas they will be less likely to invest in Australia, and therefore any capital which is required for investment in Australia will either not be supplied at all or will have to be imported. There is at least as good an argument, I suggest, for saying that it would be a good thing if Australians with spare capital to invest invested in Australia instead of investing it overseas. Senator WATSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does not the Minister favour deregulation if he is going to put these impediments before people wanting to invest overseas? Senator WALSH —I did not hear the question, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will Senator Watson please repeat the supplementary question? Senator WATSON —Is not the Minister still in favour of deregulation in view of the fact that the Government is starting to put impediments in the way of shareholders wanting to invest overseas? Senator WALSH —I think I heard it that time, but I still do not understand it! I am not sure who is to blame for that. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Did the Minister see the report in the Adelaide News on Wednesday, 12 February 1986, entitled `Acne drug ``carries birth defect risk'' '? In that report, and in other reports on the drug isotretinoin, it is said that the company supplying this drug is providing consumers with advice to take contraceptives as the risk of birth deformities that could result from pregnant women taking this treatment is very high. It was further reported that consumers were required to sign a consent form absolving the drug supplier of responsibility. I ask: Is it a widespread practice that dangerous drugs are supplied to consumers on condition that they, the consumers, sign a form absolving the manufacturers and distributors of such drugs of liability? What legal recourse could a deformed child have in future years, if any, against a company operating in this way? Senator GRIMES —One of the Adelaide newspapers did report recently on the use of roaccutane, which is, I think, the Roche company's trade name for isotretinoin, which is available in this country under very controlled and very strict conditions for the treatment of severe cystic acne. This is a disfiguring condition. It particularly affects adolescents and young adults and is often severely disabling socially. The drug is to be used only where all alternative treatments have failed because of the known risk of damage to the foetus if the drug is taken during pregnancy. The company, in consultation with the Department of Health, has circulated letters to doctors and pharmacists and has prepared a multilingual patient information pamphlet or leaflet. All documents and labels carry a prominent warning that the drug can cause birth defects. The risk was also highlighted in a 1985 adverse drug reactions bulletin which was sent to all practising doctors and pharmacists in Australia. As for the specific questions raised by Senator Foreman, it is not a common practice for patients to sign a form absolving a drug supplier of liability. The patient consent form which is used in the case of this drug is designed to ensure that information on a major risk which is known to the medical profession is passed on to the patient. The form also includes an undertaking from the patient not to supply the drug to other persons. It makes no specific statement regarding liability. It would be a matter for the courts to decide the question of responsibility in the case of an action for damages. I repeat that this drug is a useful drug in a condition which, despite the implication in the article, is severely disfiguring, a condition which has severe social effects to the extent that it is socially disabling. In this situation, in consultation with the Department of Health, the action outlined by Senator Foreman was taken. Senator JESSOP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer to the theft some days ago from the Commonwealth munitions factory at Maribyrnong. Can the Minister say what progress has been made by the Federal or State police concerning the identification of those responsible? Can the Minister give details of the articles stolen? Will he also provide the Senate with details concerning the number of thefts from other Commonwealth munitions depots in the last three years? Is the Minister aware of the statements made by a senior Federal police officer and a Commonwealth security officer that security at the Maribyrnong factory `was so slack it was like a self-service store for terrorists'? In view of this comment, which is not the first that has been made by police concerning the inadequacies of Australian security, what is the Government doing to provide more trained personnel to ensure that maximum security can be provided at airports, munitions factories and defence installations in this country? Senator GARETH EVANS —I hate to disappoint Senator Jessop, but I will have to take his question on notice and get an answer from the Minister. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Can the Minister inform the Senate of her discussions held with parliamentary representatives of west and south-west Sydney for the establishment of a western suburbs university? Will the Commonwealth Government make the funds available for this project and, if so, when? Senator RYAN —I am happy to report that I had a most constructive and informative meeting with Labor representatives from the western suburbs following my early receipt of the Parry Committee report. I wish to make some matters very clear in relation to our Government's intention to expand higher education opportunities in the western suburbs. Our Government accepts that the western and south-western regions of Sydney have a strong claim to expanded higher education opportunities. For too long these areas were subject to scandalous neglect. Certainly our Government's record in increasing higher education opportunities there will stand up to any scrutiny. Since 1983 we have spent more than $14m on major construction projects at Nepean and Macarthur colleges of advanced education and substantial additional expenditure is committed for the near future. Since 1983 enrolments at the three colleges of advanced education in west and south-west Sydney have grown by more than 1,500 and a further growth of about 1,000 places is projected to 1987. The establishment of a ministerial committee by Mr Cavalier, the State Minister, to review the provision of higher education in western Sydney is a timely action. No doubt the New South Wales Government will give careful consideration to its recommendations and to the public's reaction over the coming months. I can assure the Senate that our Government will give close consideration to any recommendations which the New South Wales Government makes for increasing education opportunities. I expect the State and Commonwealth authorities to consult closely on means of achieving the joint objective of increasing participation in higher education in the west and south-west parts of Sydney. Senator ARCHER —I address my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. The Minister's attention would have been drawn to downward trends in the world price of coal. What is the Government's current projection of the effect of falling oil prices on the tonnage and price of Australian coal exports? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government's general assessment is that unless and until oil prices fall to the order of $US10 or $US12 the impact is not likely to be significant except perhaps for an increase in demand flowing from an increase in economic activity in the industrialised nations which may indeed call upon greater energy resources and give enhanced coal markets. The difference in calorific value between coal and oil is such that coal has a substantial price advantage. A number of existing power stations remain capable of being switched backwards and forwards between coal and oil fired uses and if oil prices go down to the levels that I have indicated, it may become an attractive short term option for some oil to be substituted for coal. Whether there is any danger of longer term substitution back to oil from coal for new power station construction depends very much on the long term price outlook for oil. Only on the basis of oil being very much cheaper than coal over a substantial period in the future would it make economic sense to make such a decision. The general prevailing orthodoxy is still-although, as I indicated earlier, the short term position is extremely volatile-that oil prices will come back again in real terms in the early 1990s and therefore it is not anticipated there will be any longer term shift back or substitution to oil in that sense. Senator ARCHER —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not quite finish off his answer. Is it a fact that he sees no risk of loss of tonnage or of revenue? Senator GARETH EVANS —Not in the immediately foreseeable future attributable to the movements in the world oil price market. The short term position is extremely volatile. It is not impossible that the Saudis, who have the capacity, will increase production up yet another substantial notch. They have the capacity to go to another 2 1/2 million barrels a day and they might decide that that degree of discipline remains necessary in order to educate their own maverick Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries members and put a further squeeze on Great Britain. If that is so, it is possible that prices will drop further in the short term or medium term. If that is so we might run into some substitution difficulties in immediate energy production uses overseas, which might have some immediate implications on volumes and prices. However, at the moment, it is not possible to make the prediction that that will occur. The general situation is as I have described it. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I understand that the National President of the Country Women's Association, Miss Dorothy Ross, met with the Prime Minister last week. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the purpose of the meeting and, in particular, whether any additional initiatives affecting rural women are likely to result? Senator WALSH —I know that such a meeting took place. However, I am afraid I have not received any report or note on what was discussed there. I will seek such a report from the Prime Minister. However, I think it is fair to say that the general policies which have been put in place by this Government will advantage country women and country men and city women and city men as well because the greatest single cause of disadvantage probably is the very high levels of unemployment that this Government inherited from its predecessors and which it has progressively reduced. Senator VIGOR —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Can the Minister indicate when we can expect the uniform inquiry regulations for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal? Could further delays provide the opportunity for litigation in relation to the Tribunal's inquiries? Does the delay since 1 January mean that applicants for new commercial radio licences in Newcastle and Mandurah can be sent out only interim application forms? Senator WALSH —I had some notice of the question from Senator Vigor; it was sent to the office of the Minister for Communications. However, it was received only 17 minutes before Question Time. I am afraid I do not have a reply at this stage. I will try to get one and forward it to the honourable senator. Senator COOK —My question also is addressed to the Minister for Finance, this time in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Senator Gareth Evans —I think he has an answer to this one. Senator COOK —I hope he can answer all of them; I am sure he can. I ask: Is it true that the real unit labour costs fell by 4.4 per cent for the 12 months ended September 1985 compared with the previous 12 months? Also is it true that Treasury forecasts that real labour costs will fall by about 2 per cent over the financial year 1985-86? Would a deregulated wages policy have achieved this result or is it a product of the centralised wages policy of the prices and incomes accord? Is it true that the business community is reluctant to embrace a decentralised wages policy precisely because it would threaten this sort of achievement? Senator WALSH —I do not have the official statistics with me to confirm the precise figures which Senator Cook has given but I can say that the basic thrust of what he has said is, of course, correct, and that is that real unit labour costs are lower than they have been at any period in the last 16 years-as indeed is the number of industrial disputes lower than it has been in any period for the last 16 years. The converse of that virtually, I suppose, is that profit shares as a proportion of income have risen to the highest levels they have since the late 1960s. I guess none of us really knows what motivates sections of Australian business when they assess or comment on the merits of the Government wages policy. Some seem to yearn for some golden age of a free market for labour which, if it ever existed at all-even in Tudor England there were laws about minimum wages and for almost all times since then-certainly it has not existed in Australia this century. Nevertheless they have some nostalgic or sentimental yearning for some system which they think will be better. It would be more sensible if they were to concentrate on the wages policy of this Government instead of an alternative wages policy which could be devised or that which was practised by the previous Government. Of course, it is a matter of historical record that the previous Government decided that it would abandon centralised wage fixing in May of 1981. The decision was taken precipitately because the then Prime Minister was anxious to hop a Boeing 707 and go to the royal wedding. Nevertheless, the whole Cabinet had to take responsibility for that decision, including the then Treasurer. That Government decided that it would let market forces determine the level of wages. The product of that abdication of responsibility was an average wage increase of 13 per cent in calendar year 1981 and of 14 per cent in calendar year 1982, granted at a time when, at least in the early stages, there was significant economic growth. The achievement of this Government is that it has kept wage increases down to a level where real labour unit costs have fallen appreciably and done it throughout a period of some two and a half years of sustained economic growth. The Opposition seems to be even slower to learn than some sections of the business community. What it gleefully looks forward to, so it says, is a deregulation of the labour market and to allowing wage levels to be set by market forces, in the belief, I assume, that wage increases will be less than those which have been recorded under the prices and incomes accord. That ignores the fact that there is organised market power on both sides of the labour market, for employees and for labour, that particularly at times of high economic growth some unions could obtain through market forces higher rates of wage increases than they have obtained under the accord, and that, because of the long-established notions of comparative wage justice, to a significant extent at least those wage increase, once obtained by sections of the labour force with some market power, would inevitably flow on to other sections. None of that seems to worry the present Leader of the Opposition. He seems to have learnt nothing from the fact that he presided over a wages explosion in 1981 and 1982 that ultimately induced the deepest recession which the country had seen in 50 years. Not only has he learnt nothing from that; he also compounds his error by gleefully anticipating, to use his phrase, five years of industrial warfare under the Howard preferred system of wage fixation. Senator KILGARIFF —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. What was the intention of that Minister in advising the Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, to revoke the proclamation of stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory and to amend the proclamation of stage 1 of the park so that it now takes in what was formerly stage 2? What plan of management now applies to that part of stage 1 which was formerly stage 2? Will the revised plan of management presently being drawn up in respect of stage 2 now apply to the whole of stage 1, in which stage 2 has been incorporated? If so, what are the implications of this decision with regard to the construction of substantial tourist accommodation facilities and future mining activity, given that the original stage 1 is listed on the World Heritage List? Has the Minister sought a legal opinion on the implication of the incorporation of stage 2 with stage 1? In particular, does world heritage listing extend to the newly-incorporated section of the Kakadu park? Senator RYAN —I will refer that detailed question from Senator Kilgariff to the Minister and get an answer as soon as possible. Senator GILES —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Transport seen reports of a recent book by Dr John Adams of University College, London, in which he maintains that compulsory use of seat belts and motor cycle helmets and other safety regulations induce road users to drive faster and more recklessly than before and, therefore, do not lead to an overall reduction in traffic fatalities? Do Australian figures bear out Dr Adams's theories? Senator GIETZELT —The Government is aware of the theories put forward by Dr Adams and a number of other academic theories relating to the use of safety regulations in transport. Also, the State Ministers for Transport, in conjunction with the Commonwealth, attempt to set a pattern of universal behaviour in respect of seat belts and other safety matters. However, the theories that are put forward by Dr Adams are not borne out by Australian data. There was a substantial reduction-some 20 per cent-in occupant fatalities in Australia following the introduction of compulsory seat belt regulations. In light of that the Government is entitled to take the view, in association with the State Transport Ministers, that there should be no relaxation of that regulation. There has been no accompanying increase in pedestrian or bicycle fatalities, as predicted by Dr Adams, who believes that the introduction of such regulations induces transport operators to drive faster and more recklessly than previously. The view that I have been expressing has been recently reaffirmed by the Australian Transport Ministers, so that the wearing of seat belts and child restraints will be maintained as a priority area. It is interesting that Dr Adams's country, the United Kingdom, has confirmed the trial run that it introduced in 1982. There has been a decision by the House of Commons to adopt compulsory seat belt legislation on a permanent basis. It is worth noting that in the period 1970 to 1984 the road toll in Australia fell by 26 per cent. Fatalities per 10,000 vehicles are down by 60 per cent and fatalities per 100,000 of the population are down by 40 per cent. All the evidence indicates that these figures are attributable largely to seat belt wearing and, more recently, of course, random breath testing. I have some figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that confirm the analysis and the conclusion that I have just mentioned and I seek leave for that table to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- ROAD TOLL: 1970-1984 Year Persons killed Vehicles per 1,000 persons Fatalities per 10,000 vehicles Fatalities per 100,000 mean population 1970... 3,798 382 8.0 30.4 1971... 3,590 390 7.1 27.7 1972... 3,422 404 6.4 26.0 1973... 3,679 420 6.6 27.5 1974... 3,572 438 6.0 26.3 1975... 3,694 456 5.9 26.8 1976... 3,583 469 5.4 25.5 1977... 3,578 480 5.2 25.2 1978... 3,705 496 5.2 25.8 1979... 3,508 507 4.8 24.2 1980... 3,272 515 4.3 22.3 1981... 3,322 530 4.2 22.3 1982... 3,252 550 3.9 21.4 1983... 2,738 558 3.2 17.8 1984... 2,813 570 3.2 18.1 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the recent report that Iranian troops have crossed the strategic Shatt al Arab waterway, capturing the Iraqi town of Faw. Does the Government appreciate the seriousness of this development? Does the Government believe that Iraq could fall? Is the escalation of the conflict likely to bring Iraq's neighbours or the superpowers into the conflict? In particular, what action is Australia taking in the United Nations Security Council in an effort to promote peace in that region? Senator GARETH EVANS —The most recent briefing I have from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this matter is dated 12 February. It may require some updating in light of the reports of recent fighting to which Senator Hill referred. But the situation in more general terms is as follows: The Government remains very concerned that the conflict between Iran and Iraq should still be continuing. We are particularly disturbed by the latest offensive mounted by Iranian forces-I suppose we are even more disturbed by the possible outcome of the latest offensive which began on 9 February around the Basra region of Iraq. This does represent, as Senator Hill says, a dangerous development in the conflict and threatens to lead to an increase in the level of hostilities between the two countries. The situation has serious implications for regional and international security. Mr Hayden reiterates previous calls by Australia to Iran and Iraq for an immediate ceasefire leading to negotiations, without preconditions, on a comprehensive settlement. This should include respect for international boundaries and an end to further attacks by either side. As to developments in the Security Council, Australia, as a member of the Security Council, has been active in the search for a comprehensive settlement. In particular, as President of the Council in November last year we worked to establish a basis for the parties to the conflict to co-operate with the Council. It did not prove possible at that time to secure this co-operation, with Iran maintaining its view that previous Security Council resolutions had not adopted a balanced approach. Both Iraq and Iran expressed their appreciation of the Australian efforts in this respect and agreed that such efforts should continue in the Security Council. We have been appalled by the destruction, human misery and loss of life resulting from this conflict, which has now entered its sixth year. The Australian Government has expressed its concern to both Iran and Iraq over the attacks on civilian population centres and on merchant shipping, the latter of which have now resulted in the deaths of two Australian seamen, the most recent being that of the late Mr Wayne Spicer on 19 January this year. Recurring allegations that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict are of particular concern to the Australian Government, which has always stated in the strongest terms its abhorrence of chemical weapons. We are working very hard at the Geneva Disarmament Conference to outlaw them. Their use, of course, has been condemned by the Security Council. Senator VALLENTINE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that two French warships, the Jeanne d'Arc and the Commandant Bourdais, are tied up at the Stirling naval base at Cockburn Sound on the way via Sydney to the South Pacific region? Given the Australian Government's repeated criticism of French nuclear testing in the Pacific and its somewhat belated criticism of the French Government's sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, is it not extremely insensitive of the Australian and French governments to plan visits by French warships to two Australian ports when anti-French Government sentiments are running high in the country? If the Australian Government is opposed to French military activities in the Pacific Ocean, why is it facilitating those military activities by welcoming French warship visits? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will seek an appropriate answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and hope to make it available as soon as possible this week. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and it follows an answer he gave earlier in Question Time today about the increase in average weekly earnings following a decision of the Fraser Government in 1981. I ask: Is it not a fact that average weekly earnings increased in 1973-74 by 15.9 per cent and in 1974-75 by 25.6 per cent, an increase in two years of over 40 per cent, followed in 1975-76 by another increase of 13 per cent? Is it also not a fact that in those years the Whitlam Labor Government was in power, pursuing, presumably, wages policies which are in accordance with Labor policy? Is it not a further fact that in those early years the present Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions? Senator WALSH —I am not sure what the relevance of this piece of ancient history is supposed to be, but, if Senator Durack thinks I am embarrassed by it, he is certainly wrong. As with Senator Cook's precise figures down to the last decimal point, I do not know whether the figures that Senator Durack has quoted are correct, but they sound like they are of about the right order of magnitude to me. I will just take honourable senators through them again. I have taken the liberty of rounding them off. There was a 16 per cent wage increase in 1973-74 and a 25 per cent wage increase in 1974-75. It just happens that there was no wages policy during that period-there was no prices and incomes accord and there was no wage indexation-and wages blew out to that extent. In May 1975 the predecessor, if you like, of the accord, wage indexation, was introduced. It had widespread acceptance and, according to Senator Durack's own figures, the rate of wage increase in the next financial year fell to around 13 per cent. In other words, the rate of wage increases almost halved in the year following the introduction of indexation in May 1975. I do not know what conclusion Senator Durack draws from those figures, but I would have thought that one not unreasonable conclusion to draw was that the indexation system and the high degree of compliance with the indexation system was one of the factors which helped to slow down the very high rate of wage increases that had taken place in 1974-75. Another factor is that the economic growth rate slowed down very appreciably in 1974-75 and, to a substantial extent, a falling rate of economic growth was associated with a high rate of wage increases without a wages policy, indexation or an accord. That applied in 1974, 1975 and in the second half of the calendar year 1982. If Senator Durack is trying to prove that rates of wage increases higher than those in 1981 and 1982 have been known in Australia, that is correct. Those very high rates of wage increases which applied at that time slowed down, according to Senator Durack's figures, and almost halved within 12 months of the introduction of indexation. What is most striking about the success of the accord is that not only has it greatly reduced the rate of wage increases but also it has done it at a time when economic growth has been sustained at levels which are, by the standards of the Australian economy, historically high; at almost record levels of economic growth. We have had a near halving of the rate of wage increases and a halving of the rate of inflation; 550,000 new jobs have been created; and we have the lowest level of industrial disputes for 16 years. That beats hollow the record of the last Labor Government and the record of every Liberal Government that has been in control in this country. Senator MAGUIRE —What is the response of the Minister for Education to the report by the Economic Planning Advisory Council on Australia's education performance relative to other countries? In particular, what action is the Government taking to lift the Australian education levels? Are there now signs of increasing retention rates at Australian secondary schools? Senator RYAN —I was interested to note the paper that came forward from EPAC and to some extent I agree with the analysis in it. I point out to honourable senators that the analysis made in the paper is one that was made by our Government in the early months of the first Hawke Government. In fact, the weaknesses identified in the EPAC paper were identified by me at the first National Economic Summit Conference and since that time we have made considerable progress in addressing the defects and problems that have been identified. For example, in regard to the criticism that the participation rate of young Australians in the education system is too low-a criticism which was certainly very well founded in March 1983-it is now the case that more than 57,000 young Australians who are in post-secondary education and training were not there in 1983. In years 11 and 12, the last two years of school, there has been a 12 per cent increase in enrolments since 1983. In technical and further education over the same period there has been a 15 per cent increase in enrolments, and in higher education there has been an over 8 per cent increase. As well as that, 37,000 more students are enrolled part time in technical and further education courses. All of these extra students are creating better opportunities for themselves. They are becoming more skilled and therefore more productive and more able to participate in an important way in our economy. There are a number of reasons for this improvement in participation rates. One of them has to be the fact that our Government in each Budget has increased student allowances. The secondary allowances scheme, SAS, which assists students from poorer families to stay on for their last two years of school, has been increased dramatically and by next year will be the same level as the youth unemployment benefit. Similarly, the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance has been increased successively and at the end of this triennium it will be at the same rate as the equivalent unemployment benefit for the same age group. Thus we will have removed the financial disincentive for young people from poorer families to continue their education and training to get the skills they require. We have also embarked on a number of quality exercises. The Quality of Education Review Committee, chaired by Professor Peter Karmel, identified four national objectives for improvements in education. The resource agreements, which I am on the verge of concluding with all States and non-government schools systems, will ensure that extra recurrent resources provided by our Government to schools will be devoted to improvements in those four national priority areas. Similarly, we have embarked on a program of improving basic skills required in primary education. With regard to quality and standards in tertiary education, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has embarked on a series of discipline reviews which will ensure that in all the major vocational areas conducted at universities the question of quality and standards will be addressed. I think it will be very clear from this summary of actions taken by our Government to overcome problems of low participation, inappropriate courses or poor quality that a great deal of progress has been made. It is the intention of our Government to continue to make progress in this area so that Australia has at its disposal a very highly educated, skilled work force which is flexible and which is able to make a constructive contribution to our economy and, of course, to social equity for all Australians. THE PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 17 February, from Senator Siddons: 17 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 necessity for the Government to take immediate action to prevent company takeovers which add nothing to Australia's economic efficiency or growth, increase Australia's overseas indebtedness, and are used to deny massive revenue to the Government'. Yours sincerely, J. R. SIDDONS Senator for the State of Victoria Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.17) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The necessity for the Government to take immediate action to prevent company takeovers which add nothing to Australia's economic efficiency or growth, increase Australia's overseas indebtedness, and are used to deny massive revenue to the Government. During our negotiations with the Government over the tax package we were continually threatened by the Government that the whole package would be thrown out if we pressed our requests for the Government to eliminate negative gearing for farm losses. The reason the Government gave for being unable to stand the loss of revenue for the elimination of negative gearing of farm losses was that it would cost an additional $60m in revenue. I intend to show that the Government is about to lose $80m in revenue due to the financial dealings of one man. The Government is unwilling or is so far not prepared to alter the tax laws to prevent this from happening. I refer to Mr Holmes a Court's bid for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. An article that appeared in the Age of 13 February by Kenneth Davidson shows that the Holmes a Court companies have a liability to the Government of $112m. If the Holmes a Court bid is successful and he takes over BHP that tax liability of $112m will be eliminated. The Government will lose that revenue. Even if we take into account the increase in income tax that the Government will presumably get from the current shareholders in BHP from the profits they make as a result of selling their shares in BHP, the Government's loss of revenue will still be $80m. In other words, the Government is prepared to sit back and in one financial transaction lose more than it would have lost if it had eliminated negative gearing on all farms throughout the country. What the Government is not prepared to do for the farmers it is prepared to do for big business. It is not prepared to look at the tax laws and treat-- Senator Watson —I take a point of order. Is it appropriate, right and proper for Senator Siddons to place this motion before the Senate when he himself is involved in a takeover battle at present? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is not a point of order. Senator SIDDONS —I do not know what take-over battle the honourable senator is referring to. However, I assure him that that is not the case. Siddons Industries Ltd has never been involved in a take-over battle-it is certainly not currently involved in a take-over battle. So I suggest that the honourable senator should check his facts. Senator Watson —Declare your interest. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I have ruled that there is no point of order. Senator Siddons should continue his speech. Senator Chipp —Why should Senator Watson not withdraw, Mr Deputy President? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have ruled that there is no point of order. Senator Mason —I take a fresh point of order, Mr Deputy President. I make the point that that is a gross insinuation on Senator Watson's part against Senator Siddons which the honourable senator is repeating in spite of Senator Siddons's denial. I ask you to ask him to withdraw it. THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is nothing to withdraw. He asked a question. You are using up Senator Siddons's time. I ruled that there is no point of order. I call Senator Siddons. Senator SIDDONS —I was making the point that the Government is about to lose $80m of revenue in one financial transaction, namely, the Holmes a Court take-over of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, and that the revenue the Government will gain from the quarantining of all farm losses is only $60m. By any reckoning, I believe that the Government is being unfair. If it is going to take certain action against farmers it is reasonable that it should take similar action against the corporate sector. The Government is losing $80m in one financial transaction. What is the loss to Government revenue in the overall take-over scene in this country? In 1982-83 there were 105 take-overs in Australia; in 1984-85 there were 122 take-overs. This year we are off to a good start with the Holmes a Court bid for BHP, and the bid for the Repco company. There are only 980 first-board listed public companies in Australia. If this rate of take-over continues we can very easily see in a few years that we will have one floated public company that has gobbled up all the rest. The loss of revenue from the total corporate sector, as I said, is enormous. The total net profit before tax of all corporations in Australia was $20.146 billion. In 1981-82 company tax collected was $5.053 billion. The figures in 1984-85 are these: Total net profit before tax for corporations is $31.261 billion, and the company tax collected is $5.505 billion. In other words, over that period company tax, as a percentage of net profit, has fallen from 25 per cent to 17 per cent. Many observers claim that nearly half of this is due to the take-over racket. If this is true, take-overs in 1984-85 have cost the Government $1.4 billion. In other words, if the Government had moved to control the take-over racket it would have stood to gain $1.4 billion or would have reduced its deficit by about one-quarter. Right now the Government is worrying about losing a billion dollars or thereabouts if it honours its promise to Australian motorists to reduce the price of petrol in line with the international price of oil. On the other hand, it has given a very firm undertaking to the Australian motorist that it will do just that. The Government, of course, is in a dilemma. It has two potentially conflicting promises-to keep the size of the deficit down as a percentage of gross domestic product, and at the same time to reduce the price of petrol if the price of crude oil falls on the international market. I know which way I would go if I had anything to do with that dilemma. I would honour a promise that the Government has given to all Australian people and worry about its commitment to big business later. I am putting to the Senate that, if the Government did something about the take-over racket, it could very easily recoup the $1.4 billion and thus honour both promises. Of course, it must also take into account the fact that a substantial reduction in the price of petrol to motorists would have an enormous stimulatory effect on the economy generally. I am not suggesting that all take-overs are bad. In some cases companies taken over are performing badly. They are revitalised and turned around, and that is a net gain to the economy. Take-overs, or the threat of take-overs, can keep the boards of public companies on their toes, and that is a good thing. The problem with take-overs today is simply this: They can be profitable in themselves. They are pursued as an end in themselves without any regard to their effect on the economy generally and without any regard to the end result of the efficiency of the corporations that are taken over. This happens because there is substantial Government incentive for take-overs to occur. First of all, the Government has allowed to persist the law which enables companies to write off the interest charged on the large amounts of money which they borrow for take-overs against the consolidated profits or losses of the corporations. Both the target company and the raider can consolidate the interest charge and, therefore, very small companies are able to take over very large companies. The fact that interest is written off means that there is about a 50 per cent reduction in the interest charge anyway. Company tax is 46c in the dollar. That means that the raider's interest bill is reduced by 50 per cent. Because the raider has a lower interest charge on the money he borrows than the ordinary shareholder, he is in a much better position to offer a higher price for shares than the ordinary shareholder who cannot write off interest against the money borrowed. Under our existing tax laws the raider can always outbid the market. When a take-over is successful the raider must cope with a huge debt. This is often dealt with by selling out parts of companies that are profitable. When this happens jobs are lost and productive capacity in the economy generally is weakened. The fact that the Government is subsidising take-overs in this way means that the tax burden on the ordinary pay as you earn taxpayer is greater than it would otherwise be. Let us look at the effect take-overs have on our foreign debt. Today companies tend to borrow money overseas to finance take-over bids. For example, Coles borrowed $800m overseas to buy out Myer, Bond recently borrowed something like $1,200m to buy out Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd and Holmes a Court will have to borrow no less than $2,000m to buy out BHP. All this overseas borrowing to finance take-overs has contributed enormously to Australia's external debt. Australia's foreign debt rose from $8.1 billion in 1981 to $42 billion in 1985. Over that period Australia's total repayment for foreign debt has increased from 17 per cent of exports to 30 per cent of exports. The facts of the matter are that take-overs are not leading to the increase in exports which is necessary to finance our foreign borrowings. Another very unfortunate aspect of the take-over game as it is played at the moment is that it puts wealth into fewer hands. The trend to take-overs financed by borrowings means that equity capital is being replaced by debt capital. That means that ordinary shareholders are losing their stake in Australian companies. The Bond Corporation's take-over of Castlemaine Tooheys is a recent example of this. A $280m company, the Bond company, swallowed a $1,200m company. Castlemaine Tooheys is now owned by the Bond Corporation through the medium of borrowed money rather than by the thousands of shareholders as was previously the case. What is happening is that our economy is becoming increasingly owned by fewer and fewer people and is being mortgaged to foreign banks. All this is being funded by taxpayers. Another unfortunate aspect is that it is increasing market power in fewer and fewer hands. The most notable example of this is in the rural area where we see the two firms, Elders-IXL and Dalgety Farmers Ltd controlling the sale of 85 per cent of Australia's wool. Elders controls 75 per cent of our rural cattle market and it dominates the market for farm credit. Of course this gives that company enormous power over the farming sector. I turn now to what we believe the Government should do about this. I hope I have established the case that at present the Government is massively losing revenue and that other unfortunate aspects of the takeover scene at present are adversely affecting our economy. I suggest four Government initiatives: Firstly, that the Government should legislate to prevent interest charges on borrowings to fund share purchases from being able to be offset against income other than that which is produced by the shares concerned. In other words, the Government should stop negative gearing for companies. If the Government saw fit to stop negative gearing for farmers then it should stop negative gearing for corporations. What is good for one is good for the other. The elimination of negative gearing for corporations would not prevent take-overs but it would ensure that the smaller companies would have much more difficulty in swallowing up companies much larger than themselves. Big companies would have to be taken over by companies approaching their size and the current move from equity to debt would be slowed, share swap deals would become more attractive and the real worth and profitability of corporations would once again be put into true perspective. Secondly, we believe that pro rata partial bids should be banned, or at the very minimum partial bids should be allowed only as proportional bids. The Democrats would press for all partial bids to be banned, but at the very least pro rata bids should be banned. I ask the Government: Where is the legislation to bring this into effect? Why is it not coming into the Parliament this week? It has been discussed and talked about and it was announced months ago, yet so far we have not seen the colour of the legislation. The third initiative that I believe the Government should ensure happens quickly is that some exchange control should be reintroduced. The reintroduction of variable deposit ratios would discourage overnight the practice of borrowing overseas in order to finance huge take-overs. Our foreign debt is already far too high and I believe that the Government cannot sit back any longer without taking control of capital flows in and out of the country. The fourth initiative that we believe is relevant is this: In the public interest the Attorney-General should initiate some inquiry into these massive take-overs. The only forum that is available currently for such an inquiry to take place is under the existing trade practices legislation. The Attorney-General could initiate an inquiry for take-overs which affect the national interest and which affect the productive capacity of this country so that we carefully assess whether these take-overs were in the national interest or not. How long can a government that pretends to represent the ordinary Australian, the worker, sit back and allow vested interests-large foreign vested interests-free rein to the rape of our large companies. How long can the Government sit back and allow these massive losses of revenue to occur without doing something? How long can the Government continue to discriminate against one sector of the economy, namely the very important farming sector, without treating the rest of the corporate sector in the same way? How long can a government which tells us it is concerned about jobs and about unemployment, sit back and allow productive, efficient companies to be gobbled up and then sold off to the highest bidder whether that bidder is overseas or within this country? It is absolutely imperative that the Government take action immediately and we in the Australian Democrats for a start will not sit back again and listen to the Government talking about $60m loss of revenue for guaranteeing farm losses as being absolutely critical to its Budget strategy, while it insists on doing nothing about the gobbling up of our efficient large corporations. Senator Chipp —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: The last thing that I am attempting to do now is to canvass the ruling that you made when I rose on a point of order after Senator Watson's filthy remark. However I am seeking your guidance on a point of order. Will it be in order in future, when a senator rises in this place to make a point about a certain matter, for another senator, without any foundation whatsoever, to cast an innuendo and a slur against that senator in the way Senator Watson did about Senator Siddons? Let me give an example. If Senator X rises and moves an urgency motion speaking against the concept of divorce, does your ruling allow a person of the morality of Senator Watson to stand up and say `How can Senator X speak against divorce when he is in the process of getting divorced himself?' when, in fact, Senator X has no intention of getting divorced? That is one of the most despicable tactics I have seen raised in this House. It is only a question of Senator Watson's morality. I suggest to you, Mr Deputy President, with great respect, that this is a device from which honourable senators like Senator Siddons should be protected by the Chair in future. Senator Durack —I wish to speak to that point of order. I cannot let Senator Chipp's comments about Senator Watson's intervention go without some remark. I thought that the Australian Democrats were very big on things like disclosure of interests and that sort of trendy activity. There has been a great deal of discussion about this and I understand that probably the necessity for members and senators to disclose their interests will be something about which we will hear more shortly. All Senator Watson sought was a declaration of interest or of no interest from Senator Siddons. Senator Chipp —He didn't; he made a statement; he made an accusation. Senator Durack —He asked whether Senator Siddons had been engaged in a take-over battle. Senator Siddons denied that that had been the case but, when a senator has some information that he thinks may be relevant to a matter that is being debated where another senator may have a conflict of interest and has not disclosed it, there seems to be no reason in the wide world why he should not put the point. In fact I would have thought that in view of moves being made in this Parliament, both in this chamber and the other place, of which the Democrats are very strong supporters, it would be quite in order for a senator to make that inquiry. That is all Senator Watson has done. Senator Mason —No, he persisted in it. He repeated it three times after Senator Siddons had denied it. Senator Durack —Well, perhaps the whole matter would be cleared up if Senator Siddons had the opportunity to make a personal explanation in relation to this matter. That might be the most satisfactory way of handling this, rather than allowing these very powerful epithets to be thrown around the chamber by Senator Chipp categorising Senator Watson as making `a filthy remark' and all the rest of it. That is absolute nonsense and Senator Chipp should be asked to withdraw that imputation upon Senator Watson because he did no such thing. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! To clarify the matter raised by Senator Chipp, there is no requirement in Standing Orders for a declaration of interest before making a speech in this chamber although it is customary to do so. Senator Watson asked me a question as to whether Senator Siddons was in order in making a statement when he was involved in a take-over bid himself. That is not covered by Standing Orders. I ruled there was no point of order. If Senator Siddons feels that he was in some way impugned by Senator Watson's remarks, which were not in themselves offensive, he is entitled to make a personal explanation by leave of the Senate under standing order 408. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator SIDDONS —Senator Watson said simply that I have a vested interest because the company of which I am chairman is subject to a take-over or is in the process of taking somebody over. Neither of those statements has any basis in fact whatsoever. Siddons Industries Ltd, a public company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, has never been involved in take-over activity at any stage. It has never involved itself in the take-over of any other publicly listed company. From time to time it negotiates privately with other private companies. From time to time it has bought private companies. It has never been involved in take-overs in the public company domain. It is not subject to any take-over at this point. Senator Watson's accusation is totally without any foundation. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(3.42) —I am interested in the discussions currently taking place in the chamber as honourable senators accuse each other of being pipsqueaks and having vested interests in the debate. However, I will get back to the real issues which, supposedly, have been raised by Senator Siddons. The Government has in fact quite grave reservations about the import and effect of this urgency motion. However, in fact, we would look at some other options which would go close to satisfying some of the issues which he raised. This is an interesting motion moved by Senator Siddons because no doubt from his own business experience he is aware of the rapidity with which business itself can react to any intervention by the Government in this area; in other words, changes in regulations, changes in rules and changes in laws. He knows very well that these can be circumvented by smart lawyers in no time flat. To go up that path of excessive regulation in order to prevent possible-I use the word `possible'-breaches of public interest or actions which are against the interests of the public at large is in fact to go up a road that can lead to nowhere. Also he would be aware that hasty prohibitionist action in this area on the part of governments can often have the opposite effect of that which the Government originally intended. In other words, good intentions do not necessarily provide a proper base for government intervention in the economy. I must say at the outset that I share some of the honourable senator's concerns about the nature and effects of the take-overs and mergers currently occurring in this country. I get the feeling that there is a certain macho desire by some businessmen in this community to treat it as a game-as a matter of lifting their own personal prestige at the expense of the community at large. Of course, the media is all too ready to play a part in lifting those sorts of activities to the status of a football game. For example, we hear often about Bond versus X Corporation, Holmes a Court versus the world and Elliott versus the Poms. It is all good media material. To some extent I think that has been responsible for encouraging people such as Senator Siddons to take the populist approach rather than the long view and attempting to base his views on better information which no doubt- Senator Chipp —You are now a mouthpiece of big business; the same as the Liberal Party. Senator AULICH —Senator Chipp says that I am a mouthpiece of big business. I am absolutely intrigued that the honourable senator should accuse me of that when he has sat here in this chamber and blocked legislation that the Government has brought into this chamber to get back money from tax dodgers and the bottom of the harbour operators in the community. This represents significant amounts of money which should have come to the revenue and significant cheating that went on in this community. The honourable senator sat here and voted against that legislation. Now he accuses me of being a tool of the capitalists in the community. I indicate at this stage that I do not have any companies; I have never had any companies. I have always been a wage employee in this community. Senator Chipp —I am not suggesting you are. You are just a mouthpiece for big business, the same as the Liberal Party. Senator AULICH —I am not bought overnight, as Senator Chipp indicates. However, I do not intend to be put off by his interjections. I gave Senator Siddons a clear hearing without any interjections. I expect the same. There are times when the interests of this country as a whole and the employees of affected companies may be overlooked during mergers. No-one better expressed that than the Chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission, Henry Bosch, when he indicated in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 December 1985 the occasional effects of some of these takeovers and merger operations. He said: The vast majority of takeovers cause considerable hardship to the employees involved, usually in the target company, but also sometimes in the company which has made the offer. People who have given their lives to companies and often made efforts beyond the normal call of duty are frequently swept aside as redundant pawns in the takeover process. Now I do not believe that anyone (not even public servants) should be guaranteed life tenure of their occupation whatever their personal performance, and I could accept it if our system produced some personal discomfort for the sake of general advances in the national wealth. But when grave personal damage is done to thousands of people for no better reason than the aggrandisement of a paper entrepreneur I feel a serious disquiet. He further stated: A management which feels under threat will divert part of its energies from the longer-term creation of wealth to defensive measures. After all, self-preservation is a human enough response. Defensive measures take many forms. Further, he said: Most serious of all, managements are tempted to maximise short-term profits and share prices by measures that undermine longer-term productivity and growth. Again, they are serious reservations which are held not only by Senator Siddons but also by Henry Bosch, myself and many other senators on this side of the House. Of course, we must not let that obscure the fact that we live in a fairly deregulated economy. That was a deliberate decision made by this Government with the backing of the trade union movement and with the backing of industry and commerce at large. It was made, I must say, with the backing of most honourable senators in this House. Does the honourable senator wish suddenly to turn the clock back to the period of the 1920s and 1930s when manufacturing industry in this country lived in the feather-bedded situation in which it was simply not able to compete on world markets, where it forced governments through various stratagems to lift tariffs, to provide all sorts of benefits, bounties and tariff protection in order to stay comfortable in its own little backyard? In the long run if we want to go back to that situation basically we would be asking workers in this country to accept all the negatives which that type of economy had. It had negatives. Senator Siddons will recall the number of occasions when major car companies in this country sacked workers-a thousand at a time on occasions-in order to force the various governments of the day to provide further protective measures. Senator Siddons knows that in the car industry there were many occasions when a government moved to open up the economy in order to deregulate and the car company simply reacted by sacking workers to force the Government's hands in a particular direction. It is certain that takeovers and mergers will increase during this period. We are going through a period of deregulation and economic and industrial restructuring of the kind the Australian economy needed. This applies particularly to industries that are trade exposed. We cannot turn back to that period that Senator Siddons presumably wants us to turn back to. The question we must ask ourselves is whether we accept this current policy of deregulation and whether we accept that the current policy mix that we have is appropriate for this economy. I happen to believe that it is. I believe that at this stage to lose our nerve, as Senator Siddons seems to be calling for us to do, would in fact not serve the interests of the community at large or of the employees of many of these industries which are quietly going to the wall. Senator Siddons mentioned the question of immediate action. He moved straight into this in his speech. The Australian Labor Party has taken action to ensure that business activities in this area are watch-dogged by appropriate regulatory bodies whose roles are to ensure that we have fair and honest trading. Both the Trade Practices Commission, which is a creation of the Labor Party's policies, and the strengthened National Companies and Securities Commission perform functions which ensure that this fairness does occur. When Senator Siddons raised this issue as a matter of urgency, he well knew that this Government was about to introduce legislation into this Parliament which would outlaw pro rata partial share bids, one of the problems he raised, as I understand it, with regard to the Holmes a Court processes. It will be before this Parliament very soon. The decision to introduce such legislation was arrived at, as the honourable senator knows, through the co-operative scheme operating under the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities made up of the six State governments and the respective Commonwealth Minister. Does the honourable senator want that process of discussion and co-operation at a national level changed to one in which a full time centralised watch-dog will be operating in every nook and cranny of the business community? The Government, the unions and State governments also have a role to play in ensuring that those people who are affected by mergers and take-overs, in particular workers, are protected in the most adequate way. I believe that one of the most adequate ways is to make sure that on all occasions there are appropriate redundancy packages, that legislation is introduced to ensure proper long service leave entitlements for all workers to share in and that a proper superannuation scheme is operating in both the public and private sectors across this country. In that way, the cost of making people redundant, the cost of demanning, will be prohibitive for many of those companies which have taken over smaller companies, or in some cases larger companies, with the prime aim of making a capital gain-those companies that per se are not interested in the welfare of workers in the companies that they have just taken over. Those are matters that the Labor Party and the Labor movement have been dealing with over a very long period. Some of Senator Siddons's counterparts in other States have opposed increasingly generous superannuation arrangements. They have opposed increasingly generous long service leave entitlements. They have opposed those redundancy packages which have protected workers in the way that I have mentioned from sackings of the type that Senator Siddons was so careful to point out are a problem with most mergers in this country. Is Senator Siddons also saying as an alternative that boards of management that are incompetent, lazy, slack or made up of people who have inherited their wealth and who have no motivation to improve the performance of their companies should be sacrosanct and should not be challenged by take-over bids in the community? Senator Siddons —I never suggested that, and I made that point. Senator AULICH —If Senator Siddons is not suggesting that, where does he make the cut-off point? As with most of these issues, one makes a balanced-- Senator Siddons —What is in the national interest. Senator AULICH —Senator Siddons replies that he will make his decisions on the basis of what is in the national interest. Many people, from Adolf Hitler through to the Communist Party and our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), have talked about the national interest. Senator Chipp —Are you putting them all in the same group? Senator AULICH —No, I am not putting them all in the same group; I am saying that they represent totally different parts of the spectrum. Deciding what is in the national interest is a matter of value judgment. Senator Siddons knows that legislation cannot be drafted primarily on what one or other group in the community believes to be in the national interest. That will vary. Business people in this community are entitled to know that a government will not react on the spur of the moment to some emotional blackmail coming from a party which holds the balance of power in the Senate. They want to look for some long term guidelines on where this economy is going. Senator Chipp —Sell the whole place out to foreigners. That's your guideline. Senator AULICH —This place was sold out significantly to foreigners during the period when Senator Chipp was a member of the government of the day that handed over the whole lot, lock stock and barrel, to British and American interests. I do not think that Senator Chipp can come into this chamber and talk about selling out to foreign interests. His record as a Cabinet member of that Government which, to a great degree, sold this country out years ago is appalling. The honourable senator ought to keep quiet and wait for his turn to speak on another occasion. The problems with regard to foreign debt in this country are primarily those that arose from the resources boom that was talked up by the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when he encouraged many semi-government instrumentalities to borrow on the world markets to finance particular projects which we now know will never have a return on their capital investment. I include such projects as hydro-electric schemes in various States and other thermal power schemes, borrowings for which were quite significant during that period. I refer to water board and local government borrowings, all of which were encouraged by the Prime Minister of the day simply for electoral purposes. I cannot recall Senator Siddons making his feelings known during that period on the degree of borrowings by semi-governmental authorities that were putting this country into some difficulty. That problem has yet to be met further down the line, if we look at the effect of the exchange rate on Australian borrowings overseas. What is missing in this debate? Firstly, what is missing is hard, factual information on what has actually happened in this country with regard to take-overs and mergers and their effect on the viability of the economy and of companies at large. If Senator Siddons is looking for advice from me-he does not ask for it very often but my guess is that he would be asking for it today-he should, first of all, listen carefully to what Henry Bosch has indicated with regard to the educative and research role of the National Companies and Securities Commission. He indicated that at the moment the Commission and a number of other academics in the community, particularly economists, have been looking very closely at studying just what did go on with take-overs and mergers over the last decade and what is likely to occur in the future. Unless we have that factual base, I do not believe that we should be bringing legislation into this Parliament. As I said, the problems caused by intervention by governments in the economy without a proper factual data base can be much greater than simply doing nothing at all. I refer to an article written on 25 November 1985 by economics writer, David Clark, entitled `On the Other Hand'. I shall read directly from it just to indicate that I am not alone in my views about the dearth of factual data and that they are shared by a number of economics writers in relation to this whole question of take-overs and merger data. Such data does exist in the American context and it has been very valuable in affecting government decisions and decisions by a number of economic advisers to the President. The article states: The first responsibility of the NCSC at this time should be public education. Policy decisions should be postponed until we all have a much improved knowledge of the issues involved and have had the opportunity to scrutinise closely and assess the empirical studies still in the pipe-line. The issues are far too complex and important to be left to ideologues and obfuscators of any persuasion. I agree with that statement. Until such time as we get that information before us-it may take time-I believe it is very important that we do not go down the track that Senator Siddons indicated without looking at the facts first. Senator Siddons asked when the Government should act. I will put it in a personal context. There is a time to act if mergers and take-overs are of proved negative benefit to the economy and to the country as a whole. I take Robert Holmes a Court's offer for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd as an example. I understand that we can assume that at the moment there is a possibility of Holmes a Court gaining control of a $12 billion asset for just on $2 billion. I think that Senator Siddons would agree with those figures at the moment. Senator Siddons —Yes, I do. Senator AULICH —I note that Senator Siddons agrees. Should an examination of BHP's steel division's 6 per cent return on capital investment-I think that is an accepted figure-prompt him to sell off that division, if he happens to get control of BHP, I would personally favour special legislation in this Parliament to prevent such a sale. Then there would be a proved example of Holmes a Court's motivations in terms of his attempts to move against what all honourable senators here would consider to be the public interest. That is the time to move. We should not act on suspicion. The point I am making is that there is a right time for government intervention in these matters. My contention is that the Government should not act on moralistic suspicion or populist viewpoints, as propounded by Senator Siddons. We should be prepared to act when the time is right. Therein lies the difference between the Government and Senator Siddons and his Party. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.00) —It is perhaps not without significance that Senator Siddons on behalf of the Australian Democrats has brought forward as a matter for urgent debate today the question of takeovers, on the very day on which there has been the long awaited and detailed announcement by the Bell group-better known as Mr Holmes a Court's company-which has made a formal takeover offer for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. This has occurred after some months in which there has been a very great deal of interest and discussion in the newspapers about takeovers; in particular the question of the takeover of BHP. But there are a number of others and Senator Siddons has referred to them. Another well known one, of course, was the takeover by the Bond Corporation of the Castlemaine Tooheys brewing company. The urgency motion which Senator Siddons has moved is in these terms: The necessity for the Government to take immediate action to prevent company takeovers which add nothing to Australia's economic efficiency or growth, increase Australia's overseas indebtedness, and are used to deny massive revenue to the Government. Senator Siddons began his speech this afternoon by referring to the loss of revenue that allegedly the Government incurred as a result of the moves by Mr Holmes a Court, or his Bell company, so far in regard to BHP. There has been quite a bit of discussion about the Government's loss of revenue in relation to some of the other takeovers. The whole tenor of this urgency motion and Senator Siddons's speech in support of it has been one which would leave the impression that there was something radically wrong with takeovers. The presumption would be that they were bad and that, of course, inevitably the Government must regulate them or perhaps prevent them altogether. Senator Siddons indicated in the course of his speech that he-and, I presume, the Democrats-is opposed at least to partial takeovers of a company by an offer for a proportion of the shares of a company. There is, I think, throughout the terms of the urgency motion and Senator Siddons's speech on behalf of the Democrats, a very critical attitude to takeovers and the need for government intervention. The fact is that governments and parliaments have been taking action in relation to takeover offers for many years. I think the first example of such legislation occurred as far back as 1961. In fact many people believe that there are already far too detailed rules and regulations regarding takeovers. For the Democrats, particularly on the very day of the takeover offer for BHP and in the wake of a number of other high profile takeovers, to be demanding immediate action by government in regard to these matters, I believe, is premature and rather naive-all things, of course, for which the Democrats are well known. The view of the Opposition in relation to takeovers is that there is room for some regulation but that on the whole takeovers-and certainly the likelihood of takeovers occurring-play a very important part in improving economic efficiency and the performance of companies, particularly in regard to their management and also in regard to their general direction. The other important aspect in regard to takeover activity from an economic point of view is that it can greatly increase the market that is available to the company as a result of its gaining a greater size and a greater area of operation. Australian industry has been unfortunate over recent decades in the size of its market. One of the major characteristics of commercial activity over the last few decades is that companies have been looking more and more to expand their market operation and market opportunities, and not simply to be confined to their traditional areas, whether those areas comprise a particular town, city, State or nation. Indeed, one of the more pleasing aspects of recent commercial activities in the takeover area has been the extent to which Australian companies are now looking to the world scene. They are looking to expanding their markets overseas. This is the sort of outgoing commercial policy which we as the legislators of the nation should be applauding and encouraging. We should not be placing more and more restrictions upon it. We should be seeking more open activities by companies, involving more initiative and more enterprise on a larger scale. One aspect that Senator Siddons did not refer to in his speech is the fact that an Australian company, BHP, in recent times has taken over a large American company, the Utah Corporation. That has given not only BHP but also the Australian economy a very welcome addition to their resource base and strength by increasing its market operation and the size of its operation. We also see, as a result of the takeover bid by the Elders group for a large English brewing company, the opportunity of greatly expanding the Australian market in that product. I have no doubt that the Bond Corporation, by taking over Castlemaine Tooheys, has greatly expanded the degree of competition, not only in Australia but overseas, in relation to beer. There are now two Australian companies engaging in competition in a very major new market, namely, the United Kingdom, for an Australian product. That is the very thing that we want to encourage our companies to do. We want them to be enterprising, outward looking, and to increase the size of their markets. For heaven's sake, the Achilles heel of Australian manufacturing industry is that it has not had adequate markets for its product within Australia, within the old, traditional, local markets, mostly of a State kind. A few years ago there was a great deal of opposition by State governments and parliaments to takeovers by well known State companies operating in a State. Legislation was enacted to try to stop people buying up a well known State company. There were pressures on State companies. That is absolutely the wrong direction in which our manufacturing industry should be moving. We are now witnessing, in a very encouraging way, companies moving in the right direction-that is, one of expansion and the creation of new markets. Senator Messner referred to a very well known South Australian company. South Australia is one of the States I had in mind which a few years ago tried to stop takeover activity. An innovative, enterprising South Australian company is taking over a number of Australian enterprises, including David Jones Limited. It is improving not only its own operation but also the operation of the companies that it has taken over. That is the reason why we must not put barriers and roadblocks in the way of these commercial operations. Governments and parliaments should have policies which give encouragement to this sort of activity. The important point that needs to be kept under review is whether the interests of shareholders are being properly protected. There has been some debate in the past, and there may be some now, as to whether the take-over laws at present are adequate to give full protection to shareholders. By and large it is for the shareholders-not governments, not big brother and not this Parliament-to decide whether they are going to sell their shares. The laws must ensure that they are properly informed. The shareholders should be put in an equal position as far as possible so that the small shareholder will not be squeezed out and his interests totally ignored if control of a company changes. We have to have laws which give a fair go to shareholders. By and large, that is what the take-over laws have been about. We know perfectly well that a change to the present law relating to partial take-overs is in the pipeline. It has been approved by a ministerial council and the Government will be introducing it into the Parliament shortly. It may be a good idea if we had it already. I hope the Government will get on with introducing it so that we can see it and debate it. That is a good example of the sort of activity that it is proper for us to be engaged in. Senator Chipp —Will you support that? Senator DURACK —We have not seen the legislation yet. The Australian Democrats seem to want us to undertake a wholesale onslaught to prevent immediately take-overs, many of which may have highly beneficial effects. They are beating their breasts about some of them bleeding the revenues and others increasing indebtedness. One reason why companies are going overseas to the extent they are to borrow money is that interest rates are so high in Australia under the policies of this Government. Interest rates are significantly lower overseas than they are in Australia. The Government ought to be doing something about the sort of policy which results in that happening. But to stop the take-over is really to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is the sort of approach which the Democrats seem to think the Government ought to be taking. The Opposition does not support that approach by the Democrats. We believe that a number of Government policies could be changed to give greater encouragement to Australia's economic performance. Once one starts involving oneself in wholesale changes to policies and regulations, one often ends up with the last day being far worse than the first. As an example I refer to investment controls in Australia. Instead of encouraging more equity investment from overseas, we have followed the policy of forcing companies to borrow much more overseas. That is one of the reasons for Australia's high indebtedness. These are the sorts of policies that need to be reviewed and brought up to date. Most of the suggestions that the Democrats have come up with have involved broad Government policies and are not specifically in relation to take-overs. To have legislation which is directly related to take-overs and economic policies there when it would be better directed to other areas of Government policy, such as high interest rates, is to miss the mark in this area. The Opposition believes that it would give a much more suitable expression of the views of this Parliament if the motion were reworded to read: The need for the Government to keep the laws relating to takeovers under constant review to ensure that they are fair to shareholders and operate in the public interest. Pursuant to a contingent notice of motion, on behalf of Senator Chaney, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Chaney moving an amendment to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator DURACK —I move: Leave out the statement of the matter of urgency, insert the following: `The need for the Government to keep the laws relating to takeovers under constant review to ensure that they are fair to shareholders and operate in the public interest'. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.16) —The right to buy and sell and the right to grow and expand without government interference has been a basic right in this country since European settlement. It has enabled us to grow and to prosper as a nation. There is no reason, despite the size of some recent take-over bids, to change the whole approach that government has had to the market in one foul swoop. The recent flurry of take-over activity and the huge size of it are really only signs that Australia, as a nation, is continuing to grow and that business, in its search for newer markets and expansion, is simply looking further afield. There is no reason for governments suddenly to express great alarm because of it. I note that Senator Durack's amendment refers to making sure that take-overs are kept under constant review to ensure that they are fair to shareholders. I would also like to throw in the employees because there is no doubt that any take-over bid must cause considerableheartache and worry among a great many employees as to what their future is likely to be. In some respects that can be a good and a bad thing. There is no doubt that when companies target others for take-over they are very often looking at how good the management is in the company they have targeted. If the management has been sluggish, bad, slow or no good whatsoever, people in that management team ought to be worrying about the bid. I do not want to stop that sort of worry. There is nothing like the threat of the chop in those circumstances to get some managerial people working in a way that they have not for some time. The whole tenor of this motion that in some way take-over bids are bad per se really ought to be examined. Should anyone have complained about the bid by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd for the Utah company when we had a great expansion by an Australian company in buying into a foreign company? In that sense, why would anyone complain about buying back some of the farm? So far as I can recall, nobody did in this chamber. The BHP bid, which was huge and matched all of the current ones which have attracted so much publicity, did not receive any attention here because that was considered to be the right thing to do. What would people ask BHP to do in those circumstances if they want to agree with the tenor of Senator Siddons's motion? Do they want to put BHP up before some new review board? Is there to be yet another Government board, with more than adequate support staff costing us more and more millions, to look at whether or not it is right for a company to spend more millions in a take-over? I suspect not. Senator Siddons used the magnificent phrase that we must act in the `national interest'. That is terrific, until one gets around to determining a view, with which we will all agree, of the national interest and how it is best served. I might have some severe disagreements with Senator Durack as to what the national interest will be in these matters, as I am sure there will be disagreements right around the place. In the Australian Labor Party one always pricks up one's ears in a debate when someone uses the words `rank and file'. It usually means that someone wants to do something to our rules. When someone wants to cloak that in the right terminology, the right cure-all for everything, he uses the phrase `rank and file'. I note that Senator Childs is smiling. When it comes to matters of business, the same sort of phrase is used in another context; that is `the national interest'. I think that we would have a great deal of difficulty in trying to determine what the national interest would be in any of these take-overs. Let us examine Bond and Tooheys, which was a very big take-over, around the billion dollar mark. I am sure that if we had set up this board and had a prominent retired politician to chair it-perhaps Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle will be available in a few years-we could have watched the two parties go before it to argue out the rights and wrongs of the take-over. In determining what is in the national interest, I am sure that Zampatti and the former members of the board would have gone to great lengths to say that they were terrific managers who had run a great company and no one possibly could do better. I am certain also that Alan Bond and his team would have said: `With our unique opportunities with the America's Cup over the next few years and our ability to expand into international markets because of it, obviously we can do more with this company. We can take it further; our profits will be greater; we will expand the number of employees'. In the end, what would be served by all of that talk? The reality is nothing and no one. No individuals could possibly be advantaged by it. God help anyone attempting a take-over, for all the best reasons in the world, if he is held up for six months going to a government commission to find out whether or not he can go ahead. If we are talking about settling the uncertainties of shareholders, how much uncertainty would be settled during that prolonged period? All it would mean is another bonanza for the lawyers. God knows that governments in this country in the past 20 years have been good at creating commissions; let us not create one more. Senator Durack —You had better be voting against the Bill of Rights. Senator RICHARDSON —My attitude and that of the honourable senator on the Bill of Rights would probably be a little opposite, but then again our attitudes on many things are. I can learn to live with it; I hope he can too. As one looks at the Bond and Tooheys episode of recent times, there is no question that at the end of the day that take-over will benefit both the shareholders and the employees, but it is a matter which had to be decided in the marketplace. There was no other forum for it to be decided and there could be no other forum. To regulate what businesses can buy and sell and what areas of business activity a company is allowed to go into will spell disaster for Australia. We can forget about any investment or capital inflow coming in from other countries, because people will not want to invest in that sort of environment and why should they? While it is all right for Senator Sanders or Senator Chipp to cry `foreign investment' on every occasion they can in this chamber, the reality is that without it we would be in an awful lot of strife and it is something we have to keep. I oppose any move which seeks in the name of the national interest to try to devalue our dollar further by trying to limit overseas capital coming into Australia. There are some inherent false assumptions in the whole approach which Senator Siddons has taken to this debate. The first one that ought to be tackled is that we can determine in advance which take-overs will be advantageous. That just will not be possible. I suppose that if we did not set up the body with Dame Margaret Guilfoyle as chairman, we would have to resort to our own opinions. I suppose that we could have a debate in Parliament about each take-over. There could be the Bond-Tooheys Bill and we could all line up for a division to determine which side we supported, but I am not sure that that would serve the national interest, no matter how one defines the national interest or who defines it. There is no prior method of determining what is good or bad in any particular take-over and there cannot be. It is interesting to note that in the motion moved by Senator Siddons nothing along those lines is suggested. As is customary for the Australian Democrats in these matters, while jumping on bankwagons-there are no better jumpers in the business than the Democrats-they have not had time to flesh out a policy. I might say that not having had the time to flesh out a policy is not unique. We have watched the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) doing that now for some time, but for the Democrats it is a fact of life that on every populist cause they jump on to they will not have had time. We have had the bold assertion that the Government should take immediate action to stop take-overs. We are not told exactly what sort of action the Government ought to take; we are told just that action should be taken. I think that there is a central difficulty in Senator Siddons's motion, in that unless we ever find out what sorts of controls the envisages, we will not get very much further in this debate. The next assumption contained in the motion is that all take-overs increase Australia's indebtedness. That is simply not the case. There is no evidence to point to that at all. Senator Siddons —What about the National Companies Commission in the United Kingdom? Senator RICHARDSON —I think the honourable senator should take a deep breath; he is getting excited. Firstly, it depends on whether the take-over will be financed domestically in Australia or internationally. Obviously a lot of take-overs are financed domestically, or significant portions of them are, and that can hardly add to any form of international indebtedness. Secondly, one has to look at how much capital is freed up here on the local side. In any of these take-over bids, in almost every instance when shareholders of the company sell out to a new bidder, they will be selling out at a profit. The price of the shares will have gone up as word circulates that the take-over is about to occur and either the original bidder takes over or a white knight has been found. In any case, shareholders sell out at a profit. What happens with the profit? These investors obviously will look around for somewhere else to put their money, and that can have only a beneficial effect on our economy. It must lead to an increase in efficiency and growth because more money is circulating into more industries. We have to look at whether or not that money goes into export industries, and there is some evidence that is has. We can import more goods and services, particularly if those goods are in the form of capital goods, and they can be used to restructure and improve our export industries. At this stage of Australia's development anything that can go towards increasing the efficiency of our export industries is obviously to our advantage as a nation and to the advantage of those participating in the industries. An increase in indebtedness is harmful if there are no resources to service the debt. So far there are no examples of that having occurred in Australia. I note that in the Holmes a Court bid, which has fascinated the nation over recent weeks, the only real problem will be how far Holmes a Court can go in attempting to take over BHP before the amount he is getting from share earnings is less than he needs to service the debt. If he has a problem on that bid, that is where it will be. Amendments that will be introduced into this chamber and into the other place in March could have some effect. They may not be introduced in time to have an effect on Holmes a Court's bid. I am not one of those with the knowledge of what the Cabinet is doing-we would have to ask the gods of our Party for an answer to that. The Australian Financial Review of 19 December 1985 referred to the National Companies and Securities Commission having spelt out how it planned to apply its new powers on partial and conditional take-overs. I would like to quote from that article. It stated: The NCSC, in a policy statement released yesterday, said: the aim of the amendments was to preclude the use of prescribed conditions in offers which conflict with `the objectives of commercial certainty and equality of opportunity among shareholders of the target company. That, of course, is what Senator Durack's amendment would go to. The article continued: Among other things, the amendments will give the NCSC power to refuse registration of part-A offer documents which, in the words of the commission, `contain conditions, the fulfilment of which depends upon the subjective opinion of the offerer . . . The reality is, of course, that that is exactly what has happened in so many of the partial takeover bids of recent times. This makes it harder and harder for shareholders to look with any degree of certainty to their future. The Commission was conscious of the potential for abuse through conditions which are vague or ambiguous. The vagueness of those conditions is something which has been upsetting many people in the country for a long time. I hope that the amendments will go a long way towards sorting them out. In the very short time that is left to me I would like to deal with the only other matter that I want to refer to, and that is the taxation implications. The broad claim of massive revenue loss just does not hold true when we examine the situation more closely. Interest paid on borrowings which are necessarily incurred in deriving income is generally tax deductible. However, one has to remember, of course, that interest receipts are taxable and that source of revenue already goes some way to making up the short fall. In short, the business of buying and selling, unencumbered by governments, and of businesses being able to determine where, when and how, they will operate on their own, has been a feature of our country since European settlement. No case has been put forward that this situation has changed. On those grounds Senator Siddons's motion should be rejected. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(4.32) —We are debating a matter of urgency that was brought forward today by the Australian Democrats. I think we would agree that what has been brought forward was predictable in terms of timing and content. The performance of the Australian Democrats is predictable in regard to timing because today is the day on which the Bell Group has lodged its draft part-A takeover document with the Victorian office of the National Companies and Securities Commission. At the time I entered this chamber both the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the Bell Group were not talking about the fine print in that document. That document has been lodged. It is assumed that there will be some changes to the earlier statements that had been made by Mr Holmes a Court. As late as today some of the economic writers have predicted that the document will contain an offer to all shareholders proportionally and that that, of course, will be for a set percentage of the shareholders' holdings. A number of points have been made by various speakers, including the Australian Democrats who introduced the motion. The Democrats have asked us to support the four points that are contained in their motion. However, I support the amendment moved by Senator Durack on behalf of the Opposition in which we have pointed to the need for a government to keep the laws relating to takeovers under constant review. We think this is the course that should be followed and that we should not adopt the prescribed way in which the Australian Democrats would deal with this matter. It is always timely to ask whether the broad range of policies of government encourage or inhibit any number of things in the commercial sector. I think governments need to address the question of whether their policies encourage takeovers which may not be in the interests of a number of different groups. It is also always a matter for government to look at whether its taxation policies encourage, inhibit or promote the efficiency and the economic return on capital invested at risk by those who are in commercial enterprise. We need to look at tax policies with regard to capital gains, investment allowances, negative gearing of interest, which has been the subject of some comment today, and company profits. We need to consider whether those policies have an effect on the commercial and trading sectors. I think we could address some attention to the four points raised by Senator Siddons. The first point made by Senator Siddons related to interest charges. Senator Siddons said that the Government should legislate to prevent interest charges being deductible other than on capital that had been used to produce income. I think that might be one way of looking at dealing with tax. However, it certainly has not been the way in which government policies have been moving. Indeed, government policies have moved in almost the opposite direction inasmuch as one is able to look at taxation as a whole in respect of a group of companies. However, it is moving entirely in the opposite direction if we segregate interest charges on one company or one part of a company and allow deductibility in respect of some isolated capital. Senator Siddons seemed to justify this view by publicly acknowledging that he could not convince the Government to change its taxation measures in regard to negative gearing on the capital requirements of primary producers. That point of view can be taken if one is looking for support from a certain sector of people. The Australian Democrats are standing up for the primary producers but in doing so they are stopping someone else from getting something that they were not able to get for them. I hardly think that this is good policy. It is not the way in which good policy ought to be made. Senator Siddons's second point was that pro rata bids should be banned or brought forward only as proportional bids. Legislation has been foreshadowed. Like other senators, I am not aware of the fine detail of that legislation which has come forward from the ministerial council. I agree that it would be appropriate that we should deal with that legislation as soon as possible. We should see what has been decided by the ministerial council and the effect that that might have on capital formation in this country. We will have to consider whether we will deal with that legislation when it comes before the Parliament. However, it seems to me that the matter that is now before us is not urgent because of the fact that legislation has been foreshadowed. In fact it means that the matter before us is in hand. The matter before us relates to what will happen on a particular day-that is the day on which the part-A takeover document has been lodged. The third point made by Senator Siddons was that there should be some exchange control reintroduced. In that context, he mentioned such things as variable deposit ratios. We have moved to a deregulation of the financial system. We have also looked at foreign investment. However, it seems to me that we are moving in the opposite direction from the way in which our economy is heading when we talk about exchange control reintroduction and the disadvantage of variable deposit ratios. I certainly could not give my support to that aspect of the four points put forward by the Australian Democrats. I could not support the way in which this matter has been brought forward or the reasons that have been given for it. The fourth point, of course, is the other predictable proposal that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) should, in the public interest, initiate some inquiry into massive takeovers. A subjective judgment can be made of almost every word in that part of the Democrats' motion-for example, which is massive and which is not and what is in the public interest. The Democrats talk about the way in which the trade practices legislation can deal with this matter. All kinds of things such as the National Companies and Securities Commission and the ministerial council have already been structured. To set up another inquiry to which people will still talk and talk and which will not deal with the matters that ought to be dealt with again seems to me to be just a very predictable way in which the Australian Democrats would want to deal with this matter. One needs only to look at today's Press to see the variety of things that happen in our corporate structure. There has been a dominance today of Holmes a Court's next move in the battle with Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, with various commentators asking whether there will be some surprises by the Bell company, and so on. It is rather like a national sport to see who is going to win and who is going to lose. In an article in today's Australian relating to this matter, Bryan Frith comments: It is suggested, however, that the bid will be conditional on Bell obtaining at least 35 per cent of BHP's voting capital . . . It was also mentioned that Holmes a Court had been assured of resources from an undisclosed trading bank. On page 1 of today's Australian it was stated: An undisclosed trading bank agreed to advance Bell a credit facility of more than $2 billion for the offer. It says `an undisclosed trading bank'. I do not know whether it is an overseas bank, a foreign bank trading in Australia, or an Australian bank. That, I suppose, may be known by some, but it is certainly not known by me. When we look at the way in which we have introduced foreign banks into Australia and widened the facilities, resources and accessibility of capital to Australians by that means, to talk of foreign exchange regulations again seems to me to be walking backwards. Someone mentioned Elders-IXL; naturally one would in this context because of its size. Today, there is a report of its forecast of the half-year profit which is to be announced later this week. I found interesting, particularly in this context, the following comment: The take-over of CUB in early 1984 left Elders with a huge debt load but the company managed a huge reduction in its debt by its 1984-85 balance date through a major asset divestment program. There are those who have been commending Elders today for the restructuring of its corporate arrangements and for the fact that, when it did take over the Carlton and United Breweries, it had a huge debt but has managed, through an asset divestment program, to move now towards what is regarded as a satisfactory profit to be announced later this week. According to an analyst, as a consequence of this sharply reduced debt, Elders, after divesting itself of some of its assets, would benefit from lower funding charges and enjoy improved earnings growth in 1985-86. We will wait to see what the result of that is later this week. Is anyone to suggest that a corporation or a large structured company in this country should not arrange its affairs-call it divestment of assets or whatever-after it has used the risk capital of its shareholders and when the responsibility of its directors is on the line? Is anyone to suggest that we should be regulating more than we have in respect of those sorts of risks? I think we ought to address ourselves to some of the other economic problems and indicators. When we see the headlines such as `Survey indicates tapering off in business activity' in today's Press and we see that in the most recent survey the number of respondents expecting a decline in capital expenditure rose from 15 to 37 per cent, we start to wonder why it is that government would think that it ought to be regulating and ought to be introducing more difficulties for a corporate sector that is already struggling against high interest rates, uncompetitiveness and other problems. When one looks at whatever area of business one wishes, one finds that there are the take-overs and the restructurings of companies that there always have been in the past, and one needs to look at tax policy to see what inhibition or encouragement it may have with regard to changes. Under the headline `Roxby to embark on on-market raid of CMI' in today's Australian Financial Review one finds this in the concluding comment: The insurance company has hinted that the sale of its CMI holding would be convenient as the tax changes foreshadowed last year made it less efficient to hold shares through a separate corporate entity. That is where government comes into these matters-tax policy. I am not passing a judgment on this particular tax change, but when a company can say that the tax changes foreshadowed last year made it less efficient to hold shares through a separate corporate entity, it is no wonder that we find take-overs in whatever sector is affected by government policies through taxation, general economic policies or anything else of that kind. Another article of interest in today's Press is headed: `Experts to iron out tax imputation plan'. Many people naturally felt that the recent tax imputation changes were to their advantage. We then find that in the meeting to be held in Canberra on Thursday matters to be looked at include the abandonment or referral of imputation which would hammer share markets where the promise of tax free dividends had underpinned prices for months. They are the sorts of things in respect of which government policy makes the difference or otherwise. Someone referred in passing to some of our instrumentalities. Of course, we have the Australian Gas Light Co. situation and the interest of Industrial Equity Ltd in that matter. To suggest that simply because today is the day on which BHP and Bell have the first round of their take-over arrangements, we ought to suddenly rush into a flush of government regulation and legislation to deal with this matter with yet another committee to be set up to investigate, report, delay and do all the other things that committees do seems to me to be no reason at all to support the motion that was moved by the Australian Democrats; and I, in these comments, reject that motion and support what has been moved by Senator Durack on behalf of the Opposition. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.46) —I rise to support my friend and colleague Senator John Siddons in the matter of urgency that he has raised today. He has paid a service to this country by simply asking-this is what the Australian Democrats are simply saying today-why we do not become concerned at the spate of, and nature of, the take-overs that are taking place in this country. After having had a look at them and the way in which they have been implemented, we want the Government and the Opposition to look objectively at whether this is good for the country. That is all we are doing. At no stage in his speech did Senator Siddons say that the Democrats are opposed to all take-overs. Yet he has been blackguarded for saying that by speakers from the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia. He never said anything of the kind. Indeed, he said the opposite. He said that a company that is badly and inefficiently run deserves to be taken over. He is saying: `Let us weigh up the new circumstances and ask ourselves whether that is good for Australia'. For this trouble he has been misrepresented. Innuendos have been put in his way by both sides of the chamber. In fact, today Senator Siddons has achieved a mini-political miracle. He has merged the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. I defy anyone listening to this debate to identify which party the two Liberal and two Labor speakers in this debate belong to. One would have thought that the same speechwriter had written all the speeches. It is a total merger of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. What is the thread running through the Labor and Liberal speeches today like the thread of Ariadne? It is: `Let us support big business. Let us give the take-over merchants a free hand, carte blanche. To hell with the workers; to hell with the littler shareholders-no regulation. How dare the Democrats say that we must curb people like Alan Bond? We must curb people like Robert Holmes a Court if they are acting against the interests of Australians'. That is what the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are not prepared to say today. All we are saying is: `Let us have a closer look at it'. I could not believe my ears when I heard speeches from the Labor Party today. The Liberal Party at least is honest. It says: `We champion big business; we are for big business; God bless big business; we will give you every encouragement'. I would have thought that the Labor Party should, at least at some stage, give some thought to the workers in big business, to the people who are small investors, but we have not heard one word about it, except in innuendo and snide remarks about the Democrats. What was the terrible thing that Senator Siddons did? This is what he did: With the unanimous support of the seven Democrat senators and on behalf of the Democrats, he said that there was a necessity for the Government to take immediate action to prevent company take-overs which, firstly, add nothing to Australia's economic efficiency or growth. I might say that the Liberals have moved an amendment which totally destroys everything that Senator Siddons has moved today. Guess by whom they will be supported in this chamber. Every member of the Labor Party is going to support the Liberal Party in the division that is about to come up. Senator Siddons's motion states that the Government should take immediate action to prevent company take-overs which add nothing to Australia's economic efficiency or growth. Apparently the Labor Party and the Liberal Party believe that take-overs which do add nothing to Australia's economic efficiency or growth should be allowed to take place. That can be read as nothing else. In other words, they support take-overs which add nothing to efficiency or growth. The second part of Senator Siddons's motion states that the Government should take immediate action to prevent company take-overs which increase Australia's overseas indebtedness. According to the Liberal Party, and the Labor Party, that is another bad thing because they are going to strike it out of the motion. Am I not right in saying that Australia's present overseas debt is the highest in our history and is growing at a massive rate while our exports are falling and the dollar is falling? There are people who are now comparing our overseas indebtedness with that of Argentina and places such as that. The Labor Party is going to say: `No, we will strike that out'. The third part of Senator Siddons's motion states that the Government should take immediate action to prevent company take-overs which are used to deny massive revenue to the Government. Apparently that is a bad thing. Apparently this chamber should support take-overs which allow people to avoid paying tax so that the workers, the ordinary salary earner, can pay more. That is going to be substituted for Senator Siddons's motion by the collusion of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. They are going to vote together on this. Unashamedly they are going to vote to replace Senator Siddons's motion, which has teeth, with this motherhood amendment: The need for the Government to keep the laws relating to takeovers under constant review- That is an earth shaking amendment. The Liberal Party and the Labor Party are going to keep the laws relating to take-overs under constant review while our overseas debt sky-rockets through take-overs, as I have described. The amendment gets better. It goes on: to ensure that they are fair to shareholders and operate in the public interest. What a sham! What a farce it is for all members of this chamber, except the Democrats, to be colluding in voting for that. I wish to add to this debate the contribution of an economist and journalist who, I think, is held in the highest respect in this country. I refer to Kenneth Davidson of the Age. He wrote this biting critique of the Government's policies: The Government's naturally conservative instinct- Honourable senators on the Labor side are now being identified as having naturally conservative instinct. They are conservatives. There is to be a united vote from the conservatives in this Parliament, Labor and Liberal. The article continued: to do nothing to change the status quo fits nicely with its prediction to help only those who help the Government. I do not know exactly what Kenneth Davidson means by that. One suspects that Mr Holmes a Court helps the Government so the Government helps him. The article continued: And in general it must be asked whether the whole take-over game, which has accelerated to fever pitch in the past year, has strengthened capitalism or improved equality. Anyone who votes against the Democrats' motion on this occasion must believe that the take-over game has improved equality in this country. Davidson went on: The game, after all, is based on replacing equity capital with borrowed capital to transfer the tax burden from the owners of corporations to their workers. I would have thought that that would be a shameful thing for a Labor government to do. Let me give an example. Let us assume that there is a very wealthy Western Australian who wants to buy a brewery and that the going price for it is $100m. Let us assume also that he goes overseas and borrows money at 9 per cent, which is easy to do. You or I, Mr Acting Deputy President, cannot borrow money at 9 per cent but these wealthy take-over people can do it without any problem. He comes back to Australia and buys out the brewery for $100m at 9 per cent, which means that his interest bill is $9m a year. Let us assume, in this hypothetical example, that the profits of that brewery were, $9m a year. He has added nothing to improve the efficiency of that brewery but he can write off the $9m interest bill against the $9m profit. How much tax would that brewery be paying then? Absolutely none. The tax has to be made up from somewhere else. Who makes up the tax? It is made up by the ordinary workers, the ordinary salary and wage earners. Senator Mason —And the money goes out of the country. Senator CHIPP —I am about to come to that. That is not the end of it. Australia's overseas debt is increased by $100m because of that loan, increasing the responsibility of exporters. People on this side of the House are always saying: `Why don't we help the exporters'? God knows they have enough load to carry now with falling prices and whatever. We are putting this additional responsibility on them to pay for this increased debt that is being made possible by the take-over people of this country. Davidson went on: To whom should the greatest rewards go? To those who can exploit gaps in the regulatory environment to avoid taxes or to those who contribute to a new or better service, product or process? A society which reserves its greatest rewards for essentially unproductive activities threatens, first, its prosperity and, ultimately, its survival. Those are strong words by Kenneth Davidson. I support them. The Democrats believe them to be true. Finally, Davidson said something which Senator Siddons and the Democrats are putting today: Alternatively, this take-over, and a lot more like it, could be stopped if the Treasurer issued a simple statement to the effect that, as from today, the interest cost of borrowing for share purchases can be offset only against the income from those shares. He was talking about the Bell group's bid for Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. This is negative gearing. All he is doing is saying to the Government: `You have stopped negative gearing with property and for primary producers, who are going broke. Why give the take-over people, the millionaires, the big businesses, carte-blanche in this area of negative gearing? Why don't you be consistent?' I do not have the answer to the question why a Labor government would allow that to continue. I shall read from another article by Kenneth Davidson of 12 February. Once again, he is talking about the BHP take-over. He said: Once again, the farce of a comparatively small, highly geared company attempting to take over a much larger company, in this case Australia's largest company, with money supplied from overseas must call into question present tax rules which encourage this situation. The farce could be stopped dead if the Government simply announced that, from now on, companies, like individuals can no longer negatively gear their interest payments so that the losses of one company can be offset against the profits of another. The most sensible way for Mr Holmes a Court to ease his cash flow problems if he got control of BHP would be to transfer the interest burden to BHP, which would mean to all shareholders in BHP and to all taxpayers. We have even got Maximilian Walsh saying: And if he- that is, Mr Holmes a Court- is successful he should send John Howard and Paul Keating a special thank you note because it is they who made it all possible. But I find it grossly unfair that a government can legislate, as this one has done, to outlaw negative gearing in residential and rural industries but allow it, indeed encourage it, in the corporate sector. I do not know a responsible economist or journalist who is not condemning this practice. Yet in this Parliament all members of the Australian Labor Party and all members of the Liberal Party are voting to continue it. We are now faced with this sham, this colluded solution to get the Liberal and Labor parties off the hook in this chamber, to destroy Senator Siddons's matter of urgency-which would have taken action to protect our overseas debt, to improve our efficiency and to retain taxation availability to the Government which is now being avoided by these people-and to replace it with a feather. Therefore, the Democrats will vote unanimously against this attempt by the Labor and Liberal parties to sweep this massive problem under the carpet. I conclude by asking a rhetorical question. I can understand members of the Liberal Party championing people like Alan Bond and Robert Holmes a Court. They should be championed; they are great Australians. I can understand that attitude. The Liberals are out in the open, they are honest and they say that they support big business, although they have never shown too much compassion for the ordinary little shareholder or the worker. But it is beyond my comprehension how members of the Labor Party can support such people to the disadvantage of the people whom they allegedly represent-the workers and the salary earners. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.03) —I rise reluctantly to speak in this debate because of a certain hypocrisy that I see in the camp of the Australian Democrats. While they seek to condemn big business in take-over roles, Senator Siddons's own company has been a vehicle for acquiring a number of small businesses. While he is quite honest in saying that he has never acquired a publicly listed company and while he is being quite correct-indeed pedantic-I believe that these things are very much in the eye of the beholder. Whether a take-over merchant is named John Siddons-or his company name-or John Elliott or Robert Holmes a Court, there is no difference in attitude. They all believe they are improving the efficiency of the takeover target. The Democrats say that it is not in the national interest if a big company is involved in the take-over, but it could well be in the national interest if Siddons acquires a small business. They have been small businesses that have been taken over. I rise because of the comments made by Senator Chipp about `filthy remarks'. I seek to present the facts. I agree with some of the sentiments expressed in this matter of urgency, especially the comments about the use of taxation havens and so on. But that is not stated in the terms of the matter of urgency which says: The necessity for the Government to take immediate action to prevent company takeovers . . . The motion does not distinguish between public and private companies, nor does it distinguish between large and small companies and I would submit that many small take-overs involving small companies are just as much against the public or national interest as are some of the larger ones which receive national acclaim. Therefore I raised a point of order because I believe that an honourable senator in this place who has an interest in the matter before the Senate should declare that interest. It is not obligatory, but it is understood that there is a moral obligation for an honourable senator to declare his interest. On previous occasions Senator Siddons has been good enough to indicate his interest. On this particular occasion he chose not to disclose his interest. True, he did not have to do so, but as he takes such a high moral stand I believe he should have disclosed his interest. It is true that the matter was of a general character and it was not specific to a particular take-over, but during his address Senator Siddons chose to be specific. He named a number of individuals carte blanche and one gathers the impression that all those take-overs associated with those particular persons were not in the national interest. It is quite true that some of them may have been in the national interest-- Senator Siddons —I raise a point of order Mr Acting Deputy President. I believe that I am being completely misrepresented. I have never at any stage said that I was concerned about take-overs per se. The motion reads: . . . takeovers which add nothing to Australia's economic efficiency or growth . . . Senator Watson is speaking at some length instancing me as having an undeclared interest and that cannot be sustained. Senator Gietzelt —I wish to speak to that point of order. Some support should be given to Senator Siddons because, had we listened to the debate and particularly to the motion that he sought to move as a matter of urgency, we would have heard him make the point clearly that he was talking about matters affecting the national interest, the problems associated with foreign indebtedness and the problems accruing as a result of unnecessary take-overs as distinct from take-overs. For an Opposition senator to attempt to suggest that Senator Siddons was dealing with take-overs en masse and not in a particular way, as he was, is not right. That aspect was not part of the general debate and Senator Watson should be called to order to speak to either the motion or the amendment. The amendment has specific restrictions on the motion-in fact in many respects it is even contrary to the motion itself-and if he wishes to speak to that it is a matter which can be determined by the Chair. But it is totally incorrect to suggest that the motion seeks to oppose take-overs generally because that is not its intent. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —There is no point of order. Senator WATSON —Had Senator Siddons wished to do so he could have used his extensive expertise as chairman of a publicly listed company to good effect in this debate. Nobody would have taken issue with him; nobody would have quarrelled with him. It is well known that he has been a chairman of a publicly listed company. I have been challenged to produce proof; so I refer to a newspaper article of 12 February 1986 which says: Siddons Industries Ltd is to spend $21.5 million acquiring the 49 per cent of Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd it does not already own. The interest is being bought from Olin Corp of the United States and will give Siddons 100 per cent control of Ramset in all markets apart from the US, Europe and Japan. Siddons said that acquisitions would boost earnings by about 50 per cent. The method of acquiring business is not in dispute. The emphasis that has been placed in this debate is on take-overs. Senator Mason —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. We cannot sit here and listen to this. Ramset is a Siddons company, as Senator Watson knows full well. This is not a question of a take-over of another company. He cannot come here and say those things without explaining himself. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator WATSON —I wish to point out to those honourable senators who are seeking these various points of order that all this is in the eye of the beholder. Senator Mason has just raised the point that it is not really a take-over because all Siddons is doing is acquiring a 49 per cent interest. This whole debate has been a matter of semantics on the part of the Democrats. Senator Mason says it is a matter of acquiring 49 per cent. It is well known that other private companies have been taken over and if honourable senators want me to name them I am quite happy to do so. I will just name the most recent one because I believe it is pertinent and that it has some significance. Therefore I believe it is very much in the eye of the beholder whether a take-over is in the national interest, whether the take-over targets will be run efficiently and whether the take-over merchant is headed by Siddons, or Elliott or Holmes a Court. Senator Mason —I raise a point of order- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have ruled before that there is no point of order. Senator Mason —With respect, you have not yet heard my point of order. My point is that the honourable senator is not addressing the amendment that is before the Chair. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(5.10) —I enter this debate at a late stage because as the general tenor of the debate in this chamber has somewhat degenerated-there is some hypocrisy and paranoia around-I think it would be useful if the Senate were to think of what it could most constructively do in the area Senator Siddons has raised for our consideration. There is much to be said for an examination by this chamber and the House of Representatives-indeed, by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia as a whole because we are elected representatives of the people-of the whole question of the role of takeovers in relation to the great corporations which prowl around seeking whom they may to devour. There is no doubt about it that this phenomenon which has gathered pace over the past several years is quite startling in its magnitude and something about which most people with whom I have had contact out in the community-have grave misgivings. The fact is that in the old days the classic corporate theory had it that in order for shareholders really to discipline a corporation it was enough that they were able to elect and re-elect the directors at periodic intervals. That was the way in which some sort of discipline and accountability was brought home to bear in relation to the running of the company. However, of course the stock-market and the current price of securities now conveys to the board of directors and management of those companies much more immediately and much more continuously the fact that they are under scrutiny and are under pressure. Added to that change, as I say from the classic theory of corporate accountability which merely had to do with the election and re-election of directors, one of course has the fact now in relation to these very large companies that there are huge institutional investors-I am speaking for example of the great insurance companies and superannuation and pension funds-which do not necessarily have any great loyalty to the company concerned but are merely interested in getting a return for those to whom they in turn are accountable and responsible and to whom they have given undertakings as to putting the funds entrusted to them to profitable use. The fact is that the costs to the community of this sort of activity are quite properly drawn to the attention of the Senate by Senator Siddons. There is a lessening of competition no doubt as a result of many takeovers. It would be very naive not to be able to perceive the tendency of monopoly or at least the tendency for just a few large companies dominating whole areas of our commercial and trading life in Australia. In that situation small business must suffer. Also the fact is that it is inevitable that there be misgivings on the part of employees. What guarantee can there be and what certainty and assurance can they have that in the amalgamations and break up of the company that is acquired quite often in order that its assets may be separately sold off according to the individual value of that sector of a very large firm. That is they will not suffer in that rationalisation? A very logical and managerial type of noun which covers, I believe, a multitude of difficulties and suffering on the part of the employees and even the community in the disappearance of the very important ties that, for example, a local community might have with a particular sector of a large firm. These sorts of things are not too often taken into account when one simply is talking about the operations of the stock-market. But I believe the weakness of Senator Siddons's proposal before the chamber today lies in the fact that it calls on the Government to take immediate action. It seems to me that it is difficult to accept this in several senses of the use of the term `the Government to take immediate action'. Firstly, as Senator Richardson I think pointed out: Who actually is to decide what is in the public interest? Who is to take the task of balancing the particular issues that are at stake? Who is to decide on the question of economic efficiency for the whole community as opposed to the returns to shareholders, including as I say pensioners who have committed their funds or superannuation moneys which have been committed to large institutional investors? The question there must be who is to decide this question of public interest. Actually I want to go a step further and say that it is not merely a question of who should make the decision in relation to these matters outside the operations of the stock market with its disciplines. However, I wonder whether Senator Siddons in speaking of the Government in these matters really is bypassing the Parliament. The Parliament seems to me to have a very real role in relation to these matters. It is a role completely and utterly ignored and submerged in the past several years by the existence of the very powerful Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities and the National Companies and Securities Commission. Of course, what we have about to assault this chamber, which is supposed to be a legislative and deliberative chamber, in a few days time is a Bill agreed on by a Council of Ministers, both Federal and State, which this chamber cannot refuse to pass. Indeed, when the Parliament passes that piece of legislation into law none of the other six State parliaments have to do anything about it. It automatically becomes part of their statute books. It is my view that this chamber ought to be taking some steps to reassert the role of Parliament in relation to companies and securities laws in this nation. For that reason I think it may be of interest to honourable senators to have some foreshadowing of the fact that their various party rooms will be approached in the next few days. I have had discussions with my Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs with a view to obtaining a reference from the Senate, if the Senate is so minded, on the whole question of the role of the Parliament in relation to the Ministerial Council, the National Companies and Securities Commission and the role of the Parliament in relation to the effective operation of companies and securities law throughout Australia. I believe that that would be a useful step. I think it is a step which would enable us to have better debate, although I think Senator Siddons was quite right to raise the misgivings he expressed in terms of the urgency motion. At this stage I do not believe it would be useful for the Senate to take this matter to a vote. I think it would be much more useful for the Senate to adopt its usual procedure when a matter of high policy is at stake-it takes the matter away from the drama and the theatrical pit of confrontation, which is the chamber, and gives the matter on the whole to the Senate Committee where in a bipartisan way the six honourable senators can sit around the table and take extensive public evidence and try to present to the Parliament a report which may have a bipartisan basis of support. I am speaking at this stage continually because, as I said, it is my belief that this matter should not be taken to a vote. I think the other procedures which are open to the Senate could be better utilised in order to get a resolution of the sorts of fears and misgivings which Senator Siddons speaks of. The fact is that the Parliament needs to reassert its role. There is nothing more demeaning or humiliating than to be elected to come to this place and then to find oneself merely rubber stamping decisions made by a ministerial council itself advised by officials whose names we do not even know. Senator Chipp —You are saying that Parliament should take more notice of these, yet you are denying the Parliament a vote by talking it out. Where is the logic? Senator TATE —I am saying in this particular instance that while I agree with much of the principle of Senator Siddons's urgency motion I believe that the emphasis which he has placed on government action is perhaps misplaced and for the Senate itself it is more in keeping with the ethos of the Senate to look to the Parliament to remedy the situation. I have indicated to the Senate where that remedy might lie. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted in the Sessional Orders for the consideration of the matter of urgency has expired. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.20) —Pursuant to contingent notice of motion No. 21, standing in my name, I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the question on the matter of urgency being put forthwith. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chipp's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Macklin. M. J. Baume, Michael Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Chipp, D. L. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Harradine, B. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. Vigor, D. B. Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Chaney, F. M. Elstob, R. B. Brownhill, D. G. C. Grimes, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Georges, G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment to Senator Siddons's motion) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B F. Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter McClelland, DouglasBjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reid, M. E. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Townley, M. Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.32) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a very important issue, of course, especially at this time of the year in Australia. Page 4 of the paper mentions Project Aquarius which was a project run by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to evaluate the usefulness of water bombing-dropping water out of aircraft onto bushfires. This procedure is used widely around the world, in Canada, America and Mediterranean countries, and it has proven to be very useful. Unfortunately, the Australian State governments and the Federal Government wanted to reinvent the wheel, so they undertook a study to see whether it would work here, and it did. But the report is somewhat ambivalent. It says: `Yes, the use of aircraft can be beneficial to put out bushfires'. But in general it thought that its use would be limited. The CSIRO's figures are quite interesting. It pointed out that the use of a DC6 would have saved $660,000 in costs-it does not define how-and would have cost $524,000. That is a benefit and a saving. The study found that the long term total cost of bushfires in Victoria alone was about $25m a year, so a major saving is possible in this regard. One aircraft that was evaluated which is not found in Australia-the Canadians offered to bring the aircraft here but the Australian Government refused the offer-was the Canadair CL215, a seaplane which has the capability of flying over a body of water and scooping up water without stopping. At flying speeds it can pick up six tonnes of water and dump it on a fire. These aircraft are used all over the world. I think it is obvious that the various State governments will not really face up to their responsibilities in regard to bushfires. I propose that six of the Canadair CL215s be purchased by the Australian Government, to be based in Canberra. The total cost of purchasing the aircraft would be about $30m. But when one considers, as I mentioned, that bushfires cause the loss of $25m a year in Victoria alone, this investment would pay for itself. The Canadair CL215 has one big advantage over the other aircraft evaluated by the CSIRO; that is, its multipurpose role. It can be used not only to put out fires by dumping six tonnes of water on each flight, but also for search and rescue missions. This fact was not evaluated by the CSIRO. It is expensive to have a single purpose aircraft on the ground, waiting to be used to fight a bushfire. But this aircraft can be used for search and rescue missions. The CL215 has a 13.5-hour endurance. It can be used to avoid tragedies such as occurred in Bass Strait when a land aircraft circled a drowning pilot, but finally had to leave the scene, and the pilot ultimately died. A seaplane such as the Canadair CL215 could have landed and picked him up. It can land in two-metre high waves. It can also play a role in fishery surveillance and anti-smuggling patrols. It can carry 26 passengers. It can be used all year round. The use of water bombers is quite widespread. I have observed them on the west coast of the United States. I have observed them being used to save homes and the lives of firefighters. Obviously, this method would not put out a massive bushfire on a front of 60 miles, but one could fly out at the first sign of smoke and start dumping six-tonne loads of water on it, thus controlling the fire before it becomes a 60-mile wide conflagration. I urge that my suggestion not go unheeded. The $30m total cost of the six aircraft is a small fraction of the property damage caused by bushfires in recent years. Many lives and valuable forest land could be saved if the Federal Government adopted these water bombing techniques which have been proven to be effective all over the world. It is high time that we gave our fire fighters the kind of modern technical backup provided by aerial water bombers. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.37) —This paper is actually a government response to two reports-the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation entitled `Bushfires and the Australian Environment' and the report of the Australian Forestry Council's Standing Committee on Forestry on the 1982-83 bushfires. Most of the normal bushfire fighting in Australia is done on a State basis and mainly by volunteers in the rural bushfire brigades. They do a tremendous job. But every so often, because of circumstances which are peculiar to an area, a particular set of conditions will occur which means that a fire will be far more horrendous than any that has occurred until that point of time. It could be brought about by the weather, such as a succession of very hot, dry days beforehand. Something could start it off and away it will go. On a normal day there probably would not even be enough fuel to enable the fire to burn to such an intensity. But because of the conditions that exist it may far exceed the capability of any local rural fire brigade to handle it. We have seen tragic loss of life and property because of such bushfires. I think it is significant that there are many people who do not understand that on certain days almost anything will start a fire. In Victoria and South Australia high winds have caused power lines to touch and make sparks which set off bushfires. We know that during dry storms, or heat storms, lightning strikes will set them off. A farmer might be repairing a piece of machinery and a spark from a welder will set off a fire. It is not only people on the land who should be aware of these situations; people everywhere should be made aware of the fact that these conditions apply at certain times of the year and in certain places and that only a spark is needed to set off a major conflagration. I support Senator Sanders in his call for the use of the CL215 in Australia. One thing that has disturbed most of us for a long time is the reluctance of Australian authorities to do more in regard to the water bombing techniques that are used overseas by the use of aircraft such as the CL215, the C130, the DC6 or whatever. Fortunately, at long last experiments have been carried out. But not nearly enough, to my mind, has been done, when one knows full well the conditions that obtain in Australia. I understand that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has a further report to prepare and more research to do to take into account all the data it has received from the experiments which were conducted when the DC6 came into Australia. Australians have been air-minded over the decades and, having the massive bushfire problem that we have, one would have thought that the two would have come together with results long before they have. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Significantly, in the two reports there were 48 recommendations. The Government has accepted 23; it has not accepted one; it has noted 17; and seven have been with comments. One comment was that Defence Force personnel whose base is in bushfire-prone areas are, as a matter of priority, trained mainly in defence. This is a matter that we should bear in mind because our Defence Force is a resource which can be tapped immediately and quickly. Significantly, the recommendation that has not been accepted referred to funding for the CSIRO to do further work. That should be looked at a little bit more closely. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.42) —The 1982-83 bushfires are now part of history. History gives perspective to events, placing them in order of their significance to the life of a particular group, a particular community, a particular nation or the world generally. Consciousness of history is crucial to the quality of any of these entities. Bushfires have been an elemental force in Australian life. Much of our literature expresses the truth of this and it comes out strongly in Henry Lawson's works, for example. The image of the 1982-83 bushfires which has been left most vividly in my mind is the scene it produced along the southern coast of Victoria. I have enjoyed the beauty of that area and, in particular, the beauty of Anglesea. In my view it is unsurpassed anywhere. The change the fire brought to the green covering of the land, making it into a forest of blackened stakes sprouting from a carpet of grey and white ash, was awesome. During the fires farms were reduced, homes were lost and, most tragically, life was forfeited. It is difficult for history to reproduce the drama, the emotion and the immediacy of the human reactions which rear up when the bush is ablaze. Their force abates with time. Investigations into and analyses of the fires tend to discount the emotional profile of their advent. The response of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) is the result of investigations and analyses of the fires taken over time. The report contains recommendations which are crucial to the occurrence and control of future fires. We should act on these recommendations. It would be well if the dramatic experiences which people have as they face the approach of fire become less and less a feature of our history. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.44) —Bushfires are a hot issue, but only when they are burning. At this time of the year bushfires are a menace around the nation and we now pay the price of our inaction during the rest of the year. I highly commend the recommendations of the original report to which the Government is responding. However, I must criticise the Commonwealth Government for its attitude on this matter. The Government says that `the prime carriage rests with the States' and, therefore, the Commonwealth is under no obligation to develop a national body for fighting bushfires. It says there is no obligation to require the armed services to undertake fire-fighting as part of our national defence or even as part of their training. There is an urgent need for us to support a co-ordination at the national level relating to national disasters. I would like to canvass particularly the view that we need a national grid to describe the advance of a fire. It can be used to describe uniquely and accurately the location and motion of a fire so that it is possible to speed up the initial measures to control it and get help immediately into the right area. This would provide us with a better method of monitoring the spread of a fire and enable us to deploy accurately fire-fighters and their supporting personnel. It would also allow us to allow us to stop the types of problems which occur when fire-fighters are caught fighting fires on the ground. Fighting on the ground resulted in the deaths in Victoria in the 1982-83 bushfires. I support Senator Sanders in his proposal for the purchase of the CL215 aircraft. In Canada, which has a large number of forests, this has proven to be a very much safer way of fighting fires. I do not believe the argument that $30m will be saved is a sensible argument when we are talking about the lives of Australians. Australia has a similar problem to Canada, but even more so because most bushfires are aerial fires exploding from treetop to treetop far above the heads of the fighters. These fires can move at very high speeds under the types of meteorological conditions which exist in Australia. The Ash Wednesday fires in Victoria underline the dangers to the ground based fire-fighters. The Victorian Ash Wednesday fires also proved that overhead electricity cables are another cause of bushfires. The current policy of electricity companies all over this land of just lopping the tops of trees close to powerlines is a most short-sighted solution because the trees keep growing and the costs keep growing also. What is required is a routing of power lines away from the trees, preferably underground, as Telecom Australia has been doing with its wires. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to make State instrumentalities actually take some notice of the safety of the Australian community. That is a matter that the Federal Government must take up. Yet it says of this area `the prime carriage rests with the States'. The cost to Australia of bushfires in lives and economic loss and the recurrent costs involved in lopping trees make underground power lines economically and socially desirable, particularly for local transmission in areas with a dense population and dense trees. A Commonwealth grant to assist in the initial cost of this program would be extremely helpful. I believe it would gain a number of votes for whoever introduced it, particularly from people who understand the disasters that can result from bushfires. Another area of bushfire protection which is very costly for the individual States is the maintaining of a civil defence force at all times with large amounts of equipment. It could be possible to save equipment in the States if the Commonwealth Government had available a mobile force of fire-fighting equipment. I believe that funding remains the fundamental problem of bushfire control. We can control it. When it comes it is a national disaster and yet when it is not there we sweep the problem under the table. I believe we have to do something about bushfires as quickly as possible. I recommend action to the Government. This report in no way shows adequate Government concern for this problem. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.47) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The statement of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) which forms the basis of this paper gives us an opportunity to refer to the Australian National University and to its 1984 report. At page 101 of that report is listed the Council of the Australian National University. I would like to use these few moments to say just a little about the service which has been rendered to the Australian National University and to the Council of that university by Peter Elliot Rae, until recently a senator in this place and now, of course, no longer a senator since his resignation. Unlike most people who leave this place, he will hear some nice things said about him while he is alive and well rather than have them delivered at a eulogy at a later date. Peter Elliot Rae not only has given long service to the Senate-he was the fourth longest serving senator at the time of his resignation a couple of weeks ago-but also he represented the Senate on the Council of the Australian National University for many years as one of the four elected parliamentary representatives, along with Senator Zakharov, Dr Klugman and Mr Ruddock. The other members of the Council, particularly the Vice-Chancellor, have told me that Peter Rae as a member of the Council was energetic, a regular attender of the Council meetings, a valued advisor of the University and had a great commitment to the ANU and its interests. He was able to represent the interests of the Parliament and the people when talking to the University and serving on the Council and at the same time was able to represent the interests of the Australian National University when speaking in this Parliament and within his own Party room. I would have no doubt that the other parliamentary representatives similarly try to represent the interests of various parties, depending on whether they are at the ANU or in their own parties. It is yet another fine job which was well done by Peter Rae and I would not want to let this occasion pass without recording the debt we owe him. I am sorry that he is no longer in the Senate; he was a friend as well as a very good senator. Others have spoken in the past few days about the service he rendered to the committee system and the particularly notable service he rendered to two or three committees. In a few days from now I expect that he will be offered a senior Cabinet position in the Tasmanian Government. I am sure that the people of Tasmania will be well served if he brings to that job the same commitment he brought to his service, on behalf of the Parliament, to the Council of the Australian National University. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.52) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This year's report of the Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Commission is a lot more optimistic than the reports of previous years. The Commission has been given extra resources and can now deal a lot more readily with its responsibilities. One problem has been its shuffle between the Attorney-General's Department and other departments. It seems to have been moved about quite a bit. When the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs was wound up in May 1982, the Corporate Affairs Commission was returned to the tender care of the Attorney-General's Department. The computer on which it was developing its information retrieval system went to what is now the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. As a result, all the programs which the Corporate Affairs Commission had been developing had to be rewritten and that has meant a delay of some years before the Commission could automate some of its operations. I only hope that this problem does not recur when eventually the Corporate Affairs Commission is transferred to the Department of Territories, because I believe we must plan to avoid waste. It is interesting that a body whose revenue exceeds its expenditure is being kept back while loss making operations are to be handed over immediately to the Department of Territories and that assets such as the Belconnen Mall are being stripped from the Australian Capital Territory. I believe that we will end up with a self-governing body, if we end up with one at all, which will not have any of these profit making organisations. The specialist nature of the Commission's work is highlighted by the fact that most vacancies are filled internally. People with experience in the Commission's work naturally stand a better chance of promotion than those outside. Two of the points made in the report are worth much wider mention. Firstly, there is a tendency for more documents to be lodged in the place where directors live. Transfer procedures for companies are less strict now than they were and can be processed very much more quickly. Secondly, a lot of voluntary organisations have lost contact with the Commission because the public officer does not notify this change of address, so it is difficult to know exactly where these voluntary organisations are going. No procedure seems to have been developed for following them up. The Associations Incorporations Ordinance 1953 makes it relatively easy for groups to become incorporated to qualify for government grants and so on, but they can then simply become lost in the system. The problem of loss of contract will, I hope, lead to a revision of the Ordinance. I commend the Corporate Affairs Commission on the forthright manner in which it has outlined its problems and the progress it has made on solving them. I believe that we should encourage the presentation of this type of report to Parliament and we should act upon the recommendations of such reports. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.56) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I am particularly interested to move that motion because this report contains a list of research projects funded this year, research projects completed, and research papers completed in the past couple of years. It is a very interesting litany of fascinating research which indicates that a number of people from any number of disciplines have taken their talents for research to a number of questions concerning criminal justice and criminology research which is relevant to the Criminology Research Council. I was particularly interested when I looked through the report to see reported a fairly extensive piece of research which has been completed, which has relevance for the whole Senate, but a particular interest for me. It is called `Group Therapy for Men Violent Towards Their Mates', done by Mr David Wehner, a clinical psychologist, at Clovelly Park Community Health Centre, South Australia. David started some of that research while I was at the Community Health Centre, so I am particularly interested to see the report in this document. It is almost a happy accident that I found it. I notice that Senator Baume is looking interested. I was very pleased to find in such an esoteric document a detailed piece of reporting on that research. It is very interesting because it lists the criteria for the research, the number of people investigated under this research and it gives some pointers to where the research can go in the future. The project entailed an exploration of the causes of spouse abuse; interpretations of why men are violent; why women stay in violent relationships; and the overall extent of the problem in Australia as compared with America. The research project took on an interviewing process after the violent men were identified and had volunteered to participate in the project. There was no requirement on these men to participate; it was, importantly, a voluntary participation. A number of the spouses of these violent men participated also. In the study were 40 men and 31 women. The study gives a profile of the 40 men and some of their characteristics as violent spouses. One of the points I find particularly interesting is that less than 14 per cent of this group of men were perceived by themselves or their partners to have a drinking problem. Both the men and the women agreed that alcohol and violence were not associated, except when both the man and the woman were drinking excessively. In other words, the report seems to suggest that there was no basis for the perception a number of us have, that violent spouses are associated with alcohol, and I think that that is of some significance. Another important characteristic of the violent men was that most were unhappy with their behaviour and remorseful, but that they did not know how to stop the violence. The men were assigned randomly to one of four groups. One group was a transactional analysis group; another focused on behavioural skills building as a form of therapy; a third group was a non-directive intervention; and a fourth was a control or delayed treatment group. The research found that no violence was performed by the men while they were members of the behavioural skills group. These men, more so than any of the members of the other groups, were able to stop their violence and learn alternative ways of handling themselves when they got angry. It has been a very successful little project. The report also says that this work points the way to further research and that we should not too readily draw conclusions from the research. However, the report of course, highlights the optimism which people can take from the research. It is interesting to note the suggestion that a more extensive project should be developed in a southern sector region of the South Australian Health Commission-I do not know whether that has actually been established yet-to look at not only furthering the history of this research project, and in particular promoting behavioural skills as a way of helping violent men, but also existing attitudes and beliefs in the community which allow us to `tolerate if not encourage spouse abuse within the community'. I commend to the Senate the wisdom that is in that little report on domestic violence. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(6.02) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report is produced by the Human Rights Commission chaired by the Hon. Dame Roma Mitchell. This body, which was set up under the Fraser Government, has presented several reports, of which this is one. The Commission has come in for much criticism. In the few seconds that are left in this debate, I simply want to bring to the attention of people the fact that the powers of this body are quite limited. Firstly, it has power to try to effect reconciliation between conflicting parties. Secondly, it has a power to recommend to the Attorney-General steps to be taken in respect of Acts which it thinks transgress the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-the covenant attached to the legislation passed by the Fraser Government. The Commission has performed great work over the years. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Colston)-Order! The time for consideration of government papers has concluded. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. (Quorum formed) Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —I present Report No. 1 of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform entitled `Determining the Entitlement of Federal Territories and New States to Representation in the Commonwealth Parliament', together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ROBERT RAY —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The report that I have just tabled is the first report from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform appointed for this Parliament. It discharges that part of the Committee's order of reference requiring it to inquire into and report on the establishment of fixed formulae for determining the number of senators and members of the House of Representatives to which the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory and other Territories are entitled. The Committee in the previous Parliament commenced this inquiry after the Hon. I. B. C. Wilson, MP, had moved amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1983. His amendments sought to insert fixed formulae in the Commonwealth Electoral Act to determine the entitlement to representation of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory in the Senate and the House. This reflected his concern and that of others on the implications of section 122 of the Constitution which provides in part that `the Parliament may allow the representation of a Territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit'. Earlier, the first Committee on Electoral Reform in its first report had noted `the potential peril, however remote the implementation may be of a Government commanding a majority in both Houses exploiting section 122 by legislating to increase Territory representation in either House to advance its own political ends'. Mr Wilson had also sponsored a resolution at the Australian Constitutional Convention the effect of which, if adopted by the people in a referendum, would have been to amend the Constitution to insert fixed formulae. As an interim measure, pending the Constitutional change that he sought, Mr Wilson proposed that the concept be given effect by the Parliament in the form of provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is these matters which are addressed in the report that I have just tabled. The report considers the three matters mentioned above, namely, amendment of the Electoral Act to provide formulae to determine the entitlement of Federal Territories to representation in both Houses; the outlook for, and desirability of, constitutional amendment to achieve the same end; and the implications for representation of the admission of new States to the Commonwealth. The report also considers the implications for Territory representation of proposals considered by the Constitutional Convention to break the nexus between the size of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Committee has concluded that the entitlement to representation in the Commonwealth Parliament of Federal Territories should be prescribed and not subject to alteration by the Parliament `as it sees fit'. Formulae to achieve this should ultimately be included in the Constitution. Initially the formulae should be enacted as provisions of the Electoral Act. The Committee also concludes that the entitlement of new States to representation in the Senate and the House of Representatives should be prescribed in the Constitution. For a variety of reasons we conclude that it would be premature to submit a proposal to the people concerning the representation of new States and Territories. Further clarification of the issues is needed before an acceptable proposal for change can be formulated. As an interim step, however, the Commonwealth Electoral Act should be amended to give the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory an entitlement to representation in both chambers. Currently any increase or for that matter decrease in entitlement would require a separate amendment to the Electoral Act. Under the Committee's proposal entitlement to representation would be determined automatically by the Electoral Commission when it is conducting its triennial distribution of seats. Other Federal Territories, under our proposal, could become entitled to representation provided that the population of that Territory exceeds more than one-half of a constitutional quota for the election of a State member to the House of Representatives. This would give rise to an entitlement of one member in the House. Until an entitlement to separate representation vests, arrangements should continue to be made to include the people of other Commonwealth Territories in electoral divisions of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Broadly this would mean that the Territories would obtain an entitlement in accordance with their population on similar principles to those applicable to other States. Under our proposal representation in the Senate would also be related to population. The entitlement would be on the basis of one senator for every two members of the House returned from the Territory with a guarantee that the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory would retain at least their existing entitlement. This would mean that the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory would each become entitled to three senators upon becoming entitled to return six members to the House. The report also discusses the representation of new States in the Parliament. The majority of the Committee believe that when the Constitution is amended to provide for the entitlement to representation of Federal Territories the same principles should also be made applicable to the representation of any new State that might be established or admitted. The Constitution deals with this matter in sections 121, 123 and 124 respectively. Section 121 provides that upon such admission or establishment the Parliament may make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament as it sees fit. It is clear from the Convention debates that the founders considered that new States should be admitted to the Federation only on conditions acceptable to the Commonwealth, that is to say, the original States. In summing up the effect of the provision, Quick and Garran state: Under the Constitution of the Commonwealth the Federal Parliament has a free hand in deciding the terms and conditions under which a new Member may be admitted into the Federal family system. It will be at liberty to impose such stipulations as it thinks fit, unhampered by considerations of equality of original States. It would appear to the majority of the Committee that the Constitution ought to contain some limit on the ability of a Commonwealth government to grant statehood. Its `free hand' in this respect should be restrained on the same principles as its free hand on Territory representation is to be restrained. Senator Macklin has dissented on this aspect of the Committee's report. I may comment on that in a later debate. Our proposals for amendments to the Electoral Act are an interim step. In amending the Electoral Act to make provision for the entitlement of the Territories to be determined automatically the Parliament would be relying on the power under section 122. Amendment to the Electoral Act would, of course, not affect the constitutional power itself, and it would still be theoretically possible for an ill-disposed government with control of both chambers to legislate to stack the Parliament. Amendment of the Constitution alone would prevent this possibility. But, if the support of the Parliament can be obtained for the Committee's proposals a significant obstacle will be placed in the way of a government seeking to exploit the Territories' power for electoral advantage. A government seeking to change the process, once these provisions are enacted, would need the support of both Houses. It is some years since a government has been able to rely on Senate support for all its legislative proposals. The deadlock, double dissolution and joint sitting provisions of the Constitution provide additional obstacles that would need to be cleared before such a program could be implemented. If, as we believe, the formulae we propose provide an equitable basis for the representation of the people of the Territories for the foreseeable future, the task of some future government in persuading the Parliament and the people that these arrangements are defective would in itself constitute an obstacle to such a government seeking to replace the provisions with self-interested proposals of its own. In conclusion I would like to thank all the members of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform for the work they have put into this report. Particularly, I would like to pay tribute to Mr Donald Nairn who is Secretary to the Committee and who had a very large input in helping us produce this report. Debate (on motion by Senator Sir John Carrick) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill. Debate resumed from 14 February, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.18) —I will be opposing these Bills and will be voting against them at every opportunity, and in that I will have the support of all my Liberal Party and National Party colleagues. We are opposing these Bills for various reasons. I want to make clear to the Senate this afternoon the two broad groups of reasons why these Bills are unacceptable to me. In the first place, I do not believe that the rights of citizens in Australia can be protected simply by passing a Bill of Rights. I do not believe we can legislate for those sorts of things. I ask the Government to show me where those rights are at risk. Where is the demand that this legislation be introduced? The second ground on which I oppose this legislation is the fact that the Bill itself is so badly drafted. It is so badly drafted that it does nothing at all to preserve the rights of Australians. In fact, it threatens those rights that we have enjoyed for generations since Federation. Even someone who supports the introduction of a Bill of rights for Australians could not support this one if he or she read the Bill. I do not believe that we can legislate for rights in Australia, and in that I share the view of the present Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs. In a recent speech he said: If society is rational and tolerant it does not need a Bill of Rights. If it is not no Bill of Rights will protect it. I agree with those sentiments completely. We are a free and open country, and the rights and freedoms that we have come from two sources. At the Federal level we have a democratically elected Parliament which can be voted out of office, and which is voted out of office, when the public disapproves of what it is doing. The second great support we have is an independent judiciary which administers and interprets the laws made by the Parliament. Lord Wright, in a debate in 1942 in the House of Lords said: But in the Constitution of this country- he was talking of Britain- there are no guaranteed or absolute rights. The safeguard of British liberty is in the good sense of the people and in the system of representative and responsible government which has evolved. Those words can be applied to Australia. We are a free country. We enjoy more personal freedoms, I believe, than any other nation in the world. We are not a fragile society. We are not a newly emerged or newly created nation which has no traditions, no systems and no rule of law. We have all those things. We are the inheritors of a social and cultural system whose origins go back thousands of years. We have made mistakes. We have evolved. We are still evolving new systems, and are adapting those to our needs. The system we have in place has protected since Federation the freedom of individual Australians. I have every confidence in the good sense of the Australian people, operating through freely elected governments and through an independent judiciary, to maintain those freedoms which we all cherish so much. No mature Australian has come forward with a reasoned argument for this Bill. There are no people meeting in front of Parliament House, such as the farmers, turning up in their thousands, protesting about the need for a Bill of Rights. Have you seen them, Mr Acting Deputy President? I have never seen them. That is a very relevant question to ask. For many years now we have had intense propaganda on this matter from the Australian Labor Party. When former Senator Murphy was in this chamber he told us every day of our lives that we needed a Bill of Rights. We have had his accomplice, or his understudy, Senator Gareth Evans, telling us the same thing ever since he has been here. Yet there has never been a protest meeting on the steps of Parliament House of people saying: `Please give us a Bill of Rights'. If one looks carefully and analytically at the legislation that is on the books in Australia one will see that the need for a Bill of Rights cannot be demonstrated. There is no deficiency in the legislative program in Australia which shows the need for it. Finally, there is no risk at all to the present system. No one has demonstrated that what we have in place will not continue into the future. Therefore, in a free society such as this, to legislate for a Bill of Rights is to put the Government in an unfavourable light. It looks as if the Government is trying to hide something. It makes the Government look as if it is wanting to reassure the Australian community as to the legitimacy of its actions. In effect, Mr Hawke and the Attorney-General are saying to the Australian people: `Look, we are not going to take away from you something that you hold dear'. Obviously the Executive of this Government feels that the legitimacy of its actions is viewed with concern by the Australian community and the Government has brought in a Bill of Rights to reassure the Australian community. As a legislator I am opposed, on personal grounds, to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. However, I must say that I recognise that a Bill of Rights is probably inevitable in Australia. Most countries of the world-I am not talking only about the Western democracies here; I am talking about totalitarian regimes; that is, those of the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union-have gone down the path of setting up a Bill of Rights in some form or other. So on those grounds alone I guess that we will get one in this country at some time. Irrespective of which party is in power, we have a regrettable tendency in Australia to follow what is done overseas. We tend to follow 10 or 15 years after it has been done. When the country that has made the move has recognised the errors of the introduction of that legislation and is climbing out of the trough on the other side, we embark on a legislative plan and do not learn from the mistakes of other countries. On those grounds, I guess that some sort of Bill of Rights is inevitable. But, if we are to have a Bill of Rights, for goodness sake let us have one that is effective and adequate to preserve the rights of Australia. That leads me to the second point. This Bill has been hopelessly drafted. It has been intentionally drafted in a hopeless way because the Bill threatens the rights of Australians where it ought to protect. Let me turn to the contents of the Bill. I am not going to be encyclopaedic and dissect every clause. The Liberal Party and the National Party speakers have very adequately and very eloquently dealt with many of the points of this Bill. The assumption should not be made, that those points I have omitted are of lesser or of no importance to me. The points I want to raise seem to me to require a little more emphasis. I start with the beginning of the Bill. I refer to page 9 of the Bill, which deals with Division 2 and Division 3. Honourable senators will see that it deals with various articles under the headings `Equal protection of the law', `Rights of minority groups', `Right of participation in public life', `Freedom of expression', `Freedom of thought and conscience', `Freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief', `Right of peaceful assembly' and `Freedom of association'. Those are very important rights. I am not belittling them in any way at all. They are absolutely fundamental to the way we live. But they do not need to be enshrined in legislation because they have adequate protection in our society at present. As I said earlier, those rights are not at risk. There is nothing on the horizon that will take them from us. We move from the superfluous part, Division 2 and Division 3, to the absurd when we turn to page 12 and come to the Division headed `Life, Liberty and Criminal Process'. Under Article 20 the heading `Slavery and servitude' appears. Article 20 states: No person shall be held in slavery or servitude or be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. When was the last time anyone was held in slavery in Australia? Has it happened since Federation? Under Article 18 and the heading `Right to life' it is stated: Every human being has the inherent right to life and no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. When have we had summary executions in Australia? What is the need to put this sort of nonsense in? There is no place for this in the Australian legislative pattern. What are the omitted fundamental rights of an Australian? They are the right to own property, the right to send one's children to a school of one's own choice, and the right not to join a union. Those rights are very basic to the way we live. They are freedoms we hold dear. There are not too many Australians who would deny themselves or their fellows the right to own property. Yet there is not one word about that in this travesty of a Bill of Rights for Australia. There is not one word because the Labor Party did not want it in as it does not fit in with its socialist, totalitarian dogma. That is why it is not in. That is why this Bill is a badly drafted Bill and why it is irrelevant to the needs of Australia. It is not too much to say that this Bill is a confidence trick when it is called a Bill of Rights. I turn to Part III as outlined at page 14 under the heading `Operation of Bill of Rights'. This part troubles me greatly. It is one of the fundamentals of our legislative system that no parliament can bind its successors. Yet in sub-clause (1) of clause 12 this Bill sets out to say: This section applies to every Act enacted after the enactment of this Act that is, in whole or in part, in conflict with the Bill of Rights. In plain English that means that no parliament can move any legislation which is in conflict with the intent of this proposed Act. I believe that is absolutely untenable. It flies in the face of all the legislative practice of our Parliament. I believe that that will be challenged by someone and taken to the High Court. There is no doubt that the High Court will uphold the invalidity of that part of the proposed Act. But this is not a little slip. This is a very crafty piece of drafting on behalf of Messrs Bowen and Evans. It is very easy for them to get this through and then in the future, in association with their surrogates, the Australian Democrats, they can amend the legislation and move into any field that they so wish. This provision, denying us the right to legislate in the future with any legislation which is contrary to the Australian Bill of Rights, is untenable. We simply cannot bind future Australian parliaments. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 pm. Senator MacGIBBON —Before dinner I was saying that along with my Liberal and National Party colleagues I was totally opposed to this Bill on the grounds that first of all, the rights of Australian citizens are guaranteed by the freely elected legislature which is subject to change, as history has shown, ever since Federation; and secondly, apart from the legislature, we have the support from the judiciary to apply and interpret those laws. The second point of opposition is that this Bill is so badly drafted. I instanced examples of superfluous and absurd matters, such as the prohibition of slavery and of summary execution. I made the point that insofar as the Bill legislates on or proscribes actions in such a way that no future parliament can legislate against its intent, it breaks new ground in legislative practice in Australia and in that sense it is untenable. I foreshadowed a challenge before the High Court which I believe will be upheld. I then moved to the way in which the Bill abolishes the Human Rights Commission, imperfect in action though that body might have been, and creates a new monster, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, to replace it. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission as proposed by this Bill is a non-elected body which has quite enormous powers, powers that are without parallel in a democratic community. This body's powers are comparable to those of some inquisitorial body in a police state. Quite simply, this body is answerable to no-one. If one looks at Part V of the Bill, beginning on page 23, one sees clause 29 which deals with the secrecy of accusers, clause 31 which deals with documents to be declared, clause 33 on compulsory attendance and clause 38 on obstructing or hindering the Commission, which show that this body is being given powers that are quite frightening to anyone who has an interest in democracy. In summary, the Bill that relates to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission provides that witnesses who are called before the Commission must provide under signature any information that it demands. They must produce documents which the Commission may keep for as long as it considers necessary. They must testify under oath in hearings from which the public is excluded. They must disclose facts which may render them liable to criminal penalty. They must do all this without the normal protection of legal representation. They must attend compulsory conferences, again without legal representation. The Commission is given a blanket charter to make its own rules. The most elementary rules of natural justice may be denied to those who are forced to appear before the Commission; namely, the right to be informed of the charges made, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to call evidence and especially the right to have legal representation. While there is no appeal against the Commission's decisions, it may imprison any person who refuses to attend hearings, answer questions, produce documents or be sworn on oath. Is this really Australia in 1986? Those powers are more at home in an Idi Amin type regime. They have absolutely no place at all in a democratic Australia as we have known it. Never since Federation has any government tried to move down that totalitarian path. Why have we gone down that path? Because it is pure socialist doctrine written into law. It is absolutely intolerable for a democracy. Quite clearly under that doctrine we will see the Labor goal of the abolition of the Senate, the setting up of a unicameral legislature and a movement down the path to a one-party state in which we all genuflect before the leader of the time, whether it is Bob Hawke or one of his natural successors. Other speakers have spoken and will speak on the rights of children. I wish to touch on the rights of one minority that has not been mentioned so far-the handicapped. This Bill deals with civil and political rights which are not at risk, as I have pointed out in the earlier part of my speech, but there is nothing in the Bill at all to deal with the economic or social matters which apply to the handicapped. I wish to quote from a speech of a former human rights commissioner, a person of great intellect who, with enormous courage has overcome physical disabilities that would have daunted most of us in this chamber. In a recent speech Dr Chris Gilbert said: Disabled people are mainly concerned with rights of an economic and social nature. We might call these `quality of life' rights. Matters such as the right to medical, social and educational rehabilitation; the right to vocational counselling and training; the right to economic and social security; the right to work; the right to have the needs of the disabled person taken into account at all stages of social and economic planning-these are the kinds of rights that the disabled citizen has the greatest need of. These are the kinds of rights that, speaking generally, the proposed Bill of Rights is not concerned with. That statement is perfectly true. There is nothing in this Bill which helps the physically disadvantaged members of our community. I wish to turn now to one of the matters which relate to the origins of this Bill. The Labor Party makes much of the fact that this Bill is based on an international convention. I guess that if one is running a Labor party or a Labor government and this is the sort of legislation that one wheels up, one must seek the imprimatur of another body to give it some authority and respectability. The Labor Party has leant very heavily on the fact that this legislation is based on an international convention. But there are three important points I wish to make in relation to that charge. The first is that to rely on an international convention is dishonest when it is used to outflank the Constitution of Australia. It is also dishonest in this case because the convention that most people assume applies here is not the one on which the legislation is based. The third point in relation to international conventions is very real in my opinion; that is, that such conventions debase Australia's essential sovereignty and every time we supinely sign some international treaty of a social or political nature we diminish our own authority in this Parliament and diminish the respect which Australians have for us. My first point about the dishonesty of the path the Labor Government is treading is that this Bill outflanks the Constitution. The Constitution is an excellent document which has served Australia very well. It enshrines our freedoms, and freedoms are what we are talking about in this legislation. The Labor Party, for its own reasons, is always wanting to change it and it is a matter of great wonderment in other countries that this should be so. If one talks to an American legislator or to people from other countries with constitutions, one finds that they see their constitution as being the touchstone of their liberty and the way they run their country. They would not tolerate the constant attacks on it or the attempts to change it that we see in Australia all the time. Insofar as this Government is using section 51, clause XXIX, to give itself the external affairs powers, it is outflanking the intent and spirit of the Constitution. It signs an international treaty and then introduces supporting legislation because it has signed the treaty and that legislation overrides anything else. The second point of dishonesty is the fact that the impression is given that this legislation is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. It is not based on that at all. The 1948 declaration recognises the basic human rights and it recognises those rights that we, on this side of the Senate, are very concerned about. But the operative document for this legislation is the 1966 International Covenant of Human Rights. That is a wonderful document that is acceptable to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Libya, Afghanistan and East Germany. It is a document that sits very well with the Labor Party ethos and dogma. The final point I wish to raise in relation to international agreements is the diminution of our sovereignty inherent in the signing of such international treaties. I do not believe that in Australia we have to borrow legislation to govern this country. I am very proud to be an Australian. I have lived a long part of my life overseas and by choice I choose to live in this country. I believe that the freedoms and standards and the way we live in Australia are second to no other country. I do not believe that we have to get a leg up on any sort of legislation by signing any sort of international agreement. If people in other countries want to join us and to follow us so much the better but it is not for us supinely to follow them. What is the future of this Bill? Regrettably I think it will become law because quite clearly a deal has been done by the Australian Democrats to support the Australian Labor Party on this issue. I think it is highly probable that the Labor Party will move to accept the Democrat amendment that seeks to control electoral boundaries in the State parliaments in Australia. That would be a catastrophic abuse of Federal powers. We had the hypocrisy of Senator Haines here earlier with her shrill cries against Queensland and the gerrymander that exists there. Everyone knows there is a gerrymander in Queensland. That rare animal, the thinking National Party voter in Queensland, justifies that gerrymander on the basis that he believes that the country vote deserves more value than the city vote. I can respect that argument. Neither I nor my party agree with it. I believe that in a democratic society one should have as near as possible one vote one value. However, for Senator Haines to get up here and rail against Queensland and its gerrymander while being party to a bigger gerrymander insofar as she is a member of the Australian Democrats really is the height of hypocrisy. Senator Haines and her seven colleagues are in here on a base vote of around 7 per cent of the Australian community. The Australian Democrats elected as senators represent about 7 per cent of the Australian community yet they boast of, and actually do, hold the balance of power; they hold the other 93 per cent of the Australian community to ransom from their 7 per cent base. If we are to talk about gerrymanders that is the first point we ought to start from. We should clear up that anomaly before we start moving into fields which are purely a matter for the people of Queensland. If the Labor Party picks up that amendment of the Democrats I forecast the greatest fight in this country since Federation. It is a fight which the Labor Party will lose because it is up to us as residents of Queensland to fix up the problems we have there. It is not up to an overbearing Federal Government to move in to try to clean it up. Senator Zakharov —Why don't you do it then? When are you going to start? Senator MacGIBBON —If the honourable senator comes up to Queensland and helps the Liberal Party it will be fixed in pretty quick time. As I wind up I am conscious that I have left out many important points in this legislation. The Bill is unnecessary. The Bill is unconstitutional. It threatens rather than protects the rights of the Australian citizen. Insofar as it sets up that horrendous body the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission it takes us down the darkest paths of government that we have ever seen. It leaves out the important right to own property, the right to send our children to a school of our choice and the right not to join a union. The Opposition is totally opposed to this Bill. For those few members of the Labor Party who are in here, and the even fewer who will be able to follow what I am going to say, I give them this to think about: It is a Government's role to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizen, not to grant them. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.14) —I rise to speak on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill to which have been foreshadowed amendments by the Opposition relating to the right not to join a trade union or association, rights in respect of education, the right in respect of property and the right in respect of scientific research and creative activity. I have read a great deal about this matter. I have read every word that has been spoken in this chamber on this subject in this debate. I listened attentively to what was said by the previous speaker. I have read and studied the foreshadowed amendments of the Opposition. It is my intention to vote against the Bill and to vote against at least two of the amendments of the Opposition. Some time ago I spoke about the problems of instituting a Bill of Rights in Australia. I suppose I was one of the very few parliamentarians at that time to have written about the matter because, as has been said in this debate, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was the creature of the then Fraser Government. To be fair to the government of that day it did not intend that the legislation would be clothed with the powers which it is now intended to be; nevertheless, Blind Freddie could have seen that that would have been the ultimate objective both of the Human Rights Commission and of any successive government. What is wrong with a Bill of Rights in general terms? What is wrong with a Bill of Rights is that the whole concept is not clearly established or put to the people of Australia. Indeed, it has been repeated time and again in this chamber that insofar as this Bill of Rights is concerned there has been a great deal of secrecy and furtiveness on behalf of the Government to keep the Bill and its contents and actual meaning away from the public. Today if one goes into the Australian Government Publishing Service in Hobart in Tasmania one cannot even get a copy of the Bill of Rights. The list of people trying to get a copy of the Bill of Rights is as long as your arm. Is that democracy? Of course it is not democracy. The Government unfortunately has attempted to hide not only what was proposed in the Bill of Rights-I remember questioning Senator Gareth Evans constantly here about that-but also the Government has refused to tell the people what the ramifications of a Bill of Rights are. People might get the Bill but may not understand the ramifications. So far as people's rights are concerned the provisions in the Bill are unexceptionable if they are read as any normal person would read them. However, if one has regard to what has happened in other countries and to the fact that excessive individualism has at times created problems for society as a whole because of certain Bill of Rights provisions in other countries one will see what I mean. Before anyone endorses the Government's Bill of Rights they should look carefully at the fine print. They should have the opportunity and the time to do that. Also Ministers should be available to travel around the countryside describing precisely what the Bill will do and what ramifications it will have. As I wrote years ago: People are entitled to be concerned that the Bill of Rights strikes at the principle of near democracy and further undermines the rights of electors. They should be concerned if it extends the scope of non-elected persons to impose on the Australian people in effect what are non-parliamentary laws relating to cherished values and social and community standards. This Bill will disturb the fine balance of powers between the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature. Effectively, it will usurp the role of elected parliamentarians to ensure that the contents and ultimately the administration of laws safeguard human rights. It will effectively deny to the people their ultimate sanction-that is, the sanction of the ballot box-over those to whom this Bill will give the power to make value-interpretative judgments which will have or could have significant social ramifications. This Bill has the potential to deny to certain human beings their fundamental human rights. If the individualism and privatisation inherent in this Bill are taken to excess, it will have the potential to undermine the values upon which our society is founded and which provide the cohesive force of the law. What are rights? What are human rights? How are they to be distinguished from claims that are made when one's interests are threatened? I think we all know what human rights are. A number of people have talked during the various debates on this matter about the United States experience. Many of them forget the words of the free-thinking Thomas Jefferson who said: . . . the only firm basis of a nation's liberties is a conviction in the minds of people that their liberties are the gift of God. The same idea was expressed by Jefferson's rival, Alexander Hamilton, who said: The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for amongst old parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. The situation in the United States has changed somewhat. In certain respects, the excessive individualism in that country has threatened concepts of the common good. I cite as an example the striking down of a number of obscenity and anti-pornography laws in the United States as a result of an appeal by the pornographers to their rights under the American Bill of Rights. That is just one example. We know that liberty is not the natural state of a bruised mankind, but it should be the obligation of the organised state and the organised society to ensure it. The ideal society is one in which the practice of good and what is beneficial is made easy, but free; and where an atmosphere is encouraged so that people are encouraged to choose what is good or what is better. For example, the taxation laws of a country should not force both parents out to work in order that a family can live with some degree of dignity and economic security. At the moment, the taxation laws do not do that. Another example is that taxation laws of a country provide taxation concessions to those who contribute to charitable causes. If the individualism and the privatisation inherent in this Bill are taken to excess, it has the potential to undermine essential societal values. I shall give a couple of examples. I believe that it is imperative that the Minister speaking on behalf of the Government refer to these at the Committee stage of the debate because of the operation of the Acts Interpretation Act and because what is said in this Parliament by a responsible Minister is to be taken into consideration in the administration of the law. Let me give the Senate two examples among many. I note that Article 6 of the Bill states in part that every Australian citizen has the right: . . . to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors . . . I wonder whether the group system of voting in the Senate truly meets that test. Senator Aulich —Oh, yes! That's why I am here. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Aulich says that it truly meets the test. The first test of a democratic system of voting is that it truly reflects the intentions of the voters. Let us look at what happened in Tasmania, where workers in the pulp and paper industry and the woodchip industry put a No. 1 for the Australian Labor Party in the box on their ballot papers. Those to whom I have spoken did not know that by so doing they would elect Senator Sanders. It will be very interesting to see whether that system meets the test. I am being diverted, even though that question is pretty relevant! I come back to Article 6 which states in part: Every Australian citizen has the right and shall have the opportunity- . . . . (c) to have access on general terms of equality to public employment. How will that redress the discrimination that has taken place with regard to youth employment in the Public Service? I have been calling on the Government to redress that situation whereby employment of youth in the Public Service has fallen from 23.6 per cent in 1969 to 6.3 per cent today. Will Article 6 (c) affect the Public Service Board when it tries to put on a youth and someone who is better qualified fronts up and says: `Here, put me on under Article 6 (c)'? What about a homosexual teacher in a public school? He would be entitled to `general terms of equality' with regard to employment in the Public Service. Article 7 states: Every person has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press and other media of communication, and the freedom to seek, receive and impart ideas or information of any kind in any form, without interference and regardless of frontiers. What will such excessive individualism do to the basic values upon which our society is founded? This Bill is an anti-union Bill. Any dinkum trade unionist-- Senator Aulich —How? Senator HARRADINE —Let me just show the Senate how it is an anti-union Bill. Any dinkum trade unionist ought to reject this Bill, particularly that part of it dealing with the freedom of association. It states: Every person has the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of that person's interests. Senator Haines said that she had been given some advice that the positive also implies the negative. In other words, if the freedom of association and joining of a union is included in the Bill, the reverse is the fact as well; the freedom not to join a union is included as well. I do not accept that. Nevertheless, the Opposition will move an amendment-and Senator Haines on behalf of the Democrats has said that she will accept a streamlined version of that amendment-to ensure that what is included in this part of the Bill is the right of a person not to join a union. That is a fundamental attack on the principle of trade unionism. All of those preference clauses-I think there are 300-odd-in Federal awards will be wiped out overnight. Senator Sir John Carrick —I hope so. Senator HARRADINE —Somebody said: `I hope so'. Senator Zakharov —If she is right. Senator HARRADINE —No, not if she is right; if it is carried here. That is a threat to orderly industrial progress. Senator Aulich —Do you mean if their amendment is carried? Senator HARRADINE —The amendment will open the way or the very inclusion of this article will open the way for any successive government to amend the Bill and include the anti-union amendment. In my view it is a disgraceful thing for a Labor government to have opened the way for that possibility. Why did the Government not leave the right under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? It might be said, and it is true, that when this matter was dealt with by the United Nations it was clearly understood that it did not refer to the right not to join a union. If the head of power in this Bill were only the external affairs head of power, of course the possibility is that the amendment would be invalidated at some stage. But I cannot see anywhere in the Bill a provision which specifically excludes all the other heads of power. So, in respect of Commonwealth awards, this is a threat to preference for unionists. That is what I say about the excessive individualism and privatisation of this measure and the effect that it will have on societal formations and values. I have always upheld the right of persons not to join a union if they have a conscientious objection based on religious grounds. That is not contained in the amendment and presumably that is not what the Democrats will go along with. As I say, I have always believed in the right of individuals, if they have a genuine conscientious objection based on religious grounds, to be exempted and that is the trade union movement's attitude. But this Bill will mean the demise of all preference clauses. The second point that I made was that the Bill has the potential to deny to certain human beings their fundamental rights. I am talking about the fundamental right to life. Why was the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights changed? Why were its terms changed? I will deal with that point in the Committee stage. I do not have time to deal with it now. The International Covenant states: Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. What does the Bill state in this regard? It is almost precisely the same except that is says `every person'. This Bill, of course, applies to natural persons. Unfortunately, in various laws in the Commonwealth natural person means after birth. There is, therefore, the potential for the destruction of the right to life of the unborn child. I am interested to see that there is nothing in this Bill of Rights which protects a pregnant woman from a death sentence. There is nothing of that kind in the Bill, although it is contained in the International Covenant. Why is it not contained in the Bill? If I were to go one step further and move the amendment I would be inclined to move that no person shall receive a sentence of death. Senator Ryan —Nobody does in Australia. There is no capital punishment. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Ryan says that there is no capital punishment. Let us go through a few of the other points. What Senator Ryan said was very interesting. On each of these occasions she would have to prove to the Senate-if her basis for including things or excluding them is that these rights do not exist in Australia or that they are already protected in Australia-that if they are already protected in Australia they are not included in the Bill. She would have to state in the Committee stage, with regard to every one of these articles, whether they are not protected in Australia. I will remind her about that. As I said, the Bill effectively denies to the people their ultimate sanction over those who, by this Bill, are given the power to make interpretive value judgments which could have significant social ramifications. What will happen because of this Bill is that a non-elected, non-judicial Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission will usurp the responsibilities of the elected Parliament. This Bill deals with equal protection of the law and equality before the law; namely, the content of the law and the administration of the law. This Parliament-we, the elected representatives of the people-surely have the responsibility to ensure that the content of the law does not transgress human rights. After all, why do we have the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations? Why do we have the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills? Why do we have the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs? Why do we have a Senate? Should it all be handed over to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission? Honourable senators should look at what Odgers says about the responsibility of this place, the review chamber, in respect of human rights to ensure that the content of law is safeguarded. We should ensure not only that the content of law is safeguarded, but also the administration of the law. I am the first to admit that we cannot possibly take every complaint of persons who feel that they have not been treated equally under the law by the administration of the law. But I put it to the Senate that it is very strange that this Bill establishes a bureaucratic structure, and executive structure formed by the Executive Government, to vet executive decisions. If it vets those executive decisions it may be said that it has no real power to determine absolutely whether the content of the law or the administration of the law transgresses human rights. It has got awfully strong persuasive powers which strike, in many instances, against the very rights that this Bill seeks to uphold. Again, that will be elaborated on at the Committee stage. I believe that the Human Rights Commission is the body least capable of dealing with this matter. I will refer in the Committee stage to its occasional paper No. 10, on the management of defective newborn children where it proposes to take away the right to life of those children and provide a system of euthanasia. That is in the Human Rights Commission's occasional paper No. 10. I suggest that honourable senators get this paper and read it. It is very interesting. The Human Rights Commission's kit for schools will get a run around the course in the Committee stage as to what it says about the traditional family. I refer to the question of clothing the courts with power. To ensure that the courts are required to deal with questions emanating from this Bill is to give them enormous powers and to disturb the balance between the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature. The courts are required to determine, when it is raised, whether the laws are in accordance with the articles of the Bill of Rights. But they are to do so `subject only to such reasonable limitations prescribed by law as can demonstrably justify it in a free and democratic society'. I point out to the Senate that our own Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee stated that that is `an overt political criterion'. It is an overt political criterion; there is no doubt about that. I mean no disrespect to the judges at all but when a question was raised about whether it is proper to give over to a non-elected judiciary what truly ought to be the rights and responsibilities of a parliament, somebody said in answer to that question in the debate: `Oh, that is terrible. You are reflecting on the judiciary'. I helped organise the Thomas More quincentenary celebrations in Tasmania. Sir Stanley Burbury who was formerly Chief Justice of Tasmania and Governor of that State, said in his occasional address: I do not wish to be misunderstood when I say that I do not think it possible to establish a Court which we could trust with such a solemn judicial task. That is the interpretation of a Bill of Rights. He continued: The interpretation and application by any Court of fundamental laws necessarily expressed in wide general terms leaves an immense area for the exercise of judicial discretion and for sharp differences of opinion between judges . . . Nor can many decisions in this area be based on bare legal reasoning. The personal attributes of the judge will often be stronger factors in moulding his opinion-his social, religious, political, philosophical and cultural background and beliefs. Complete objectivity is impossible. Judges who are entrusted with the solemn task of judicial review of Acts of Parliament to determine whether they should be declared void as infringing fundamental laws inevitably become legislators; legislators who are beyond the control of the democratic will . . . I leave it at that. Those words, coming from a judge, should be seriously considered by this chamber. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(8.45) —Tonight the Senate is debating cognately four Bills-the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill 1985, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 and the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985. It had not been my intention to speak during the second reading debate on these four Bills, yet I consider now that I must make a contribution following some outrageous statements which were made by one particular speaker. I suppose there have been some outrageous statements made by many speakers and I should imagine there will be more outrageous statements to be made before this debate is completed. In particular, last Friday the Senate was subjected to some vintage boisterous Boswell baloney. Like many of his Party colleagues in Queensland, he tries to prove that white is black and brands anyone who disagrees as a left winger or an Australian Democrat. Some of his remarks cannot go unchallenged. It is always interesting to hear Senator Boswell attempting to defend the indefensible. Since the Queensland redistribution of boundaries occurred late last year, our National Party colleague has claimed that Queensland has a satisfactory set of electoral boundaries. Different zonal quotas and vastly differing enrolments within and between zones are of no concern to the close confidant of the small town Marcos. What does Senator Boswell do? He goes on the offensive, brings forward some spurious quote proudly but incorrectly claiming that he has reached a stage of quod erat demonstrandum, and attacks as left wingers, Democrats or both anyone who fails to agree with his so-called proof. For instance, in his speech last Friday he quoted an academic finding relating to distributions in 1972 and 1977. I always knew the National Party in Queensland was behind the times, but I did not think it was eight or nine years behind. For the good senator's information, there was a redistribution last year and the gazettal of the final boundaries after objections were considered was made early this year. So it is this redistribution which should be considered if there is a need to determine whether Queensland has a fair redistribution. I intend to make the necessary analysis because it is pertinent to the Bills we have under discussion, especially to Article 6 of the Bill of Rights Bill. Article 6 of the Bill is based on Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 25 states: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country. Article 6 in the Australian Bill of Rights Bill follows very closely. It states: Right to participation in public life. Every Australian citizen has the right and shall have the opportunity- (a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; and (c) to have access on general terms of equality to public employment My remarks will be related, in particular, to paragraph (b), namely: To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage . . . In particular I will be speaking about the equal suffrage aspect. Before speaking about the electoral redistribution in Queensland, however, I should make my position clear on a couple of matters. I have steadfastly held that Federal legislation is necessary to rid Australia of rigged boundaries at the State levels. There is no justification for electoral cheating anywhere. In a country such as Australia, which claims to uphold the principles of democracy, it should not be contemplated that electoral cheating could be a factor to be given even a passing thought. But in terms of malapportioned electorates and classic gerrymanders, it is a problem at the State level. I mention also that it is an equally severe, or maybe a more severe, problem at the local authority level. This too is an area which must be given attention by those who know that the best interests of democracy will be served in Australia by a one vote one value electoral system. If the Bill of Rights, which is one of the Bills under consideration, can be amended to counter the cavalier way in which electoral boundaries are grossly malapportioned by some State governments, those amendments should be supported. Of course we will have people such as the Senator Boswells of this country bleating about States rights, but do they ever consider the rights of the citizens in those individual States? Of course they do not. The one vote one value principle does not suit their political purposes and therefore, according to them, it must be a left wing or Democrats plot to undermine agrarian socialists. If this Bill is not passed, or if it is passed in a form which does not allow a challenge to be made to malapportioned State electorates, I will consider introducing a Bill to do just that. I have such a Bill prepared and I believe that it would gain sufficient support to become an Act of Parliament. What is really needed is a provision in the Australian Constitution to enshrine the principle of one vote one value for elections in this country. It will not be an easy task to have the Constitution altered in this way. We know how many amendments to the Constitution have been proposed and how few have been passed by the people of Australia. If such a provision were inserted in the Constitution, it would be next to impossible for any future maverick government to have the provision removed. I think that that is the situation at which we should be aiming, but if we cannot aim at that situation at the moment, we should be looking towards this Bill to outlaw some of the unjust electoral systems that we have in the States-in particular I refer to Queensland, being an elected representative of that State. In case it is claimed that I am crying wolf about malapportioned electoral boundaries in Queensland, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows the extent of deviation from average enrolments of electorates in the various States. Leave granted. The table read as follows- STATE AND TERRITORY PARLIAMENTS Variation from Average Enrolment Year 10% 10% to 20% 20%+ Total New South Wales- Legislative Assembly... 1984 78 18 3 99 Victoria- Legislative Assembly... 1985 88 . . . . 88 Legislative Council... 1985 22 . . . . 22 Queensland- Legislative Assembly... 1985 22 36 31 89 South Australia- House of Assembly... 1985 45 2 . . 47 Western Australia- Legislative Assembly... 1986 4 13 40 57 Legislative Council... 1986 . . . . 17 17 Tasmania- House of Assembly... 1986 5 . . . . 5 Legislative Council... 1986 10 5 4 19 Northern Territory- House of Assembly... 1983 20 4 1 25 Senator COLSTON —This table indicates the number of electorates which vary by less than 10 per cent from average enrolment, by between 10 and 20 per cent, and by over 20 per cent. It is generally accepted by a wide cross-section of the community that a variation of 10 per cent or less from average is acceptable in terms of one vote-one value. This table indicates that in New South Wales 18 of the 99 Legislative Assembly seats vary from average enrolment by 10 and 20 per cent. Three seats have a variation of greater than 20 per cent. The New South Wales Legislative Council is not mentioned in the table because Councillors are elected on a State-wide basis. Victoria has an excellent record. Each of its 88 Legislative Assembly seats varies by less than 10 per cent from average, as do each of its 22 Legislative Council seats. I move on to Queensland. From comments that have been made in this chamber over recent years, it is no surprise that the situation in Queensland is quite different from that which I have just mentioned in Victoria. Thirty-six of the 89 seats in the Legislative Assembly vary by between 10 and 20 per cent from average enrolment for the State. A further 31 seats vary by greater than 20 per cent. In the South Australian House of Assembly all but two electorates have a variation of less than 10 per cent from the average enrolment in that State. The other two fall in the range of 10 to 20 per cent. The Legislative Council in South Australia does not appear in the table because Legislative Councillors in that State are elected for the State as one electorate. The next State in the table is Western Australia. The Western Australian Legislative Assembly appears to be grossly malapportioned. Only four of the 57 seats vary by less than 10 per cent from average enrolment. Thirteen seats are in the range of 10 to 20 per cent and a massive 40 seats vary by greater than 20 per cent from average. The Legislative Council in that State has 17 seats, each of which varies by greater than 20 per cent from the average enrolment. The record in the House of Assembly in Tasmania is excellent, principally because the multi-member electorates are based on the five Federal electorates in that State. The situation in the Legislative Council in Tasmania, however, is quite different. Ten of the 19 seats vary by less than 10 per cent; five are in the 10 to 20 per cent bracket; and four vary by greater than 20 per cent from the average enrolment. In the Northern Territory House of Assembly there are 25 seats, 20 of which vary by less than 10 per cent from the average; four are in the 10 to 20 per cent range; and one varies by greater than 20 per cent from average enrolment. The figures in this table clearly indicate that the one vote one value principle is not being pursued with any vigour in some States. The two States with the worst examples are Queensland and Western Australia. As a senator for Queensland, and because Senator Boswell has defended the system in that State, I will concentrate my remaining remarks on the latest redistribution in that State. It is important that these matters be discussed because of the suggestion that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill could be used to ensure electoral equality in the States and Territories. On 14 November last I incorporated in Hansard a table which indicated the number of electors in various zones in Queensland. That table is in Hansard, but as it is pertinent to my argument at this stage, I seek leave to have it incorporated again. Leave granted. The table read as follows- QUEENSLAND ZONAL SYSTEM-1985 Redistribution Zone Number of Seats Average Number of Voters Per Seat South-East... 51 19,357 Provincial Cities... 13 18,292 Country... 17 13,131 Western and Far Northern... 8 9,386 Total... 89 17,116 Note: The average number of voters is based on 31 December 1984 data used by the Redistribution Commission. Senator COLSTON —Since the table was incorporated originally there have been some minor changes to electoral enrolments because of the consideration of objections to the original redistribution. However, none of the figures for the various zones have changed because any alterations were made within the zones themselves. It can be seen from this table that the average number of voters in the south-east zone is 19,357. In the provincial city zone the quota is lower; 18,292. In the country zone the quota drops further to 13,131 and in the western and far northern zone the quota is 9,386. Therefore we go down from 19,000 to 18,000 to 13,000 to 9,000. That is a grossly malapportioned electoral system. A vote in the western and far northern zone is worth more than twice as much as a vote in the southern zone and almost twice that of a vote in the provincial city zone. The principal effect of having zones is to produce a malapportioned electoral system. Nevertheless, the zonal system could be regarded as a gerrymander in its own right. The system reduces the value of some citizens' votes and increases the value of others. Almost all of the electorates where the value of a vote has been enhanced by the zonal system are held by members of the ruling National Party of Australia. The zonal system, together with its unequal weighting of electors between zones, is a deliberate attempt to corrupt the electoral system in Queensland. The corruption, however, goes further than this. An additional system of gerrymander overlays the zonal system. I have previously outlined the manipulation of boundaries which occurred with the Aboriginal community of Wujal Wujal in far north Queensland. Wujal Wujal was transferred by an Act of parliament to the western and far northern zone from the provincial city zone electorate held by the Queensland Minister, Mr Tenni. Wujal Wujal is now a land-locked island wholly surrounded by Mr Tenni's electorate, but not part of it. Mr Tenni said he was sorry to lose Wujal Wujal but I dare say he was only shedding crocodile tears. Just over 60 per cent of Wujal Wujal voters cast their vote for the Australian Labor Party at the last State election. While speaking of far north Queensland, it is worth noting that Mt Isa is an electorate within the western and far northern zone. The average number of voters in this zone is 9,386. Mt Isa, however, has an enrolment of more than 35 per cent greater than that-12,678. It is no coincidence that Mr Isa is held by the Australian Labor Party and the higher quota enrolment locks Labor votes in and makes other electorates safer for the National Party. I must also mention the degree of malapportionment within the provincial city zones. Five different areas are treated separately, namely: Bundaberg, central Queensland, Townsville, Cairns and Mackay. The average enrolments in these areas vary. Of the 13 electorates in this zone, the highest enrolment is 20,520 and the lowest is 14,730. I believe that these are sufficiently close to indicate that the electoral system in Queensland could by no stretch of the imagination be regarded as a fair one. For the Senator Boswells of Queensland to suggest otherwise is to live in fairyland. c I must say something about the comments that were made earlier in the debate by Senator MacGibbon. Senator MacGibbon said that it is up to us as residents of Queensland to fix the system. By far the best solution would be to have the residents of Queensland fix up the system. But will that ever happen? In this respect the Liberals are as weak as dishwater. What did they do when they were in coalition in Queensland? They buckled under the National Party and did absolutely nothing. The Australian Labor Party said to the Liberal Party time after time prior to the last election that if they joined with it in the State Parliament it would bring down a fair redistribution. But what did the Liberals do? They would not even consider the matter. So they are as weak as dishwater. It would be great if we could get together as political parties and make sure that we had a decent redistribution in Queensland. However, as I said, the Liberals are not interested. What would happen if by some strange chance they went into coalition once again after the next election? I predict that again they would do absolutely nothing about the electoral system in Queensland because they would be interested in staying in government and not rocking the boat. I must put paid to the claim that the Liberals would do anything in Queensland to rectify the current situation. It is most unfortunate to have to say that. I would have thought that the Liberal Party was interested in electoral justice. Apparently that is not the case in Queensland. Let me put to rest another argument proposed by Senator Boswell last Friday and again in a notice of motion he put down in the Senate today. Senator Boswell conveniently lumped together the National and Liberal vote from the last State election to defend the election of a one-party National Government. For a start, he should remember that about 25 per cent of Liberals in Queensland would not give a preference to the Nationals in a fit. His arithmetic is thus based on a false premise. Secondly, he tends to forget that 61 per cent of the Queensland electorate voted against the Nationals. Yet, they still end up as a government in their own right. If ever there was an example which cried out for Federal action, this must be it. I have concentrated on Article 6 in the Australian Bill of Rights because I believe that it is one of the important aspects that we should address as a Federal Parliament. Queensland and, I dare say Western Australia-although I will let the Western Australians speak about this themselves-will not see any major change without this Federal Government taking some leadership and protecting the rights of the citizens in those States. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(9.05) —I tend to think that we should get the debate back to the matter before the Senate-the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. The message that must go out to the people of Australia is very simple and very serious. It is that Australia simply does not need a Bill of Rights; it most certainly does not need a selective and destructive catalogue of so-called rights; and least of all should we entrust any authority to a commission. My opposition as a Liberal to these Bills is not based on a total rejection of the concept of a charter of rights overriding some powers of a legislature. There would be some value in a declaratory statement of rights to bind together a society suffering from deep community trauma. Senator Reynolds —We are in Queensland. Senator KNOWLES —A Bill of Rights supported by both communities would make sense in Northern Ireland. If Senator Reynolds can associate herself with Northern Ireland, good luck to her. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is largely directed to the solution of Canada's linguistic and cultural divisions. For all its diversity, Australian society has no comparable divisions. Moreover, unlike the United States of America, Ministers are directly responsible to our State and Federal parliaments. Unlike Great Britain, a written constitution limits the powers of parliament. I emphasise that a Bill of Rights cannot guarantee or enhance our freedom. Freedoms in our society have been developed and safeguarded by the empirical wisdom of common law. Has the existence of a Bill of Rights in the Soviet Union or South Africa, for example, done anything for human rights in those nations? The whole argument was summarised superbly way back in September 1981 by Sir Harry Gibbs when he said: If society is tolerant and rational, it does not need a Bill of Rights. If it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it. The Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrat senators who mean to afflict us with this legislation would be hard put to claim that it reflects deep-seated pressure from ordinary Australians. When I talk to people I find that they want efficient management and less tax and regulation from government. They are getting all of that in large doses in increases from this Government. The more they are aware of this legislation, the more concerned they become. If Labor senators and the Democrats cannot see what is happening by the volume of mail alone and public opinion, I feel very sorry for them. I know that Senator Haines, for example, could not care less about what the community has said on this Bill. In a speech the other day she said: . . . I have never before run into so much misinformation that has been spread around the community about any piece of legislation . . . She went on to say: Sadly, they are often masquerading as Christians. She further went on to say: . . . peddling lies and stirring up fear in the minds of ordinary, honest, reasonable people in the community. It just goes to show how much Senator Haines, in the whole emotional hyperbole she went on with at length on Friday, cares about what real Australians think of this so-called Bill of Rights. The Australian Bill of Rights in fact reflects only the values of a self-proclaimed, self-serving cultural elite. This legislation is a monument, not to the cause of personal liberty but to its reverse-state interventionism and social engineering. The essential hypocrisy and dishonesty of this Bill is encapsulated in the fact that it has not been put before the people of Australia as an amendment to the Constitution. The ALP and the Democrats, of course, know full well what the result of such a referendum would be. The electors would simply reject it. They do not have the nerve to go before the Australian public and justify their selective list of rights. It is as simple as that-they do not have the nerve. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its exposure report on a Bill of Rights for Australia noted that `there is no prospect in the foreseeable future' of any such proposal being passed in the referendum. How ironic that those who are intent on using the Bill of Rights to impose their idea of democracy on State parliaments should be at pains to avoid the democratic vote of the Australian people. We can appreciate that their strategy is to impose the Bill of Rights by these indirect means in order to soften up the electorate for radical change later on. And mark my words, radical change it will be! The Democrats and this Labor socialist Government are committed to that type of change. The crude and immediate political objective of this legislation is to break the remaining autonomous powers of State parliaments. Do not be misled at all by that. Unfortunately the Australian Democrats do hold the balance of power in this place. Senator Haines once said on Friday that: `The legislation ought to be extended to States so that States and their bureaucracies cannot trample over them. Therefore, let us try to wipe out the States'. Through Article 6 of the Bill of Rights and through the investigative powers of the Human Rights Commission we have problems in the States. We should not for one moment be impressed or grateful that the Bill of Rights does not as yet apply directly to the States. The fact that the Human Rights Commission will have the power under clause 27 to investigate State legislation under ministerial discretion shows that it will be used to coerce the States. The threat is implicit that if they do not co-operate the Act will be amended to apply the Bill of Rights in total to the States. On 26 November the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) expressed his eagerness for the Human Rights Commission to report on the Queensland and Western Australian electoral systems, after which he foreshadowed legislation pursuant to the international covenant in order to compel the States to have equal size electorates. We have been warned. Let us take on that warning; let us heed it. This legislation is to be the means whereby the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats-I should put them all as one and the same-will dictate to the State parliaments what their electoral systems will be. Once a parliament ceases to have the right to determine its own electoral ground rules, its legislative autonomy is finished. It will have as much autonomy as a shire council. It might as well close up shop. Mind you, closing up shop, of course, is the long term objective of the Hawke socialist Government and the Democrats. Article 6 of the Bill of Rights, insisting that elections guarantee `the free expression of the will of the electors', is intruding into an essentially subjective area. We should note that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms avoids making any such guarantee. The fact is that, while we can guarantee that an election is honestly conducted, there is no true way of ensuring that the wishes of the electorate will be faithfully mirrored in the political composition of an elected House of parliament. Because a parliament chooses to have electorates of different enrolments does not of itself mean that the election results are any less likely to give a party or a coalition most acceptable to 50 per cent of the voters a majority of seats. The term `one vote one value' used in the explanatory memorandum is meaningless and just a stupid catch phrase that illustrates the shallow hypocrisy of this Bill. Can somebody explain to me how an ALP vote in the seat of Curtin in Western Australia will ever have the same value as an ALP vote in the marginal seat of Stirling or a blue ribbon seat like Fremantle no matter whether these seats have equal enrolments.' This inane and witless slogan is to be the excuse for the destruction of our State parliaments. We have just heard Senator Colston, who has not had the courtesy to remain in the chamber, talk at length about the Queensland Parliament and the Queensland electoral system. Yet the other day the Labor Party held a meeting to decide to firm up the Bill of Rights. The Committee recommended that the Bill be altered to give the Commonwealth power to override State electoral laws if they did not provide for fair elections. We have just heard Senator Colston go on at length about how that should happen. Yet at that very meeting last week he saw fit to abstain from voting. So much for what we can hear from the Government side on this important issue. As a Liberal and a federalist it is anathema to me that legislation of this Parliament should have the potential to override State parliaments on such a basic matter. Passing from this most blatantly partisan objective of the legislation, I must now examine how the 32 Articles of the Bill of Rights protect or enhance our personal liberty. The short answer to that, of course, is that they do not. They fail to safeguard freedom because they are selective and at times carefully limited. One omission alone renders this Bill of Rights useless and morally bankrupt. There is no guarantee of the right to private property. Without this right all other rights and freedoms become meaningless because they cannot effectively be exercised. It underpins the right to engage in commerce, for example, and is the platform for a whole range of social activity. We would be totally dependent on the state if we were denied the right to hold property and to use it productively, and as such we simply would not be free. To quote Professor Alice Tay: Property is that which a man has a right to use and enjoy without interference: It is what makes him a person and guarantees his independence and security. Senator Sanders —Are you saying that property is more important than people? Senator Zakharov —Obviously, yes. Senator KNOWLES —Obviously, the Democrats and the Government do not want this freedom that we should have as an inherent right, to own private property. They are quite happy to do that. It is not surprising that a socialist government wants to negate this essential source of personal liberty. We have been hearing interjections ad infinitum from both the Government and the Democrats implying that they want to do away with it. So let there be no mistake that they are trying to take away this essential source of personal liberty. Equally, it is convenient for them to base this legislation on the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is careful to omit this essential human right. Not that we should be surprised that an organisation comprised mainly of nations with a vested interest in maintaining state control over their populations should wish to ignore the basis of personal freedom. Significantly, the right to property was recognised originally in Article 17 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but omitted from later covenants as the numbers of Marxist and authoritarian nations grew in the United Nations. However, the 1961 European Convention on Human Rights does recognise the right to property, reflecting the values of Western democratic nations. Yet the ALP and the Democrats prefer to link Australia with the warped concept of rights as expressed in the United Nations covenant. The fact speaks for itself. Other notable omissions from the 32 Articles underscore the selective nature of this Bill of Rights. The family receives only a cursory mention in Article 13, and nothing is said about the fundamental right in a free society to establish independent schools and to choose where children will be educated. This silence shows up the mean-spirited authoritarianism that underlies the socialist education philosophy. Just as property is not guaranteed, there is no mention of the freedom to dispose of our goods and our talents, to engage in commerce or to enter a chosen field of employment. The influence of the Australian Council of Trade Unions over the Bill of Rights is obvious in Article 11 which ensures the right to join and form trade unions but is silent as to any right not to join an association. The European Convention on Human Rights does in contrast uphold the freedom to disassociate. Whereas clause 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: `No-one may be compelled to join an association', the ICCPR carefully avoids this statement. Examining the 32 Articles in the Bill of Rights, we find a potential for destructive social engineering, interspersed with sufficient qualifications to ensure that a Labor government will not be restricted in its actions. Article 4, while providing the accepted principle of equality before the law, ensures the unrestricted continuation of reverse discrimination for favoured groups that has reached a fine art under this Government and has yet to go further. Senator Zakharov may well laugh because she thinks discrimination is an absolute scream. Article 7, enshrining freedom of expression and the imparting of ideas and information of any kind and in any form, could be dynamite in Australia's school classrooms. It is not hard to imagine that this Article could justify a teacher expounding an extremist ideology or even a perverted mode of behaviour against the wishes of education authorities or, more particularly, against the wishes of parents. Once again Senator Zakharov thinks that it is a bit of a scream, a bit of a laugh to usurp the role of the parent. Senator Crowley —I take a point of order. I take objection to the honourable senator imputing motives to another senator in this place. Senator Peter Baume —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable senator was merely asserting what she heard the honourable senator say. If the honourable senator objects, she can make a personal explanation at the end of Senator Knowles's speech. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I agree with Senator Baume on that point. There is no point of order. Senator KNOWLES —Equally dangerous is Article 14, which deals with the rights of the child. The studied vagueness of the comment that children are to enjoy the freedoms of the Bill of Rights `to the greatest extent compatible with the age of the individual child'-whatever that means-could prove an invitation to older children to rebel against parental discipline. I see that Senator Sanders thinks that that is a bit of a laugh. The extent of independence given to adolescents is a matter for parents, not governments. I realise that Senator Sanders is trying to move closer to the microphone to get his views across, but I believe the role of parents is distinctly important in the formulation of children's behaviour and attitudes. While saying little about the family, the Bill of Rights thus actively seeks to weaken parental authority-all too often the objective of the extreme left of politics. The qualifications that hedge these articles are reminiscent of Orwell's Animal Farm. Article 28 appears to promise a timely repudiation of retrospective penalties that have disgraced this Parliament, until we realise that it applies only to criminal penalties. Governments can therefore continue to impose retrospective taxation and other civil liabilities while upholding a principle of common criminal law that has not been seriously challenged, any more than that we in Australia are threatened by torture and slavery. It brings to mind a little saying that in this Bill the Hawke Government is compounding sins that it is inclined to by damning those it has no mind to. Because sub-clause (3) of clause 9 ensures that the Articles apply only to natural persons, it has been pointed out by Professor Cooray and others that the consequent denial of rights to companies could allow Press freedom to be restricted. Turning to Part V of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and to its companion legislation, our opposition is based on one overwhelming principle: Justice should be dispensed by courts of law and must not be exercised by semi-judicial bodies that are biased to a particular set of values. No matter what excellent qualities the personnel of such tribunals may have, a combination of educative and judicial functions runs counter to the essential principle of justice-that it be disinterested and seen to be disinterested. It comes back to the words of Judge Learned Hand, who said in 1958: For myself, it would be most irksome to be ruled by a bevy of platonic guardians, even if I knew how to choose them, which assuredly I do not. It is not government by platonic guardians that this legislation will produce, but rather the rule of thought police. The Senate Committee's exposure report in fact questions whether the so-called determinations of the Human Rights Commission are compatible with its educative and conciliatory functions. It is a question we should all be asking. It is acknowledged that the Deputy Chairman of the Commission, Mr Peter Bailey, has this same reservation. We cannot accept, however, the argument advanced in chapter 5 of the same report that it is useful for aggrieved persons to have a forum that departs from legal formalities and that need not produce winners or losers. In practical terms, the dispensation of justice in a supposedly informal manner runs the risk of depriving people of the trained legal protection that they require and thus creates a sense of injustice, whether imagined or real. There can be no question that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has been granted real coercive authority under this legislation. Under clause 29, the Commission is empowered to take evidence in secret and suppress the publication of any document produced before it. In the name of privacy, we are traversing the same path as prerogative courts of 400 years ago, such as Star Chamber, designed to override common law justice by operating in secrecy and making their own rules of procedure. Clause 31 allows the Commission to direct that any document be produced before it and to summon any person to attend an inquiry or a compulsory conference, as in clause 33. Nor can we doubt that we are dealing with a judicial tribunal when under clause 29 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill the Commission is able to recommend the payment of compensation for those it judges to be victims of human rights violations. Equally, the power that is given to a member of the Commission in clause 32 of the principal Bill to administer oaths and affirmations and to examine people on oath is a power that properly belongs to traditional courts alone. Fines of $1,000 for a natural person or $5,000 for a body corporate, coupled with three months imprisonment for those refusing to be sworn and produce information, show clearly that the Commission has direct coercive powers. We are not dealing merely with the usurping of justice by an outside body. What we are now facing is injustice in the extreme, the outstanding example of which is the power of the president of a compulsory conference, under clause 34, to deny a person or corporation the right of legal representation. For all the platitudes contained in the Articles contained in the Bill of Rights as to legal representation in criminal trials, this same principle of elementary justice is denied those who will appear before the socialist Star Chamber. Furthermore, under clause 43 the Commission may delegate all or any of its powers to its staff members or to any prescribed person under its regulations. Can we imagine the consequences if this open-ended delegation were practised in courts of law? Presumably in the name of flexibility, we have a recipe for tyranny. The combination of propagandist, investigative and judicial functions in one body, able to make its own rules, is nothing less than a direct assault on the rule of law. At earlier stages of our history these functions have been combined with unfortunate results. We all know that to be true. There would be enormous risks in giving any person the type of authority conferred by this legislation, be they platonic guardians or more fallible mortals. Situations which bother me and which can be a direct result of greater powers granted through the Bill are those such as we saw last August in Western Australia when a body was able to override the wishes of parents and school principals. It was proclaimed last August that single sex sport in schools could constitute discrimination, despite the overwhelming practical evidence that in a number of sports girls simply lack the physical strength to compete fairly with boys. The person concerned gave away their real motivation by indicating that competitive sport must be downgraded anyway because `only an elite minority compete in top level sport'. Therefore, because of this anti-competitive ideology, parents are being told that their children are to be discouraged from competitive sport. At one Western Australian primary school over 97 per cent of parents opted in a survey for seperate sports activities for girls and boys. Clearly, we are up against the philosophy that the instruments of the interventionist state know better. Surely we should all be concerned about freedom of speech. Yet we saw suggested amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act in 1983, which would not be far off again should this Bill be passed. Those amendments would have created a new crime of group defamation on the extraordinary collectivist principle that offensive remarks directed against a group are as hurtful and defamatory as personal libel or slander. We can illustrate the absurdity of this idea by asking ourselves whether we in this chamber would be as damaged in our reputations by a remark that all senators were crooks as by accusations that we personally were dishonest. We cannot at any cost be prepared to sacrifice free speech on the altar of collectivism through a measure that could result in the silencing of commentators or any individual. Freedom of choice and freedom of speech must be paramount in our community. With this in mind we should be fearful that the passage of these Bills, with the aid of the Australian Democrats, will mean that Australia will be subject to a new kind of censorship in conformity with the values of the leftist interventionist elite. Last year we saw the disgraceful situation where the Queensland Government was declared guilty of transgressing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights through its legislation that sought to guarantee the electricity supply. It was recommended that the Federal Government should simply legislate to overrule the State law. Of course the proponents of this action said nothing about the rights of tens of thousands of ordinary people who were the victims of the earlier industrial banditry and whom the State Government was trying to protect. I note that one honourable senator who is sitting on my left thinks that that is amusing. If she thinks it is amusing for the people of Queensland to have their power cut off, then Lord help her. We simply cannot afford to have a group of people playing Pontius Pilate, which is what this group did. Who said that the States were not in any danger and who said that there will not be an enormous aid to union bullies who have no thought for individual unionists and workers? I greatly fear that Australians will have cause to regret deeply the action of this Senate should it pass this legislation. It is legislation designed not to uphold human freedom, but to promote mean spirited, partisan social engineering. It is designed to smash the federal system through the enforcement of the electoral platforms of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. It promotes only those so-called rights that are compatible with a leftist interventionist agenda. It ignores or downplays those rights upholding individual freedom and family and it will create partisan and lawless tribunals that will overturn established principles of justice. It gives power to a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that is determined to enforce a collectivist ideology on this country. It is a disgrace to this Parliament and a retrograde step in the cause of civil liberties and social justice. Its supporters will not let the Australian people decide upon it in a referendum. The Liberal Party stands proud in the fight against this evil legislation and we will fight desperately to avoid the passage of this Bill. Unfortunately, we know that the Democrats are just as determined to see it pass. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(8.37) —It would be very tempting to use my half hour to refute the claims of Senator Knowles, the speaker who has just finished. I thought her remarks were extraordinary, but I hope that as we are being broadcast the members of the Australian public who have been listening will be able to formulate their own judgment about her speech which was full of hyperbole and wild claims. I draw attention to only one or two points that she made, particularly the very disparaging remarks about the old adage `one vote, one value'. To most Australians that is well understood and it is well taken that it means what it says. If Senator Knowles needs to have it explained or taken out, I suggest that she speak to some of her colleagues in the Liberal Party who no doubt could explain to her what one vote one value is held to mean by a State like South Australia, certainly, where Steele Hall and Don Dunstan, when each was Premier, fought for many years to implement those values in the State legislation. It is my understanding that almost all States have moved to that principle. Although it has taken time to effect those changes, no State that has such legislation apologises or expects that there is anything other than the straightforward understanding of that simplified expression `one vote one value'. Senator Knowles also insisted that everything would be better if it went to a referendum. I draw her attention to a number of referendums in which a majority of Australians voted in favour of change, but as there was not a majority of States in favour, the referendums could not proceed. Those are the rules of the game, and nobody objects to them. I would simply say that they call into question Senator Knowles's claims about what is due process and procedure. Finally, I draw her attention to her complaints that sometimes people who appear in front of the Human Rights Commission, for example, may be asked to take the oath. The honourable senator should know by now that Senate committees also have that power. It is not a power confined only to courts of law where legal representation of people pertains. In fact, many years ago when I had a job sorting mail during the Christmas vacation, as many of us might have done in those years, I was required, as a member of the Australian post work force, to take an oath too. Therefore, the honourable senator is not correct on that point. I wish to commend the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 as I stand in support of it. I also draw honourable senators' attention to the excellent second reading speech by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) which set out very precisely and cogently the history of this Bill-the history of the emergence of rights established through the United Nations with its universal declaration of human rights in 1948 and, following that, the procedures through the United Nations until the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was eventually developed. Subsequent to that in this country, the Australian Government became a signatory to that Covenant in 1972. In 1980 the then Government ratified the Covenant. In fact it was quite interesting for me to hear some of the Opposition senators speaking so vociferously against many of the points in this proposed legislation, in particular the changes in the Human Rights Commission, with no regard, so it seemed to me, to the origins of the Human Rights Commission Act in this Parliament. That legislation was introduced by the Fraser Government and to the extent that it moved to honour Australia's ratification under that International Covenant, I think it was a very useful first step. This Government is arguing that it is insufficient to have administrative procedures only. It is important for us to move towards a Bill of Rights specifying what those rights are. The second reading speech also develops very well arguments why rights under common law are insufficient. I wish to move to some specific examples of where the common law has certainly failed to preserve rights and it may come as no surprise to the Senate and to certain honourable senators that I wish to take up that argument in terms of the history of the rights of women. I found it very interesting to discover some of the history of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. This Act really was a sequel to an Act known as Lord Brougham's Act, an Act for shortening the language used in Acts of Parliament. This was introduced into British law in 1850. It stated: In all Acts words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females. Henry Brougham, after whom many streets in South Australia are named-I would be pleased to know whether there are streets named after him in other States-was one of the members of a group of reforming Whigs associated with the Great Reform Bill, the abolition of the slave trade, restrictions on the use of child labour in factories and others. He is best known for his efforts in the field of law reform, having staked his claim with a speech that lasted six hours and three minutes in the House of Commons on 7 February 1828. I am sure that Senator Harradine, for example, might be positively envious of that kind of opportunity. He finished his speech with the following quote and I wish to read it into the Hansard record because it goes very much to the heart of what the Bill of Rights legislation is about: It was the boast of Augustus . . . that he found Rome of brick and left it of marble . . . But how much nobler will be the Sovereign's boast, when he shall have it to say, that he found the law dear and left it cheap; found it a sealed book-left it a living letter; found it the patrimony of the rich-left it the inheritance of the poor; found it the two-edged sword of craft and oppression-left it the staff of honesty and the shield of innocence. I think that is what the Bill of Rights legislation proposed here is all about. In fact, that speech resulted in the appointment of, in effect, the Law Amendment Society or one of the early what could be called law reform commissions established in 1844. It looked at much of the law in England at that time with a view to what changes were necessary. Lord Brougham introduced his Act for shortening the language used in Acts of Parliament but, as the note I have here says, he was not necessarily inspired by any view of the status of women in society. In fact, he was trying to make sense and order of the legislation in Britain at the time. In particular I shall read again this line: When the word he is used or the masculine gender it shall be taken to include she. However, this clause was not included in all Acts or even in the majority of them. Some statutes used the word `person' to cover both genders, others used only `his'. However, the article explains that if it should say `having explosives in his possession' it was highly likely that the court would interpret that to cover a woman, if she should have explosives in her possession. That kind of consistency was not applied through legislation. I move to some specific examples. Lord Sankey, in reviewing the law in the course of his judgment in Henrietta Muir Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada in 1930, a case concerning the rights of women to be summoned to the Canadian Senate, commented: The passing of Lord Brougham's Act in 1850 does not appear to have greatly affected the current authority. In Chorlton v. Lings in 1868, for example, it was held: That the statement in section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1867 (U.K.), that every `man' was entitled to be registered as a voter did not mean that women were entitled to vote despite Lord Brougham's Act. Lord Sankey in Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada noted that John Stuart Mill had moved an unsuccessful amendment to the Representation of People Act 1867 to leave out `man' and insert `person' in an attempt to secure women's suffrage. Even this right might not have had the desired effect, however, since the House of Lords held in a case Nairn v. University of St Andrews in 1909 in the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act that the word `person' did not entitle women to be registered to vote. The basis of this decision appears to have been that at common law women were under a disability to hold public office, vote or take part in the administration of justice and that it could not have been the intention of Parliament to remove that disability without express words to that effect. I find the examples cited are very telling even in the case of the common law that specified rights for man to include woman where judgments clearly indicated that was not the understanding means that we have evidence, even under the common law, going to rights for citizens that have been used to exclude women from those rights, in particular the right to vote. Our country has, I think, a fairly honourable history of giving the right to vote to women. I certainly stand proud as a member of the South Australian community because that was the first State in Australia to give the right to vote to women. However, it is also a matter of history that the common law has not guaranteed rights for women. I think there are any number of telling examples of rights under the law which were not held to be available to all citizens. One only has to look to the history of Aboriginals in this country to understand how those rights did not pertain to Aboriginals. No doubt Aboriginals had a different set of difficulties to contend with but, under the common law, women were held to be in disability. Some 100 years later I am pleased to see, without even specifically being so worded by judgments of the court, that women no longer are seen to have that disability. Senator Lewis —Marvellous. They have that without it being mentioned in a Bill of Rights. Senator CROWLEY —I will come to Senator Lewis's interjection in a minute. I ask the honourable senator to bide his time. In 1959 Mrs Jessie Cooper was elected to the Legislative Council in South Australia. She was elected legitimately but her right to take her seat in the Legislative Council was opposed by a lawyer claiming that she was not eligible to take her seat in the Parliament on the grounds that she was a woman and therefore not a person under the Act. I understand that in fact that case was defended by a lawyer at that time, Don Dunstan. It was judged in favour of Mrs Cooper. The then Premier, Sir Thomas Playford, immediately introduced a constitutional amendment Bill to correct the anomaly. Let it be said that, consequent on Senator Lewis's interjections, specific legislation had to be introduced to guarantee woman's rights under the Common Law that supposedly covered them. Further, one has to look only at the history of sex discrimination legislation in this country, either in the State legislation or the Federal legislation, to know that in spite of Senator Lewis's interjection we achieved a lot of those gains without a Bill of Rights. It is quite clear that we achieved a lot of those gains by specific legislation going to those rights precisely because under the common law insufficient guarantee of rights was established. Senator Lewis —That is our argument. Senator CROWLEY —That is our argument entirely. I am delighted to hear that Senator Lewis agrees with us. The point I have been making is that the common law is insufficient to guarantee specific rights. I think the history of women's rights bears clear evidence of that. Another point made about the Bill of Rights legislation is that it will have a vital educative function. As was stated in the second reading speech, it will have: . . . the capacity to inspire respect for fundamental freedoms and liberties by setting out rights in positive declaratory form. Lest it be wondered by honourable senators opposite whether it is necessary to have an educative function about rights, it certainly is. While I may be quoting from 1925, any of those of us who have gone around the country speaking in support of the sex discrimination legislation knows the battle we have in changing the minds and hearts of men and women. If any honourable senator has any further doubt I refer them to Senator Austin Lewis's extraordinary speech opposing the sex discrimination legislation in this place early last year. I think it is important to understand that what we also are dealing with are prejudices and attitudes in society. A Bill of Rights will go a long way, through its very passage, to provoke society to consider those rights in a more specific and considered way. I think legislation has a considerable educative role. When we have to contend with remarks such as the one I am about to read I think it is vital that we have a Bill of Rights. An MLA in the New South Wales Parliament, one Theo Hill, was opposing on a number of grounds a Bill by Lang to clarify the rights of women to be appointed to the Upper House. It put women into a position that `the Almighty Himself never intended they should occupy'. It meant unsexing women. He stated: . . . the women of the party I support do not believe in unsexing themselves . . . very few decent, pure-minded women . . . believe in this kind of game and want to come into Parliament. He further stated: It has been asserted by biologists and other scientists again and again that the brain of woman is much less than that of the average man. What we want in Parliament is brain power. That, I must say, was in 1925. However, if one reads the history of the advancement of women in a book recently released through Melbourne University called Liberation by Degrees we see that the most thoughtful academicians of the time presented just that sort of argument, seriously and over and over again. Somehow biology and science was in support of the denial of rights of women. It is interesting even to consider that if science should indicate that somebody had a lesser brain, for example a retarded person, would the law, according to this logic, deny such people their appropriate rights? I am pleased to say that the Bill of Rights and the associated Bill to establish the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will go directly to the rights of those people who may have less than full capacities. I would like now to move to a few comments about the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. The arguments opposing this legislation I find are quite remarkable especially as they are coming from the Opposition which, when in government, introduced the original Human Rights Commission legislation. The proposed changes I think go to strengthening that Commission to being more clear and precise about its powers and to incorporate the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Race Discrimination Commissioner within that general commission. Before I move to more specific comments about that I draw the Opposition's attention to a quote by Senator Durack when he summed up the need for the Commission in introducing the Human Rights Commission Bill in 1981. He said: I believe, and the Government believes- that is the then Fraser Government- that in an era of social change in which governments exercise wide powers and corporations and large institutions greatly influence the lives of individuals, it is important to have an agency that is active in the protection and promotion of the rights of individuals. I presume that Senator Durack still stands by that quotation and that position; in fact, I certainly hope he does. Of course, the Government has no objection to the establishment of the Human Rights Commission, although any opposition would be on the basis that it is not a sufficient way of dealing with the consolidation of rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That is why, as I said earlier, the Government has moved to establish the Bill of Rights to go, so to speak, hand in glove with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill and the modifying Bills. It is important to deal with some of the wild claims of Senator Knowles about the Human Rights Commission. In particular, I refer honourable senators to the report last year of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Pam O'Neil. She reported that within 12 months 877 complaints had already been brought before that Commission. Prior to that report, Peter Bailey, in an argument addressing criticisms of the Human Rights Commission, said: . . . some 10,000 people have sought help from the Commission . . .- that is the Human Rights Commission- In almost all these cases, the complainant had nowhere else to go. I think the evidence of how the Human Rights Commission has functioned, albeit it struggling with the vast area it has to cover, and, more recently, the Sex Discrimination Commission in the Commonwealth sphere and, in my own state experience, the Sex Discrimination Commission under the Equal Opportunity Commission in South Australia, shows that those establishments, those institutions, are remarkably effective. Many of the complaints brought against this kind of proposal go to the fact that the solution to many problems will be reached by conciliation rather than by a judicial, adversary, confrontationist approach. On any examination of the evidence of the cases already brought before those commissions, it is quite clear that the conciliatory approach is most effective. Apart from anything else, it is very much cheaper. If people wish to argue in terms of the hard dollar, they would certainly have to come down in support of conciliation. More importantly many of the complaints brought before these commissions deal with matters that go to the hearts of people as much as to their heads. People are aggrieved; people are angry; people are suffering a sense of hurt as much as a sense of injustice and the conciliatory approach allows for that dimension of a human to be dealt with very effectively rather than any hard calculation of what one's just deserts might be. I do not think that the importance of that approach can be understated. The clear, satisfactory resolution of something like two-thirds of the complaints brought in South Australia through the Equal Opportunity Commission have proved without any doubt that the conciliatory approach is very effective. In shorthand, it leaves people in a win-win situation rather than a win-lose situation. The confrontationist approach, which is sometimes the way we have to go and sometimes necessary, does not necessarily deal most satisfactorily with problems that we could call very often human dilemma problems. The conciliatory approach that is present and provided for under the structure of the commissions and the process for their dealing with complaints have to be strongly supported. I would certainly speak strongly in support of it. Much can be said about these pieces of legislation. I will leave other senators to take up many of the issues that I have not touched on. In summary, it seems to me that support for the Bill of Rights can be argued on any number of grounds. I wanted to argue in particular that a Bill of Rights, specifying which particular rights we are addressing and guaranteeing those rights for every citizen in this country, is not, as Senator Knowles would suggest, a litany of the things that this Labor Government, and all the other things she called it, using colourful adjectives, is intending to do. In fact, we are writing certain rights into the Bill to ensure that they never become problems in this community. We may not ever have had slavery, although I would have thought that the conditions of some people in this country in the early nineteenth century might have been approaching slavery. There were certainly people who lived in wretched poverty, and their conditions were akin to slavery. The rights of the Chinese in the gold rush days were certainly very much held in question. I would have thought that to enshrine things that we perhaps have never done does not mean that we intend to do them in the future; in fact we are writing into the Bill of Rights our proposed guarantee that they will never occur in this country. In talking briefly to the legislation, I mentioned how the law, except in a few very select cases that I used to make a point, under the common law has not guaranteed rights for women. Under the Bill of Rights legislation, those rights for women are specifically guaranteed and mentioned. I commend the establishment of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. By this Government's specific legislation and this proposal it is to include the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Race Discrimination Commissioner to allow them more properly to continue with the tasks that were originally intended. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(9.55) —The debate on this legislative package-the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill and cognate Bills-has been long by any standards and it will be fairly long from now on. I do not wish to hold up the Senate for an unduly long period. It is quite interesting to see that 19 speakers are still listed to speak on the Bills and, of those, only three are from the Government side. That shows the concern that this side of the chamber has for this piece of legislation. I do not believe that any senator on this side of the chamber ought to let this legislative package pass without registering the strongest objections. I believe that the community has been kept in the dark. I believe that the government of the day has not informed the people about this piece of legislation and that it should be left to lie on the table for some time so that the people in the community can really look at it and understand it before it is passed through this chamber. The best and kindest thing one can say about this legislation is that it is unnecessary. Unfortunately, I am also a part of the so-called lunatic fringe to which Senator Haines and others have referred that believes the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to be more than just unnecessary. There are some very worrying aspects in this legislation. Senator Parer expressed my sentiments very clearly when he put three simple propositions. He said that the Bill was not necessary to protect rights; it was not sufficient to protect rights; and, as presented, it would simply serve as a political weapon for the Federal Government to use to attack State governments of different persuasions. The Senate is a States' House. Basically, this Bill is an attack on this House. One must ask why the Government felt it necessary to bring on this legislation. At best, it has had a checkered history. When it was last mooted prior to the Federal election in 1983-might I add that it was hushed up before the election-the present Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, was reported as saying that he thought the Bill should be thrown out. I regard the Bill as unnecessary as in Australia people already have their rights listed. People have the right to marry. They have the rights to have children. They have the protection of the law. They have the rights of free speech and of free association. They have the full protection of the judicial system. They have the right to elect governments of their choice and to remove them if they want to-and that is what will happen at the next Federal election. Two arguments are involved. Firstly, if legislation is required to enshrine those basic rights, why is it not necessary to enshrine others? The most common examples are the right to own private property, the right of an individual not to join a trade union and the right to send one's children to a school of one's choice. Why have these rights been left out? Surely it cannot be a mere drafting error. This legislation has been wallowing around Labor Party agendas for years. Why have these anomalies not been corrected and why can they not be corrected now? If the Labor Government is genuine in its efforts to provide basic rights for all Australians, why does it not put those rights in? Is it because those basic rights-the right to private ownership of property, the right not to join a trade union, and the right to send one's children to a school of one's choice-are not acceptable to the trendy Reds who support this Bill? Maybe the burgundy socialists on the other side do not like those rights being included. The second argument concerns the form in which these rights that the Government says so desperately need protecting are written. If the Government is genuine in its desire to enshrine these rights for all Australians now and forever, why include them in a piece of legislation that will simply be thrown out after the next election? How genuine is this Government in claiming that it wants to protect the rights of all Australians? If it is genuine, why not have a referendum on the subject and change the Constitution? The answer is very obvious and it knows it: The majority of Australians simply do not want this legislation and would throw it out if a referendum were held. They are not persuaded by the rhetoric of honourable senators opposite. Of course, that same majority of people would also not be impressed by what the Australian Democrats say on the subject, if only they knew the Democrats' view. Maybe it will change during debate on the subject. The Democrats have such a knack of vacillating that one could be forgiven for not knowing what they think of the Bill of Rights. However, it now appears that the vote of the Democrats will allow this legislation to be passed. That same majority of Australians who do not want the Bill of Rights will remember who supported its passage and at the next election will vote them out of this place. I am sure that every senator has received mail similar to that which has poured into my office at the rate of some 100 letters a day. Some letters are from organised groups such as church, community or business groups. Many are from the proverbial `fair-minded person' who is not in the habit of taking on ratbag issues or ratbag causes. I would like to quote from a letter written by a Mr E. O. O'Donnell which was published in a newspaper recently. I think it sums up the matter pretty well. It reads: Why Australians should need a Bill of Rights such as that passed by the House of Representatives is a mystery to me. This Bill of Rights is being foisted upon us. There is no popular demand for it. In fact many Australians are so busy trying to balance their budgets that they don't really know anything about this dangerous Bill of Rights. The rights which Australians already have are freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression and also the right to own property, the right to utilise our natural wealth and talents and to dispose of them as we think fit. Australians have the right to marry and to found a family, the right to rear their children and instruct them in the religion of their choice. Australians also have the right to join a union or association or not to join a union or association, the right to question those who invade our rights and to invoke the protection of our courts, the right to a public and fair trial, the right to confront and question those who accuse us, the right to call witnesses, and refuse to testify against themselves. Australia's heritage of rights and freedom is protected by the accumulative process of statute law, common law and precedent. Our system of checks and balances protects against the abuse of an individual's dignity. If rights are defined in an Act of Parliament does a right exist if it is not included? It seems that the right to own property may not be in this Bill of Rights. . . . A Bill of Rights can only work to protect civil rights when it is sponsored by the people to correct abuses by a government. . . . The Australian Bill of Rights seems to be the machinery being set up to control us while we are being made into a Socialist Republic and then taken into a World Government, which will not respect the rights nor the dignity of the individual. This Bill of Rights must be defeated if we are not to live in fear and insecurity. Senator Chipp —What idiot wrote that? Senator BROWNHILL —I do not think this gentleman is an idiot. He is one of the voters in Australia. Senator Chipp may find at the next election that he will have his say. The letter continues: The money, tax-payers' money, used to set up and maintain the Human Rights Commission would be better spent to lower the taxes of the struggling rural community. In my opinion all politicians trying to foist this Bill on us should be sacked at the next elections. An enormous mass of people are genuinely frightened about this legislation and they have every right to be. That is why I suggested earlier that it should most probably be allowed to lie on the table. The Government, in every debate on the subject, has not answered the simple question: Why is this legislation necessary? It keeps quoting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. My good friend Senator Cooney on the other side of the House talked at some length on this point. I might add that he interspersed it with a great deal of legal history. It is good to see that he has not been so entirely corrupted by this place that he cannot remember some of his former vocation. However, I regret that I cannot agree with his arguments, and I am not sure that he is being entirely consistent. He said that the Bill cannot include things such as the right not to join a trade union and the right to private ownership of property because only rights that can be enforced against the Commonwealth and Commonwealth officers can be included. But he went on to quote Lord Scarman who stated: A new Bill of Rights could establish guiding principles that would set standards for politicians, administrators and judges. What sort of standards are we setting if we are not being consistent? If we include the right to join a trade union, surely if we are to establish guiding principles, we must include the right not to join a trade union. It is these sorts of omissions that frighten the average Australian. It is the comments from those opposite about using the Bill of Rights to change electoral systems in States which are of a different political persuasion from that of the present Government that also frighten people. Will we become the equivalent of the Philippines where, if one does not like the election results, one just changes them? Where does that leave basic human rights and basic democratic rights? The final point I wish to raise-and it is one that has been raised by others-is how one explains why countries which do not have a Bill of Rights are able to operate in a fair, democratic manner with a most workable common law system-- Senator Chipp —Where is that? Senator BROWNHILL —The United Kingdom-with freedom of the individual assured, and at the same time we have countries with rights listed in great numbers while the citizens of those countries have few basic rights of freedom of speech, association and religious persuasion. The Soviet Union, of course, is a classic example. Of what value is its Bill of Rights? The legislation is all the things that the Opposition has claimed it is: At best unnecessary, at worst a dangerous threat to democracy in Australia. The Government's arguments in support of the Bill simply do not stand up. Its motives in introducing it are purely political. It has nothing to do with wanting to protect the rights of all Australians, because we have that already. But those people who are concerned about this legislation will have to wait only until the next election to have their say and express their will on the Bill of Rights. I have no doubt that the Bill of Rights, and those people who thrust it on the community, will be removed. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.08) —When the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) introduced the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 he made the claim that a Bill of Rights will `provide real and significant protections for rights and freedoms essential to real democracy'. The point, of course, is that this Bill does not even guarantee the citizens the right to vote at State elections. The type of claims and counter-claims that have been made must leave members of the public who have read or listened to this debate utterly bewildered. Probably one of the best speeches made to date on this Bill was made by a Liberal senator, Senator Missen, when he referred to the various letters that have been written in this campaign and pointed out the fallacies they contained. He pointed out that time and again the gross misrepresentation that has been going on has obviously been done with a view not to informing the public rather, to misinforming the public. The activity has been one of generating whatever political head of steam it has been possible to generate and then giving it a twist and a bit more of a distortion, regardless of what the Bill says, regardless of what the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says and regardless of what the legal situation will be after such a Bill is enacted. One expects this type of thing fairly constantly but I do think it is quite extraordinary that we have had standing in this place so many honourable senators who obviously have not even read the Bill of Rights. If they had, they would understand its legal extent and its legal capacity; they would understand where the thrusts are and where they cannot be; they would understand the problems of the International Covenant and the adherence to it in cases such as the Tasmanian dams case and the Koowarta case; and they would understand what the Federal Government is about and what it was relying on, as a head of power, in putting this piece of legislation into the Parliament. I can understand people disagreeing with it, bringing arguments forward as to why it should not be in its present form and suggesting improvements or even suggesting that the whole Bill should be thrown out. Some of those arguments have been put forward, but very few. The simple and indisputable fact in this whole debate is that, if one accepts that there is a need for a Bill of Rights, it logically follows that it must apply not only to Commonwealth law but also to State and local government law. The absurdity that we are about to have thrust upon us in the Bowen Bill is that somehow the individual citizen is divisible. An individual citizen in this country is governed by Federal law, by State law and by local government regulations. We are saying: `We will fix up the Federal law, but we don't mind really whether those rights-and almost identical rights-are denied to you by State law or by local government law. We don't mind that and we don't intend doing anything about it, but we will get terribly concerned if it is Federal law'. If one looks at Federal legislation, one has to go a long way to find a breach of human rights. Indeed, in the last few years this chamber has been responsible for scrutinising every piece of legislation that comes into this chamber with that as one of its criteria. A fair amount of the work has been done by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill which we had before us and which will be coming back, presumably, in a few weeks readily illustrates this point. The Liberal Party of Australia picked up some 33 suggested amendments from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee; the Government has accepted 32 of them. That is the type of work that is currently being done on this issue at the Commonwealth level. We are going through an exercise which is exclusively concerned, in a legislative way, with the laws which are passed by the Commonwealth Parliament. Under the terms of this Bill, those laws will not be affected for another five years. So we will find ourselves in the situation five years down the track of having to look at some of the legislation that has already been passed. Insofar as the Parliament requires it, it will apply to new pieces of legislation. It has been pointed out in the report of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, a report signed not only by Labor Party members of that Committee but also by Liberal Party members, that the major abuses of human rights in Australia occur at the State and local government levels, not at the Federal level. It is the States which control the police; it is the States which, by and large, make industrial relations laws; it is the States which have electoral laws which rort the system; and, according to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, it is the States which most frequently violate the civil and political rights of Australian citizens. When a State is run by a non-democratically elected minority government, such as my own State of Queensland, there clearly has to be a tendency for such a government to pass laws which are ill-conceived, badly drafted, authoritarian and against the citizens of those States. Time and again we find that the moderate voices within my own State of Queensland are not heard; they are brushed aside. The State Government does not have to respond to political or public opinion. In those circumstances, the Government becomes more and more authoritarian and passes more and more laws which violate the basic rights of its citizens. It is able to do this because it is quite capable of ignoring public opinion. But when one looks at other States and at the Commonwealth one finds that, under any political party, the governments there must pay close and continuing attention to public opinion and to the niceties of the laws which they are passing. There is not a wide range of things about which any government can legislate; it has a very narrow band indeed, provided that government is democratically elected and can be voted out of office. We find ourselves now with a proposed law which has been brought in by the Attorney-General that does very little other than regularise what is already being done at the Commonwealth level and it is being called an Australian Bill of Rights. I and other senators have received hundreds-in fact, in my case thousands-of letters. Most of those letters are merely roneoed letters. Many of these people have never read the Bill and have accepted in good faith the propositions put to them by whoever has handed out the piece of paper. I suppose we must expect those types of things to occur. When one reads those letters one finds, time and again, the suggestion that somehow or other the legislation will apply to State laws or to local government laws. It will do nothing of the sort. It will allow a commission to make a report on those matters. I think every honourable senator in the chamber is very much aware that, if the Government has not got the guts to take them on in this Bill, this exercise is simply a sham exercise for the purposes of political consumption. If we look at the debate which took place in the House of Representatives on 14 November last year, we will see that five Labor members stood up and cited the infamous Queensland gerrymander, the draconian industrial laws and so on as an excuse for passing this Bill. They were offering them as examples of why we need this Bill of Rights. They are good examples, but the fact of the matter is that the Bill does not even apply to them. The Attorney-General reiterated in Question Time today the point that it does not apply to them. It will not do a lot about those types of offensive laws and practices which Government members have identified as the reason why this Bill should be voted for. Not only have many Opposition members not even read the Bill but also, obviously, a considerable number of the Labor Party members who spoke in the House of Representatives had not bothered reading their own Bill and were in total ignorance of what their Government proposed to do. They were lauding it about doing something about those laws in Queensland, when it does not do anything except give the right to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to make a report. I understand that there is a move by some Labor Party members to remove from the Bill the right of the Commission to make a report; to fill up another piece of paper, to put it on another shelf. That particular exercise, if it is for the consumption of the Labor Party members and their branches, is an exercise in the utmost political cynicism. Many people in Australia have fought for years and years to try to have a Bill of Rights and they do not want this type of sham exercise being perpetrated. If we are to have one, let us have a genuine attempt, not this exercise that is trotted out as genuine with a title such as the Australian Bill of Rights. This Bill is based on Article 50 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I admit that in listening to Senator MacGibbon I had not heard of the story he mentioned, but I had assumed that everybody was aware that this Bill is based on the International Covenant. Article 50 of the International Covenant is the cornerstone and the head of the Commonwealth being able to get a lever on this particular Bill. For the information of a number of senators on the Opposition side who did not seem to be aware of it, I point out that the Covenant was signed by the Menzies Government-the Menzies conservative Liberal-Country Party Government, if they cannot remember who Sir Robert Menzies was. It was ratified by the Liberal-National Party Government of Mr Fraser. I heard three speakers today referring to it as having been ratified and signed by the Hawke Government. I wish that honourable senators would have a look at the history of what has happened to that International Covenant and how Australia got involved with it. Under article 50 our Government willingly and of its own accord undertook: The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions. There were reservations with regard to a number of sections and those reservations have been removed by the Hawke Government which refers to all parts of federal states without limitations or exceptions. The October 1984 withdrawal of the reservations to that Article were undertaken by the Hawke Government, presumably to bolster Australia's standing in the international community. If it is going to seek to bolster its own image and the image of Australia in the international community by withdrawing those reservations, I suggest that it ought to undertake the obligations that those reservations place upon us, otherwise why go through that exercise? Why would Government members tote themselves around other countries saying: `Aren't we good fellows? Look what we have done. We have removed these reservations. We will now apply it to all parts of our federal system'? Then they sneak back here and bring in this type of bill and expect people to say: `Good on you'. We believe that if there is to be an Australian Bill of Rights it must extend to States and to the power that is contained within the States to deny Australian citizens those human rights which are detailed in this Bill at the Federal level. I draw upon an example used by Senator MacGibbon when he said that he did not see any reason for there being a reference to slavery. It is an interesting section. The Federal Government is proposing to say that the Federal Government will not be allowed to enslave anybody, but it is all right if State governments do. That is an utter absurdity. Even if the thing itself is a bit of an absurdity in Australia's political life-I take Senator MacGibbon's point and I think we are both thankful that Australia is not a place where such a thing would occur-I draw the analogy that it is an absurdity to make such a proposition, again because a citizen is not divisible in terms of his human rights. There is one set of rights for one citizen, and this notion that it can be divided is a quaint one for the political purposes but an utterly useless one when it comes to the rights of those individual citizens. The Attorney-General is not serious in his commitment. He is not serious about having a committment to implement in Australia that International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is not or he would have brought in a Bill to do so. The shame of the exercise is that to date the Labor Party has stood behind the Attorney-General on this. Many of those people who in their private lives and public capacities have fought strongly on past occasions now intend presumably to roll up their blanket and steal away in the night. For what reason? Essentially because the Hawke Government does not want to buy a fight with the Queensland Government. It is as simple as that; it is scared. So we find ourselves confronted with this anaemic operation; so anaemic that we will be very lucky if the thing does not bleed to death before we get to the end of it. The Australian Democrats, as our spokesperson Senator Haines has already foreshadowed, will move a series of amendments supporting some of the amendments proposed by the Opposition. I put on record now that it is my intention that if this Bill does not apply to States, I will not support it, because I have absolutely no intention of taking part in the sham which is contained in this Bill. Serious denials of personal liberties and civil rights are occurring in Australia every day. We wring our hands at the international scene with regard to the Philippines, but when it comes to home we do not do a thing. We are very good at lecturing people around the world about how they should treat their indigenous people, but when it comes to the people of this country we will not do a thing. The hypocrisy of the whole exercise might be able to be undertaken by others, but I will not lend my vote to it. Unless this Bill applies to all citizens and all jurisdictions, I do not intend to vote for it. Senator Sheil —You are opposed to the Bill now? Senator MACKLIN —If the amendments which will be moved by Senator Haines on behalf of the Australian Democrats are not accepted, I intend to vote against the Bill, yes. I believe that it would be far better to go on outside of this place fighting for a genuine Bill of Rights, although it may take another 20, 30 or 40 years, than to subscribe to this little exercise of political opportunism because members of a few Labor Party branches want to make themselves feel good. We have a chance to do something for the citizens of this country in a way that has to be done because we know what is going on. We have all seen what is going and those of us who have lived in Queensland have experienced it, even if people in other States have not. It might be all right for people in some of the other States-where some of the rights put on the agenda by State governments are in excess of those given here-to say that there is not much of a problem, but I suggest that they should think beyond that to all of the citizens of Australia and think about what is needed in all areas of Australia with regard to this matter. The Attorney-General's actions are particularly disturbing in the light of the number of statements he has made. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under the sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.30) —I want to raise a couple of issues tonight, the first of which is the announcement this evening by the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) that the Government has decided that Badgerys Creek should be the site for Sydney's second international airport. As I said here the other day it was an open secret that the Premier of New South Wales was rushing around the place touting Badgerys Creek in a private way. Heaven knows why! It was inevitable that in those circumstances the right wing machine in Sydney would do whatever Neville Wran wanted. The fact that it is a ludicrous decision is, of course, beside the point. It is also significant that the Australian Labor Party members from the Illawarra region who at least told their constituents that they were fighting for Wilton as the potential second site for an airport have had such a dramatic impact on the Cabinet that in fact the decision that has been made totally rejects everything that they suggested. I must say that the failure of the Labor members for the Illawarra region to have their point of view accepted is most unfortunate for the Illawarra region itself. However, it is perhaps even more unfortunate for the people of the south-western region of Sydney-the people living in the Badgerys Creek area-whose worst fears will now be realised. Apart from anything else, the decision is curious in the sense of the extraordinary costs that will now be involved. The acquisition of the 1,770 hectare site which is 46 kilometres west of Sydney at Badgerys Creek is estimated to be in the range of $33m to $34m whereas the Wilton site would have cost about $1.8m. There is an incredible difference between $33m and $1.8m. Only one dwelling would have been affected on the Wilton site. By comparison, 750 people will have to leave their homes as a result of the Cabinet decision to site the second airport at Badgerys Creek. Frankly, I do not believe that the airport will go ahead. The clear and sensible alternative is the one that the previous Federal Government endeavoured to convince the State Government of New South Wales it should proceed with, and that was, of course, the parallel runway system at Mascot. It is all very well for Ministers in this place to say that the Fraser Government managed to achieve nothing in respect of a second airport or Mascot and that it has been up to this Government to do something. It is all very well for them to say that the people of Badgerys Creek in particular have been held on a string for so long because the previous Government failed to come to a conclusion. The reality is that the previous Government favoured, supported and struggled to get the parallel runway proposal at Mascot accepted by the New South Wales Government and that the New South Wales Government simply point blank refused to accept that proposition. The New South Wales Government even threatened not to supply services provided by the State to the Commonwealth at Mascot if in fact Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport was expanded in the way the previous Government had required it to be expanded in order to meet the air traffic requirements of Sydney. There can be nothing to justify the choice of Badgerys Creek except one thing, and that is that it provided Neville Wran with a very good weapon with which to beat the Federal Government over the head because at this stage there is simply no major trunk road going to Badgerys Creek. In other words, if the Federal Government goes ahead with this expensive acquisition it will then have the massive expense of providing the infrastructure, the roads and perhaps the rail link, to service passengers who arrive at Sydney's fanciful-in fact it will no doubt be mythical-second airport. I say that because the airport will not go ahead. However, Wran will no doubt be seeking to get the Federal Government to meet the costs of providing those services. So naturally it is a sensible, if slightly cunning, approach by the Premier and more sweat to his elbow if he can screw some money out of the Federal Government to provide the transport links to this place. If he can do so, so much the better for him. The reality is that Wilton is very close to a major trunk road, the Hume Freeway which, of course, links Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. In addition, a new railway line runs alongside the boundaries of the area. For the most part the site is on the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board land. Although some people have suggested that such a development could pollute Sydney's water supply, the information that I have is that that risk is simply non-existent, that such a claim is a device simply to substantiate some of the emotional protests which simply do not stand up. The fact is that the Wilton site would provide a magnificent service to the southern parts of Sydney and to the Illawarra region which are growing areas with some of the worst unemployment levels in Australia. The Wilton site would be within a reasonable driving distance of the south-western suburbs of Sydney which, as you would know, Mr President, are major growth areas. Certainly the rail link would have the capacity to provide very quick transport. In fact, I would suggest that although Wilton is 80 kilometres from Sydney one would be able to travel far more quickly from that site than one could from the Badgerys Creek site which is 46 kilometres from Sydney. In addition, according to draft plans, the very fast train proposed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation would be able to travel very quickly past the Wilton site. Senator Harradine —It would stop there; it would not go past. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Harradine quite rightly says, air travellers will hope that it stops at Wilton; travellers like us going to Canberra will hope that it goes past. The reality is, of course, that neither site will proceed. It is all pie in the sky. There is no way that this project will go ahead. This is simply a device by which the State Government of New South Wales has done a deal with the Federal Government to make it look as if it is trying to protect Labor seats-the wobbly Labor Party seats around the Botany Bay area where there has been continual protest about Mascot. I would be very surprised if we do not hear shortly from the Minister for Aviation that Mascot is to be upgraded and expanded; who knows, there may be a subtle decision to construct a parallel runway. I believe that this is what will happen, despite all the talk about the construction of another airport in Sydney. I wish to refer briefly to another matter. I want to follow up some of the remarks I made on Thursday night about the balance of payments figures. On that occasion I said that the Government clearly had to revise its balance of payments current account deficit forecast for 1985-86 which has already worsened from $10.7 billion to $11.25 billion. I suggested then that the joint economic forecasting group's predictions, as reported in the leak to the media, that this deficit would end up worse than $12 billion, if correct, should in fact now be formally acknowledged by the Federal Government. Whatever the latest forecast really is should be acknowledged by the Federal Government. There is no doubt now that, following the January figures, there is no chance of the published Government forecast being anything like reality. I know that in things like monetary targets the Government has in the past changed the target halfway through the game and has said: `Is it not marvellous that we have reached our target, having changed it?' Quite frankly, I much prefer it to do that. This is one of those occasions on which the Government is required, obliged, to advise the market of its view about the current account deficit. I am getting even more concerned about the continual attempts to talk the situation up-to make it sound better than it is. All through the second half of the last calendar year, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was busily saying, as was Senator Walsh, that the Government's targets on the current account deficit were always on track and that there was no need to change them. We, on this side, kept saying: `Oh yes, there is'. Eventually, they did get changed a little. But what concerned me was that on Friday, as I understand it, the Treasurer addressed I think, the foreign exchange dealers in Sydney and said that he thought things were going wonderfully and that the January figures for the current account clearly showed that the positive impact of devaluation was now being felt on the balance of payments. Frankly, that is just bunkum. The figures dramatise it. We had all these once-off elements in the January figures which simply are not going to be repeated. In the first place, we had a once-off switch from $200m-it was described as a downward timing adjustment by the statistician-because in fact the November figure had been understated as a result of some delays. I remind the Senate, of course, that the November figure had been welcomed with open arms by the Government because it was only $758m. It said: `Is it not wonderful? It shows that things are good'. In fact, that figure is now shown really to have been about a billion dollars. We had another one-off element-$500m of cereal exports in January as against about $300m as the normal level. That, of course, related to a once-off wheat sale to Russia. We had the incredible situation of Australian oil exports exceeding imports for the seven months to January. That situation certainly will not continue, especially now that we have these massively falling prices. We are going to be hit harder by oil prices because we are exporting more now than we are importing. In any event, we are not going to be able to export for much longer because of the inevitable downturn in our production. So we have all these once-off factors which have certainly influenced this $944m January deficit and clearly indicated that, far from showing that things are improving, it is a particularly worrying figure. On top of that, there is the seasonality impact of about $241m because according to the statistician there was, in fact, a trade balance of $14m which, when adjusted for seasonal factors, ended up as a trade deficit of $227m. That is the essential figure. That is roughly in line with the average seasonally adjusted trade deficit for all the seven months so far this financial year. For Mr Keating to find in that figure any solace shows that he is, in fact, a most energetic seeker after the vaguest hint of an upturn. It is simply not there yet. I plead with the Government, as I did last year: `Please come clean on telling the people of Australia what you really now believe the current account deficit will be for the current year'. We know perfectly well that it cannot reach its target of $11.25 billion because that would mean reducing the present average monthly deficit achieved so far in the seven months to January of $1.2 billion down to only $550m. That is simply impossible. I ask the Minister: `Please, come clean'. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.45) —The people of the Australian Capital Territory have not been getting an adequate fire service for far too long. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) has admitted this, and we are entitled to ask what the Government is doing and what steps are being taken to provide adequate protection. I shall go through in precis form some of the background. We did not have complete peace in the fire service prior to October 1984 when the present Fire Commissioner took up his appointment. That was greeted with pickets on the brigade headquarters, a ban on the skyjet ladder vehicle, and a reassurance the next day that the union reaffirmed non-co- operation with the new fire chief. I shall not refer to everything that has occurred but merely highlight some of them. By January 1985 we were told that 50 per cent of the fire engines were off the road due to breakdowns. Subsequently there was an article suggesting that many of the fire stations were in risk of closing, and it was disclosed that in the 1984-85 Budget the fire service had received $285,000 and not the $5m which it had sought and which was intended to upgrade and renovate buildings and replace equipment. It went on from there with bans on certain equipment. We were told by the union that five of the units were unsafe. Part of the problem is, of course, that the people of Canberra, who rely on this service to protect their property, do not really know where the truth lies in all of this and whether they are at risk. So it went on during 1985 with firemen occupying department offices, the Charnwood station closed and threats of further industrial action. In July 1985 the Minister established an inquiry into the fire brigade. It was to be a formal inquiry to examine all aspects of the brigade. We were told that it would be wide-ranging, would not rule out the possibility of an inquiry examining the appointment of the Fire Commissioner, and would probably examine the administration operations, equipment, financial control and accountability of the fire brigade. At the time the unions described the inquiry, as quoted in the Canberra Times of 13 July, as a `delaying tactic'. I am beginning to wonder whether that was right. That did not actually stop everything. Later that month, fire-fighters stopped work over disputed claims and there were a number of strikes threatened. Six fire stations closed down during lightning strikes in July 1985, and later that month most fire stations were closed because of stoppages. In early August 1985 we were greeted by a newspaper report which told us that no rolling stoppages had occurred for one week. I think most people would agree that, as far as adequate fire services are concerned, it is an extraordinary situation when we start boasting about there being no stoppages for a week. The Minister then placed a letter in the Canberra Times, at I imagine considerable expense, setting out his views of what had occurred and what the argument was all about. In it he said: The people of Canberra are not getting an adequate fire service because of the industrial tactics of the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Federal Fire-fighters' Union. That may be perfectly true, but the important thing from our point of view is that we were not getting an adequate fire service, although one may think that in August it does not matter too much because it is not a likely time of year for a fire to be a serious problem. I will not read out the whole of the letter, or incorporate it because I think it would be unnecessary. It has been published and is readily available. Near the end the Minister says: For all these reasons I am very concerned about the Fire Brigade. I am particularly concerned about the current and future management of the Brigade and that, primarily, is why I am establishing an inquiry to look at the Brigade's structure, its administration, financial controls and operations. It is right that the Minister is concerned. I think it is right to say that we are entitled to be concerned, but as yet we have not had any solutions to it. The inquiry did not end everything. We still have not had a report. We have not received answers to the questions that were raised. `Stop work continues' was a headline which appeared in a newspaper in mid-August of last year. In September we were told that the dispute was to be heard. In October the headline `Firefighters dispute gears up again' appeared. The Phillip and Kambah fire stations were inoperative for a time and Phillip and Charnwood fire stations were closed for another period. In January certain bans remained. On 12 February the Fire Commissioner deplored the closure of the Ainslie fire station. Last Friday, 14 February, there was a fire at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It was reported: The ACT Fire Commissioner, Mr Bill Kerr, police officers and CSIRO staff fought a fire in a building at Black Mountain for about 30 minutes yesterday because fire-fighters were on strike. The firemen had voted the previous day to go on strike. Apparently the first of four units did not arrive until 11.10 a.m. The police withdrew and the fire-fighters joined their Commissioner in putting out the fire. The union secretary affirmed that no fires would be attended by fire-fighters during the strike and the Minister issued a strongly worded statement condemning the strike. Nobody would disagree with him for doing that, but I come back to the point where I started: I think we are entitled to ask the Government what it is actually doing to give fire protection to the people of the Australian Capital Territory, especially at a time when the weather is probably as hot as it has been this summer. There is a lot of growth around and the fire danger must be fairly high. As I said, last August the Minister agreed and stated publicly that we were not getting an adequate fire service. It seems that nothing has improved. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.52 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 99) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 April 1985: (1) When did the AN/FSC-78 Defence Satellite Data System terminal at Watsonia, Victoria become fully operational. (2) What satellites has this terminal been involved with; and what are the formal designations and dates of launch of these satellites. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Watsonia communications satellite earth terminal was officially opened on 1 July 1981. After a period of testing the terminal commenced handling traffic later that year. (2) The terminal operates into the United States Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS) and accesses a DSCS II satellite which was launched on 21 November 1979. Its international designation is 1979-98B. (Question No. 580) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the right honourable senator's question: (1) The sum allocated in the current financial year for official entertainment and overseas representation allowance is as follows: (a) By the Department including the Australian Development Assistance Bureau $1,896,007. (b) Statutory Authorities. (i) by the Australian Japan Foundation $16,000; and (ii) by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. No specific allocation is made for hospitality/entertainment expenses. 2. The guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from and overseas representational allowance official entertainment were: (a) For Heads of Mission on long term overseas posting the guidelines are as follows: Procedures on Head of Mission Representation Allowance and Representation Supplement Upon commencing duties associated with his/her appointment, the Head of Mission shall be advanced an amount equal to one-fourth of the annual amount of vouched representation allowance as determined by the Minister. Three months after the day on which the Head of Mission commences duty at the post an advance equal to one fourth of the annual amount of representation allowance shall be payable to the Head of Mission of expenditure incurred in the previous three monthly period against the advance made. Advances are paid automatically and there is no need for the Head of Mission to apply for them. It will be appreciated, however, that if a vouching statement is not received following an advance, the Department cannot authorise further advances. Expenditure is recorded by the Finance Section cumulatively (but separately from the advances) on the Head of Mission's ledger card, so that there is a running total of both advances and expenditure. Expenditure in non-Australian currency is recorded as closely as possible to the rate of exchange at which it occurs by using a weighted mean of exchange rates, i.e., the average of the rates used each fortnight over the vouching period for salary purposes. The Department's check of vouching statements is limited to the arithmetic, the personal contribution percentage level, plus an examination of guest lists and incidental expenditure. It suffices for this purpose if the Head of Mission sends: (i) a financial summary sheet; (ii) his/her secretary's working copies of guest lists-with adequate description of principal guests-and jottings on these lists of the cost of the functions (in the currencies in which expense occurred) and a note of what receipts are held; (iii) a sheet recording incidental expenditure; and (iv) if they prefer to vouch that way, copies of accounts for bulk liquor/tobacco purchases. On the last, a minimum of five per cent and usually ten per cent should be deducted from the total purchase cost. Such deduction is to cover not only personal consumption by the Head of Mission and/or spouse, but also drinks and tobacco consumed (and catered for by representation supplement) in more informal entertainment and as gifts or tips. Clearly, if the amount so consumed is more than ten per cent, then that higher figure should be deducted. The only receipts to be sent to the Department are those for these bulk purchases; all others should be retained by the Head of Mission for production if called for. Heads of Mission who choose to vouch on a per capita basis should be able to substantiate the per capita figure with a sample menu if they are called upon to do so. The system places responsibility on Heads of Mission to keep the Department promptly informed at the end of each representational quarter of the detail of representational expenditure. The rules regarding the acceptability of such expenditure are in Volume 2 of the Department's Manual of Information and Instructions. The text of the relevant paragraphs are repeated below: Representation allowance is payable in two parts; a vouched representation allowance and a representational supplement. Representational Allowance Rules have been drawn up defining which items can be charged against a Head of Mission's vouched representation allowance. They include the following: 1. Entertainment of: (a) Local residents, diplomatic colleagues and members of the press; (b) Representatives of other countries; (c) Australian Ministers and Members of Parliament-both Federal and State; (d) Australian delegations; (e) Prominent Australians; (f) Australian businessmen, where visits have a direct bearing on relations between the two countries otherwise only when not the role guests. 2. (a) Deleted; (b) Invitation cards; (c) Visiting cards for wife; (d) Members of one club (other than that provided for in local allowance); (e) Wedding gifts, flowers, funeral wreaths, associated with events of a representational nature; (f) Donations to charitable causes-when associated with particular functions, occasion and activities; (g) Cost of accommodating Government Ministers and First Division officers and members of their families travelling officially; (h) Cost of accommodating visitors, other than Australian Second and Third Division public servants but only where other suitable accommodation is not available; (i) Flowers and additional servants, including overtime payments for members of the Official Residence domestic establishment, for entertainment in the Official Residence, but these costs should be shown as separate items. Costs associated with Australian Day functions are not charged to a Head of Mission's representation allowance. They are included in the post's annual estimates and a special allowance is provided. Representational Supplement Heads of Mission are paid, on a fortnightly basis, an amount to cover the cost of items not considered to be an appropriate charge against the vouched representation allowance. This allowance does not have to be vouched. The following items should be met from the representational supplement: (a) Casual social entertainment, including functions given by the Head of Missions's wife for wives of officers, wives of the Australian expatriate community, wives of visiting Australians, visiting officials, delegates, etc. (b) Entertainment as sole guests of Australian public servants, Australia-based staff, Service Officers, locally-engaged staff (c) Entertainment of other Australians as sole guests-except where the visit has a direct bearing on relations between the two countries. (d) Accommodation of Australian Public Servants other than First Division officers and members of their families travelling officially (e) Accommodation of other guests-where other suitable accommodation is not available (f) Tips, gratuities to tradesman, businessmen, local officials, general service personnel (garbage collectors, postmen, street cleaners etc.), guards, watchmen, etc. (g) Gifts and/or donations to retiring local and/or domestic staff (h) Personal functions for Australia-based and/or local staff (e.g., Christmas parties and wedding receptions) (i) Christmas or birthday presents, etc., for domestic staff (j) Farewell gifts for domestic staff (k) Gifts of liquor and cigarettes to local nationals (l) Admission fees, flowers, etc., associated with the visits of Australian Ministers and wives, Australian officials, etc. For other officers on long term overseas postings the guidelines contained in Finance Circular 1982/84 of 8 April 1982 are as follows: Representation funds for officers on long term postings Representation funds may be paid, in advance, to an officer who is occupying an established position at an overseas office or overseas Accounting Office, to enable him to establish or maintain the necessary liaison to perform his official duties. 2. Representation funds should not normally be provided to staff below the Class 5 level nor to locally engaged staff but such officers may be provided with representation funds for specific purposes. Amount and frequency of payment 3. The Permanent Head shall decide that the amount and frequency with which representation funds shall be paid to an officer. If an amount is to be paid fortnightly, the payment shall be calculated on a seven day week basis. 4. Payment of representation funds shall commence on the day the officer takes up duty at the overseas office or overseas Accounting Office and cease on the day he finishes duty at that office. 5. Representation funds shall not be paid during leave taken after completion of a posting. During a `handover' period, a departing officer and his replacement may both be paid representation funds for a period not exceeding two weeks. Representation funds statement 6. The Permanent Head should ensure that each officer in receipt of representation funds submits a Statement detailing the expenditure of these funds to him within six months of the commencement of payments of representation funds, or submission of the last Statement, and prior to the officer leaving an overseas office or overseas Accounting Office on completion of his posting. Itemised receipts of the expenditure shown on the Statement should be submitted, wherever possible, but it is not necessary that the full amount should be covered by receipts. Over/under expenditure 7. The balance of any over or under expenditure of representation funds for each expenditure period is to be carried forward to the next expenditure period. However, where the officer ceases duty at the overseas office or overseas Accounting Office any amount unexpended at that time shall be repaid by the officer. Any expenditure in excess of the approved rate is the officer's own responsibility. Admissible recipients and items 8. Before expending representation funds an officer should decide whether the expenditure is necessary and of specific value to Australia. 9. The rules relating to the expenditure of representation funds are set out in paragraphs 11 and 13. Those items which are not admissible are excluded for one of the following reasons: the type of expenditure is not normally accepted as necessary to further Australia's interests (e.g. entertaining another public servant as a sole guest); the item is included in local allowance or other moneys reimbursed to the officer (e.g. cost of servant's uniforms); the time is included in representation supplement (e.g. gifts). 10. Representation funds normally are expendable only in respect of the country or countries in which the officer is posted. Recipients 11. The following rules relate to the recipients of hospitality or other forms of representational expenditure: (a) representatives of government, business and other appropriate circles of the countries in which officer is serving-Admissible (b) representatives of other countries-Admissible (c) members of the Australian and State parliaments-Admissible (d) Permanent Heads of Departments Australian Heads of Mission, and other Australian Officials, eminent visitors or service personnel and Australian Embassy staffs-Only when not the sole guest. Admissible where functions are arranged to enable these people to meet local residents and others of assistance to their business, or where required to assist with or contribute materially to the function. (e) Locally-engaged staff-Only where not the primary reason for the function and where contributing materially to the function. It is expected that entertainment involving Australia-based or locally-engaged staff would be neither regular nor frequent. Moreover the proportion of such staff to other guests should reflect the fact that the latter are the raison d'etre for the function. Items 12. The following rules relate to the admissibility of items for expenditure purposes: (Additional rules relating to Heads of Post are shown in 13) Accommodation-rental, upkeep, gardening-Not admissible; visitors as boarders if public servants-Not not admissible; other-Admissible provided that the Head of Mission certifies that it has a genuine representational value and suitable hotel accommodation is unavailable at the time. Babysitting-whilst attending official functions-Admissible, provided local and/or child allowances or reimbursement arrangements do not provide for a full-time servant for the officer. Cards-greeting-Not admissible; invitation-Admissible; visiting cards for officer-Not admissible (to be met from ``office requisites'' appropriation); visiting cards for spouse-Admissible. Cigarettes-See Liquor and Cigarettes. Club Membership-for officer and family-One club primarily for representation purposes is admissible provided a club is not included in the local allowance calculation. Crockery, cutlery and glassware-purchase of extra-Not admissible; hire of extra for specific representational function-Admissible. Donations to charitable institutions-Admissible when donation is purely for representational purposes (art unions, lotteries etc. are excluded). Expenditure under this heading may not exceed 10% of the representation funds in a 12 month period. Entertainment-Casual Drinks-Not admissible. However, the costs of refreshments provided for delegates of other countries and members of the secretariats of international organisations in delegates' lounges or bars at conference posts (e.g. New York, Geneva, Paris, Bangkok) is admissible. Cocktail parties-Admissible. Meals-Admissible subject to the following: the cost of lunches, dinner etc for an officer and his spouse may be included when itemising the cost of entertaining official guest on the Representation Funds Statement. Receptions-ordinary-special-Admissible; Receptions not falling within normal representation activity but which would give rise to considerable favourable publicity, e.g. visits by Australian sportsmen, artists, academics or prominent personalities (e.g. Miss Australia) may be admissible but prior approval must be obtained from the Permanent Head; Minor Occasions, e.g. afternoon teas for two or three people-Not admissible; By spouses-Admissible provided it is of a representational character. Full details should be given of any claim under this heading. Flowers-decoration for representational function-Admissible; gift-Not admissible. Gifts-seasonal-Not admissible; gratuities-Not admissible; to local nationals-Not admissible; wedding-Not admissible expect if a substantial sum is involved and it is of major importance to Australia; other-Not admissible. Language Tuition-Not admissible. Liquor and cigarettes-vouching of-The cost of a bulk supply of liquor and cigarettes may be included on the Representation Funds Statement provided that: (i) the quantity and types of liquor and cigarettes are limited; (ii) an appropriate deduction is made for private consumption; (iii) all the guests entertained are listed. Morning dress or tails for special function which officer attends in his official capacity-hire of-Admissible; purchase of-May be admissible according to the following rules: (i) hire is not possible; (ii) must be accompanied by receipt; (iii) where the visits are directly related to relations between Australia and the country where the post is located, visiting Australian businessmen; (iv) on the first occasion 40% of cost is admissible; (v) on subsequent occasions 10% is admissible up to maximum of 6 occasions. Servants-Cost of additional for representation function-Admissible provided that the costs are incurred for the preparation and serving of food and drinks; Hire of additional uniforms-Admissible if associated with representational function; Purchase of uniforms-Not admissible. Tips-Admissible only if they are an essential part of a particular function (e.g. a meal at a restaurant). Tips to servants of the host are not admissible. Transport-use of own vehicle-Not admissible; use of taxis-Not admissible; use of hire cars-Not admissible. Wreaths-Not admissible except where a substantial sum is involved and the matter is of major importance to Australia. In the case of an obscure or unusual item not covered above an officer should fully explain the nature of the item and the specific representational purposes to which it was put. 13. The following additional items may be accepted as admissible charges to the Head of Post's representation funds. (a) Entertainment as sole guests-(i) Australian delegations; (ii) prominent Australians; and (b) cost of wedding gifts, flowers and funeral wreaths associated with events of a representational nature, and cost of donations to charitable causes when associated with particular representational functions or activities; and (c) cost of accommodating-(i) Ministers and first Division officers and accompanying members of their families or staff when travelling officially; and (ii) where other suitable accommodation is not available, other visitors whose visits are directly related to relations between Australia and the country where the post is located, but not officers of the Second or lower divisions of the Public Service. The Departmental guidelines on the use of official entertainment funds in force on 1 September were as follows: Expenditure by officials on hospitality guidelines (1 April 1982) Official Ministerial hospitality authorised personally by a Minister is outside the scope of these guidelines. Arrangements for Ministerial hospitality are made through the Office Ceremonial and Hospitality, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and any inquiries about such hospitality should be directed to that office. 2. Funds for official hospitality are provided to facilitate the conduct of public business through persons who are able to do so either by advice or service or because of their vocational or business interests. Hospitality may also be extended to overseas visitors where the department or authority concerned has an interest in, or some obligation towards, facilitating the visit, and to members of the diplomatic and consular corps. Official hospitality in the normal course would be extended to an overseas visitor on not more than one occasion during a visit but additional hospitality may be appropriate in the particular circumstances, e.g. an extended stay in Australia, where the visit covers widely spaced locations, or the visitor's interests span the functions of more than one department/authority. A Permanent Head may authorise a Commonwealth official on placement with a company in Australia under the Public Service Board's Interchange Program to return reasonable hospitality extended by the host organisation, or for an officer on exchange with an overseas Government to extend hospitality where representation duties are involved. 3. In general, expenditure should not be authorised on hospitality or entertainment associated with functions of an inter-departmental or intra-Commonwealth Government nature. The principle to be followed is that public funds are not to provide hospitality for Commonwealth Government officials. Some exceptions have been made-for instance, hospitality for annual conferences of heads of State branches of a department or authority. See also paragraph 9 on working lunches. 4. The number of Commonwealth officials attending functions should be restricted to those who will be able to advance public business or who will gain benefits by attending. 5. For large scale functions, the number of Commonwealth officials attending should, as a general rule, comprise a minor proportion of those attending. For smaller functions, say in the order of a dozen people, the number of Commonwealth officials should be in balance with the number of visitors. Where only one visitor is being entertained, normally not more than three Commonwealth officials should attend. 6. Where Commonwealth officials partake of meals the costs of which are charged against official hospitality, the officials should not receive travelling allowance in respect of those meals. 7. Functions may be hosted by the head of department or authority or an authorised officer. Spouses of officials are included where this is appropriate. A function may be hosted by the spouse of the head, or other officer deputed by the head, of the organisation. Other members of the host's family would not normally be included in the list. Hospitality may be provided in the host's private home. 8. Fees incurred by officers representing their organisations at seminars or similar functions are not normally regarded as a charge against hospitality funds. However, expenditure incurred in offering hospitality to a visiting speaker could be appropriate. 9. Expenditure on a lunch which is not otherwise admissible may be acceptable as a working lunch and charged against official hospitality where: a full day's meeting has been scheduled and there are cost advantages in continuing the meeting through the normal lunch break; or the lunch is attended by officials from at least one department or authority other than the host department/authority and is for the purpose of transacting official business during the meal. Working lunches should normally be (a) at the work/meeting location (b) not a regular occurrence and (c) of a simple standard involving relatively low charges per head, for example sandwiches, fruit and tea/coffee at $2.00 per head; salad and tea/coffee at $2.50 per head; light luncheon at $4.50 per head. 10. Expenditure on minor gifts of a protocol or public relations nature is acceptable as a charge against official hospitality where presentation of such gifts is in conformity with a particular department's or authority's functions. 11. Some specific examples of expenditure which is acceptable or not acceptable as official entertainment are listed below to provide guidance for future cases: Acceptable Expenditure Payment of gratuities which are reasonable in relation to services performed. The provision of a liquor cupboard for small scale entertainment. The purchase of flowers-for use in the home when entertaining officially, or for reciprocal presentation, or for presentation, in special circumstances, to the wife of an important guest. Non-Acceptable Expenditure Functions to farewell officers on retirement or on posting or transfer. Hospitality by officials for Commonwealth Ministers and Members of the Federal Parliament. Club membership fees; and Entertainment at a Commonwealth Government-sponsored international conference (such expenditure should be a charge to the conference budget). These guidelines were revised on 26 September 1985 by the Departmental Circular Number 72/85 as follows: Official Entertainment Expenditure (26 September 1985) General 1. Official entertainment or hospitality in the Department is provided under the Secretary's Entertainment Fund. It is funded through the Incidentals item in the Administrative Expenses Division of the Department's Appropriation. 2. The responsibility for deciding whether expenditure on official entertainment is a proper charge on public funds rests with the Secretary. 3. Proposals for the expenditure of funds on official entertainment should be addressed to the Secretary through the Functions Officer in the Protocol Branch. Submissions should bear the endorsement of a Deputy Secretary or First Assistant Secretary and be within the Guidelines on Expenditure by officials on Entertainment provided in Appendix 1. In each case, a test of essentiality will be applied to the proposal. To allow adequate processing time, proposals should reach Protocol with at least five working days notice. Processing procedures and responsibilities 4. Any proposal should include the following details: (i) date/time; (ii) venue; (iii) host; (iv) number of guests (including the host); (v) name, nationality (where applicable) and appointment of each attendee; (vi) reasons for/purpose of the function and other supporting information. 5. The Functions Officer in the Protocol Branch, after ensuring the proposal accords with the Guidelines and that funds are available, will submit the proposal to the Secretary for approval. 6. On approval, the proposal will be returned to the Functions Officer who will advise the responsible officer accordingly. 7. Restaurant bookings, catering, menus, etc. for the function will be arranged by the Functions Officer. 8. The host or a delegated officer should sign the account. In most cases, the Functions Officer will arrange with the restaurant etc. to forward the account directly to Protocol Branch. Where this is not possible, the host or the delegated officer will be responsible for delivering the account to the Functions Officer. On receipt of the account, the Functions Officer will prepare a Claim for Payment (TF12) and forward it with the original proposal and account to the Director, Finance with a certification that services have been rendered correctly. If the account exceeds the amount approved, covering approval will be sought from the Secretary. 9. The Director, Finance will process the account for payment. It is expected that accounts will be processed and paid within fourteen days of their receipt by the Finance Section. Special Cases 10. Proposals on short notice or for approval in retrospect will each be considered separately on their merits. However, approval will only be given where compelling circumstances can be shown. Appendix: 1. Expenditure by Officials on Entertainment-Guidelines. 1. Official Ministerial entertainment authorised personally by a Minister is outside the scope of the guidelines. Arrangements for Ministerial entertainment are made through the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and any inquiries about such entertainment should be directed to that Office. 2. Funds for official entertainment are provided to facilitate the conduct of public business through persons who are able to do so either by advice or service, or because of their vocational or business interests. Entertainment may also be extended to overseas visitors where the Department has an interest in, or some obligation towards, facilitating the visit and to members of the diplomatic and consular corps. Official entertainment in the normal course would be extended to an overseas visitor on not more than one occasion during a visit but additional entertainment may be appropriate in particular circumstances, e.g. an extended stay in Australia, where the visit covers widely spaced locations, or the visitor's interests span the functions of more than one department/authority. The Secretary may authorise a Departmental officer on placement with a company in Australia under the Public Service Board's Interchange Program to return reasonable entertainment extended by the host organisation, or for an officer on exchange with an overseas Government to extend entertainment where representational duties are involved. 3. In general, expenditure should not be authorised on entertainment or entertainment associated with functions of an inter-departmental or intra-Commonwealth Government nature. The principle to be followed is that public funds are not to provide entertainment for Commonwealth Government officials. Some exceptions have been made-for instance, entertainment for annual conferences of heads of State branches or a department or authority (see also paragraph 9 on working lunches). 4. The number of Commonwealth officials attending functions should be restricted to those who will be able to advance public business or who will benefit by attending. 5. For large scale functions the number of Commonwealth officials attending should, as a general rule, comprise a minor proportion of those attending. For smaller functions, say in the order of a dozen people, the number of Commonwealth officials should be in balance with the number of visitors. Where only one visitor is being entertained, normally not more than three Commonwealth officials should attend. 6. Where Commonwealth officials partake of meals the costs of which are charged against official entertainment, the officials should not receive travelling allowance in respect of those meals. 7. Functions may be hosted by the Secretary or an authorised officer. Spouses of officers are included where this is appropriate. A function may be hosted by the spouse of the Secretary or another officer deputed by the Secretary. Other members of the host's family would not normally be included in the guest list. Entertainment may be provided in the host's private home. 8. Fees incurred by officers representing their organisations at seminars or similar functions are not normally regarded as a charge against entertainment funds. However, expenditure incurred in offering entertainment to a visiting speaker could be appropriate. 9. Expenditure on a lunch which is not otherwise admissible may be acceptable as a working lunch and charged against official entertainment where either: (a) a full day's meeting has been scheduled and there are cost advantages in continuing the meeting through the normal lunch break; or (b) the lunch is attended by officials from at least one department or authority other than the Department of Foreign Affairs and is for the purpose of transacting official business during the meal. 10. Working lunches should normally be: (a) at the work/meeting location; (b) not a regular occurrence; and (c) of a simple standard involving relatively low charges per head; for example sandwiches, fruit and tea/coffee at $3.00 per head; salad and tea/coffee at $3.50 per head; light luncheon at $6.00 per head. Liqueurs should be avoided at lunches and set menus rather than a la carte should be used. 11. Expenditure on minor gifts of a protocol or public relations nature is acceptable as a charge against official entertainment where presentation of such gifts is in conformity with the Department's functions. Approval for the presentation of a gift must be obtained from the Secretary and be sought in the official entertainment proposal. 12. Some specific examples of expenditure which is acceptable or not acceptable as official entertainment are listed below to provide guidance for future cases. (a) Acceptable Expenditure (1) Payment of gratuities which are reasonable in relation to services performed. (2) the provision of a liquor cellar for entertainment by the Secretary. (3) The purchase of flowers-for official entertainment or use in the home when entertaining officially, for reciprocal presentation, or for presentation, in special circumstances, to the wife of a very important guest. (4) A farewell lunch for a departing Head of Mission who has been in Canberra for more than 12 months (but not a non-residential Head of Mission paying a farewell call unless extenuating circumstances exist). (b) Non-Acceptable Expenditure (1) Functions to farewell officers on retirement or on posting or transfer. (2) Entertainment by officials for Commonwealth Ministers and Members of the Federal Parliament. (3) Club membership fees. (4) Entertainment at a Commonwealth Government sponsored international conference (such expenditure should be a charge to the conference budget). (5) Expenditure for individual officers which might come from the individual Expenses of Office Allowance paid to senior officers in the Senior Executive Service. (6) Hospitality for conferences. Conference commitments (such as Bilateral and Multilateral talks, ASEAN, ANZUS, Antarctic Consultative Meetings, etc.) are funded through the Conference vote and not through the Official Entertainment Fund. (b) The guidelines in force as at September 1 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (i) The Australian Japan Foundation. The Foundation authorised the establishment of an expenses fund from which the Executive Director may draw upon at his discretion to cover those legitimate minor expenses, including entertainment related to the foundations work which are incurred between meetings of the Foundation Board. Details of expenditure are reported to the subsequent foundation meeting, and (ii) the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research does not have a specific budget allocation for hospitality/entertainment. The centre operates a trust account and utilises program budgeting. Each program comprises a number of research project with a specific budget. Within each project budget there is a specific amount to be spent on other costs. Hospitality if incurred is paid for from this area of each budget. The centre treats hospitality as an expense necessary to further government business and it is accorded a priority consistent with the aims of the project or program. The centre follows the regulations and directions as laid down by the Audit Act. The centre will adopt policies and guidelines consistent with any change to financial legislation pertaining to the public service that flows from proposed reforms. (c) Non-Statutory Bodies (1) An advance of $250 can be made available to the Executive Director of the Australia-China Council. The advance should be acquitted and a new advance of the same amount can be made from time to time as expenditure approaches the total advance. The total amount available under the Account in any financial year can not exceed $1500 without specific Council approval. Under the provisions of the Account the Executive Director may extend hospitality to visitors from the People's Republic of China and to other persons who can advise or facilitate the conduct of the Council's business by advice or service in the light of their vocational, professional or business interests. The Account should not be used to entertain the Chairman or members of the Council except in cases where the Chairman or members are participating with the Executive Director in the particular activity-in such circumstances the number of Council members should be limited. The Account should not be used to make grants to outside persons or organisations to assist in providing entertainment or for any other purpose-such grants should be approved by Council in the normal manner and provided under the Council's regular program. The Executive Director should present to Council each quarter a summary report on the expenditure of funds from the Account. Copies of receipts should be available to the Council. Where the Chairman deems it appropriate, he may offer or authorise a Council member to offer, hospitality on modest guidelines. Expenditure may be reimbursed from the Casual Hospitality Account and should be included in the Executive Director's quarterly report. 3. The matter is still under consideration pending further advice from the Department of Finance and the office of the Commissioner for Taxation. The Public Service Board has been consulting with the Australian Taxation Office on the implications for Australian Public Service staff of the changes to the taxation system announced by the Treasurer on 19 September 1985. The issues involved are complex and the full implications will not become apparent until all the legislation is developed. (Question No. 669) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 7 November 1985: (1) How many of the schools contained in the announcement on 9 October 1985 by the Minister for Education of Commonwealth funding for 68 new non-government schools were merely (a) relocations; and (b) extensions of existing schools and how many were schools commencing operation for the first time. (2) What were the names of the new schools not approved for Commonwealth recurrent funding for 1986. (3) Why was each of these new schools rejected. (4) Did the Minister accept the exact priority order supplied by the New Schools Committee or did she make some adjustments. (5) If the answer to (4) is yes, in relation to which schools and for what reasons were adjustments made. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) 17 relocations (b) 20 extensions (c) 31 schools were commencing operation for the first time. (2) New schools not approved for recurrent grants in 1986 with nature of new school (in parenthesis) are: New South Wales Arafura Waldorf School, Terrey Hills (Commencing) Armidale Christian Community School, Armidale (Commencing) Boongaiai School, Armidale (Commencing) Carey Christian College, Charlestown (Commencing) Carrawinya Mullen St School, Balmain (Commencing) Central West Christian Community School, Parkes (Extending) Daystar Rudolf Steiner School, Cawongla (Commencing) Eastern Suburbs Rudolph Steiner School, Kensington (Commencing) Essington Christian Academy, Westmead (Extending) Lincoln Agricultural College, Dubbo (Commencing) Hamazkaine Armenian School, Terrey Hills (Commencing) Maharishi Grammar School, Kearns (Commencing) Nur Muslim Primary School, Greenacre (Commencing) Our Lady of Lebanon School, Harris Park (Extending) St George Christain School, Sans Souci (Additional Campuses) Victoria Kings College, Warrnambool (Commencing) MDA Grammar School, Mooroolbark East (Additional Campus) Queensland Christian Life Community School, Manunda (Primary level approved, junior secondary not approved) Mackay Community School, Mackay (Commencing) Maryborough Christian Academy, Maryborough (Primary level approved, junior secondary not approved) School of Total Education, Warwick (Extending) Southside Christian College, Salisbury (Primary level approved, junior secondary not approved) Townsville Christian Academy, Kirwan (Junior secondary approved, senior secondary not approved) Western Australia Kwinana Regional Christian School, Casuarina (Commencing) Maranatha Christian Community School, Coolangup (Extending) The Peoples Church College, Esperance (Commencing) Westside School of Music, Mosman Park (Commencing) South Australia Cornerstone Christian High School, Verdun (Commencing) Tasmania Romaine Park Christian School, Burnie (Relocation approved, extension not approved) (3) Schools will be funded in 1986 which are in the high and medium priority categories, i.e. their proposals are consistent with planned education provision, provided they also met initial eligibility criteria. The schools listed in (2) were either not in these priority categories, or had not fulfilled initial eligibility criteria. (4) The priority order assessed by New Schools Committees was accepted by the Government, except in the case of two schools where further considerations taken into account. (5) The two schools referred to in (4) are Domremy College, Five Dock and Oakleigh Greek Orthodox College, Oakleigh. The Government decided that in the case of these two schools there were further considerations involving particular hardship or disruption. (Question No. 746) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 4 December 1985: (1) How many Residential Apartments are available for Australian Government Representatives at the Australian Embassy in Paris, France. (2) Who are the present occupants. (3) How many apartments are vacant. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian Government owns the apartment complex next to the Chancery in Paris. The complex contains one OECD Ambassador's residence, twenty-nine apartments and two transit flats. The UNESCO Ambassador's residence is situated in the Chancery. (2)- Apartment 1 R. Lindsay, BSO Apartment 2 P. Davey, Attache (Communications) Apartment 3 G. Morony, Counsellor (Economic Affairs) OECD Apartment 4 D. Henry, Communicator Apartment 5 Wg Cdr K. Cairns, Asst Defence Attache and Air Attache Apartment 6 Capt Arundel, Defence and Naval Attache Apartment 7 D. McIntyre, Counsellor UNESCO Apartment 8 D. Hamlin, Communicator Apartment 9 R. Parker, Second Secretary (C and A) Apartment 10 L. Bode, Senior Engineer Officer, Defence Apartment 11 Sgn Ldr Bishop, Supply Liaison Officer, Defence Apartment 12 E. Davis, Secretary Apartment 13 D. Holt, First Secretary (Admin) Apartment 14 Transit Flat Apartment 15 T. Baldock, Counsellor (Trade) Apartment 16 C. Balogh, Senior Migration Officer Apartment 17 J. Kennedy, Counsellor UNESCO Apartment 18 G. McAlpine, Counsellor (Scientific and Environmental Affairs) OECD Apartment 19 B. James, First Secretary (Procurement) Defence Apartment 20 A. Verner, First Secretary Apartment 21 B. Whiteman, First Secretary (Information) Apartment 22 G. Weir, Counsellor (Financial Affairs) Apartment 23 B. Goodwin, Counsellor (C and A) Apartment 24 G. Carmody, Counsellor (Economical Affairs) OECD Apartment 25 J. Piper, Deputy Permanent Rep OECD Apartment 26 J. Tinney, Minister-Trade Apartment 27 M. Valanty, Communicator Apartment 28 J. Bowman, Secretary Apartment 29 J. Daley, Minister (Energy) OECD Apartment 30 Transit Flat Apartment 31 R. Fraser, Minister Apartment 32 Ambassador MacGoldrick (OECD) 7th floor-Chancery Apartment 33 Ambassador Whitlam (UNESCO) (3) There are no vacant apartments. The transit flats are bedsitters and are used to house visiting officers on official business and officers awaiting permanent accommodation on arrival to the post or prior to departure from the post. They are therefore vacant from time to time.