Thursday, 13 March 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory; That until the Government's decision on the Commonwealth grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government; Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardships and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85 per cent of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Hill (from 102 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights will do nothing to advance the rights of Australians, because it is dangerously ambiguous and will cause confusion within the legal system; it endangers our Federal system; and, it is to be administered in an authoritarian manner inconsistent with the present legal rights of all Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and all cognate Bills. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under Common Law, 2. Deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. Give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. Could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners request that the Senate should: Completely reject both the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 17 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 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 40 citizens), Brownhill (from 143 citizens) and Robertson (from 151 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 humbly pray that the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 92 citizens), Messner (from 64 citizens), Reid (from 42 citizens) and Robertson (from four citizens). To the Honourable the President and the 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 un-Australian and is designed to destroy the Federal System. Your petitioners pray: That the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. In this session of Parliament the proposed Bill of Rights will come before the Senate to be debated. We, the undersigned, would like to voice our protest at the proposed Bill. 1. Because of the haste and secrecy with which this legislation was passed through the House of Representatives despite the fact that it will adversely affect areas of immense importance to liberty and freedom and is contrary to the spirit of the Australian Constitution. 2. The Bill is based upon the United Nations International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights which has been rejected both by the United States of America and Great Britain but accepted by the Warsaw Pact countries. We therefore believe there is a potential threat to our national security through making treaties of this kind with foreign nations, many of whom do not practise the principles that they have covenanted to uphold. 3. Because our Australian Constitution states that ``whereas we the people'' give you the government these rights, the Constitution limits the rights and power of government. The proposed Bill of Rights reverses this totally and states that ``we the government give you the people these rights''. This totally reverses the nature of government in this country. 4. Our rights and the principles of freedom are now protected by current legislation, Common law and the present Constitution. 5. Because it transfers the powers of interpretation of legislation from the Parliament of Australia (the democratically elected institution) to the Courts (unelected body of people). 6. Because the Bill of Rights will be administrated by the Human Rights Commission which is an unelected body of people with powers which are outside and not subject to the normal processes of law-no appeal, closed hearings, no legal representation. 7. That the implementation of the legislation through a process of new educational initiatives will result in the centralised control of education and this will inevitably lead to the destruction of States' rights and just as inevitably the centralised control, by government, on human behaviour. We therefore request that you vote to reject this proposed Bill of Rights in any shape or form being introduced in Australia. Yours humbly by Senator Maguire (from four citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose utterly and completely the proposed Bill of Rights 1985 Bill because it will: Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of the present and future Government Give unjustifiable power to a commission not elected by the people namely the Human Rights Commission Give no protection for the family, for private property for private trade and enterprise for the churches and freedom of worship or for the maintenance of the present judicial system. As there has been no groundswell for a Bill of Rights from the greater part of the Australian community, it is our will that you take immediate action to prevent the Bill of Rights being passed by the Senate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania showeth that: Your petitioners pray that Your Honourable House will reject the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 for the following reasons: 1. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and its implementation will result in attacks on the Christian church and the promotion of a State religion based on secular humanism; 2. That there is no need for legislation of this kind since the principles of freedom are already enshrined in Common Law and that it will cause more problems than it seeks to solve; 3. That there is a potential threat to our national security through making treaties of this kind with foreign nations, many of which do not share a common heritage and do not practise many of the principles that they have covenanted to uphold; 4. The methods being used to introduce this legislation are secretive and a blatant misuse of the external affairs powers under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution and that furthermore are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution; 5. That the implementation of the legislation through a process of new educational initiatives will result in the centralised control of education and this will inevitably lead to the destruction of States' rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 33 citizens). Petitions received. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Chaney I give notice that, three sitting days after today, he shall move: That Order 111A of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders, as contained in Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as Amended (Amendment) (being Export Control Orders No. 2 of 1986) and made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Chaney I give notice that, three sitting days after today, he shall move: That Order 100A of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders, as contained in Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as Amended (Amendment) (being Export Control Orders No. 2 of 1986) and made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 in relation to industrial matters. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to standing order 109A, I give notice that it is my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos. 1 and 3 standing in my name for 11 April 1986 relating to disallowance of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Orders Nos. MQ14, MQ15 and MQ16 of 1985 and the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Regulations (Amendment). I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —These were protective notices of motion given while the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was awaiting explanations from the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) relating to merits review of discretionary decisions and possible pre judicial retrospectivity. The Corporation has indicated that a proposed amendment to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act will provide for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review the discretion in question. The Minister for Finance has assured the Committee that retrospectivity in the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Regulations is not prejudicial to any person. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that- (a) the balance of payments current account deficit for the first two-thirds of the 1985-86 financial year totals a record $9.5 billion, equal to an annual rate of $14.4 billion; (b) this involves a $3.7 billion or 34 per cent blowout from the Budget estimate and is $3.15 billion more than the Federal Government's revised target for the year of $11.25 billion, and represents more than 6 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) instead of the forecast 4.6 per cent; (c) the Leader of the Government (Senator Button) admitted on 12 March 1986 that the Government has no reason for being enthusiastic about the February 1986 deficit of $1.03 billion and does not expect any dramatic turnaround in the current account problem this month, next month or the month after; and (d) this is in conflict with statements by both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 12 March 1986 that the February figures were evidence that the turnaround in the balance of payments had begun and the claim by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 11 March 1986 that the current account deficit would total only 5 per cent of GDP in 1985-86, requests the Government to provide a realistic revised target for the current account deficit for 1985-86 as agreed by the Cabinet, if such agreement is possible, so that the people of Australia will have some idea of the balance of payments consequences of the Government's misdirected economic policies. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that- (a) the number of bankruptcies in Queensland in 1985 was 1,145, according to a figure calculated from Bankruptcy Notices appearing in the Commonwealth Gazette; (b) this figure represents an increase of 22.1 per cent over the number of bankruptcies recorded in Queensland during 1984; (c) in the other non-Labor State, Tasmania, there was a 20.8 per cent rise in bankruptcies during 1985; (d) in the Northern Territory there was a massive jump in the number of bankruptcies in 1985 of 103.4 per cent; and (e) in contrast, the overall bankruptcy figure for the four States with Labor Governments, and including the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) actually declined by 0.7 per cent, condemns the non-Labor Governments of Queensland, Tasmania, and the Northern Territory for their obvious economic mismanagement as demonstrated by the bankruptcy figures, and congratulates the Labor States and the Australian Capital Territory for providing economic climates that have enabled individuals, sole traders and partnerships to survive and flourish. Senator MORRIS(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that- (a) the President of the Miners' Federation (Mr John Maitland) has recommended to his members in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania that all bans be lifted in the dispute which has threatened Australia's coal export trade; and (b) this move follows an initiative by the Federal Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to convene a meeting of all parties, including the Australian Council of Trade Unions, conditional on members of the Miners' Federation lifting bans and withdrawing threats of further action, congratulates the Minister on his initiative in arranging the talks in a move which is yet another example of the commitment of the Hawke Labor Government to a policy of harmonious industrial relations and wishes the Minister well in his efforts to resolve a difficult and potentially damaging dispute. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council-Annual Report 1984-85. 2. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 38 (3) of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980. 3. Australian Manufacturing Council-Annual Report 1984-85. 4. Director of Public Prosecutions-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 33 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. 5. Attorney-General's Department and Office of Parliamentary Counsel-Annual Reports 1984-85. The office of Parliamentary Counsel Annual Report is pursuant to section 16A of the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970. 6. Academic Salaries Tribunal-Report on Salaries: Vice-Chancellors and Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Principals and Deputy Principals of Colleges of Advance Education-Pursuant to section 12DD (3) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. 7. Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to section 46 (3) of the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bill relates to the participation of officers and employees of the Trade Union Training Authority in the election of staff representatives to the regional councils for trade union training established in each State under the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. These regional councils have the role of advising the Australian Council for Union Training and ensuring that the training policies formulated by the Australian Council are implemented in their States by the local trade union training centres. These elected positions were first provided for by amendments made to the Act by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985, which dealt with a number of matters relating to the structure and administration of the Trade Union Training Authority. It was provided that there be a new position of staff representative on each regional council and it was intended that the holder of the position would be elected by and from those officers and employees of TUTA who performed their duties in the State for which the council was established. The officers and employees in TUTA establishments which are located in a State but which function at the national rather than the State level were to be precluded from participating in those elections because the regional councils are only concerned with the work of TUTA at the State level. The national bodies to which I refer are the office of the National Director, the National Office and the Australian Trade Union Training College. Of course, persons employed at those establishments are eligible under the Act to participate in the election of the staff representative on the Australian Council for Union Training which has national responsibility for the formulation of TUTA's policy. When the necessary election regulations were being prepared, however, it became apparent that the intended exclusion of national and college staff could not be given effect to under the 1985 provisions. Accordingly, the amendments contained in this Bill are designed to remove that difficulty and to give full effect to the intention of the 1985 amendments. The Bill seeks to achieve that objective in the following manner. Proposed paragraph 20 (1) (e) provides that a regional council is to include a representative of TUTA staff in that State elected by and from those staff and appointed to the council by the Minister. When read in conjunction with proposed sub-section 20 (5), this provision also limits the persons who may participate in the election to officers and employees of TUTA who are employed in relation to the State in which the regional council is located. Proposed sub-section 20 (5) sets out the criteria for determining whether an officer or employee is to be regarded as employed in relation to a State for the purposes of the election pursuant to proposed paragraph 20 (1) (e). As I have mentioned, officers and employees engaged in national functions are to be excluded from these elections and therefore the `non-regional offices' under the regulations will be the national director's office in Sydney and the national office in Wodonga. It was considered preferable to enable this to be done by regulation rather than to specify the offices concerned in the Act because of the possibility of changes in the future to their location. Financial impact The Proposed legislation has no significant financial impact. The costs of conducting the elections for staff representatives are expected to be small in view of the limited number of TUTA staff involved. Mr President, the measures contained in recent amendments of the Act, including this Bill, will assist in the further development of an efficient, progressive and well-led trade union movement which is of crucial importance to all Australians. The education of leaders and potential leaders of trade unions in developing and improving their skills and industrial knowledge is clearly a national responsibility. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Referral to Standing Committee Debate resumed from 11 February, on motion by Senator Durack: That the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.13) —When the Senate was last considering the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985, I had moved a motion on behalf of the Opposition that the Bill, having been read a second time, should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional And Legal Affairs for its detailed consideration of clauses of the Bill, instead of our now proceeding, as would normally be the case, to consider it in a Committee of the whole. I had commenced to state the Opposition's reasons why we thought that was the preferable course. I had emphasised that the Bill deals with many important and also very technical questions. The range of amendments to be moved to the Trade Practices Act is very great. The Opposition, the Government and the Australian Democrats wish to pursue a number of amendments and it would take up a great deal of the time of the Senate to consider such a great range of amendments. I suggest that that is not a suitable course, the amendments being of such a technical character, even though some are of enormous significance. Because they concern a very technical subject I propose that it would be better for them to be considered by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, which could have more time to devote to them than would the Senate. Indeed, it would be a great waste of most senators' time for there to be prolonged technical discussions in the Committee of the whole. The other consideration which I wish to advance in support of the Opposition's case is that the amendments to the Act proposed by the Government have created a great deal of interest on the part of various organisations in the community which represent both sides of the debate. The Opposition has received representations from numerous groups and people. It really would be far more satisfactory if the people who have made representations came before the Committee and stated their cases. These could be fully examined by a body which represents all parties in this chamber. This would be preferable to a situation where we, in the course of a Committee debate in this place, would have to pick and choose between representations that have been made without as a whole having the advantage of directly hearing the views of organisations of high standing and importance in the community which are concerned with this matter. I believe that the people representing those organisations would be of great assistance to the Senate committee and, ultimately, to the Senate. The Committee, and ultimately the Senate as a whole, would be directly informed of their views. The Committee would also be able to question them in detail about their views and thereby senators would be in a better position to make a judgment about whether their proposals should be adopted. The Opposition has opposed the second reading of the Bill. We still maintain our view that it is a bad Bill. It is highly regulatory; it will increase regulation in a very significant way. We believe that the appropriate course would be to defeat the Bill. Nevertheless, the Senate has taken a different view. We simply wish to pursue amendments to some clauses and oppose certain other clauses. Our amendments are by no means exhaustive and do not affect all clauses of the Bill. I think the Australian Democrats have taken a similar approach. We do not believe that the Senate Committee should take a great deal of time to consider the Bill. Obviously, since we started to debate this question several weeks ago, major interest has been expressed in relation to one part of the Bill, namely, the proposal to remove the power of the Trade Practices Commission to investigate the acquisition of a monopoly. That matter should be resolved quickly by the Parliament. Therefore, we would not want to see the Committee delay in any way the ultimate resolution of this whole question by the Senate. The Opposition is concerned to see that nothing we do in this Parliament should affect in any way the existing rights of either of the parties to the takeover offer for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. However, the Opposition does not believe that the Government's amendment should be amended any further. It has been our policy from the beginning that, if we failed to defeat the Bill, we would want it examined by a committee. We believe that course should still be followed. At the same time we do not want to see the final decision on this matter by Parliament delayed. Clearly, the Trade Practices Commission has taken action which indicates that it wants to have the Parliament's view on this without further delay. It was expecting the matter to be resolved apparently before it took legal action. No doubt highly relevant to what the Trade Practices Commission decides to do in the end is what this Parliament does about that section. Nevertheless, it is a matter for the Trade Practices Commission to decide, on the state of the law as it was at the time, what action it should take. We do not want to suggest to the Trade Practices Commission what it should do, but it is entitled to know what the Parliament proposes to do about this section for future cases and because of its great relevance to the case that it is having to deal with. I do not see the Committee consideration, therefore, as unduly delaying this matter. It is certainly not the Opposition's intention that it should do so, because we believe that the sooner this whole question can be resolved the better for all concerned. I do not know that there is anything further I need say in support of our motion that the Bill as a whole be referred to the Senate Committee. As I say, if we do not take that step we will be spending a good deal of time in what will be an unsatisfactory debate in the Committee of the Whole whereas the matter will be dealt with, we believe, in a much more satisfactory way in the atmosphere of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I commend that approach to the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.23) — The Government opposes the motion to refer the matter to a Senate committee. I believe that we will have time in this place to deal effectively with those amendments which need proper consideration. Although the task is a big one, it is nothing like as big as the task we seem to have embarked upon with the Bill of Rights and I do not believe it need take us anything like as long as that. Let me explain why it need not take as long. Senator Durack —I think there are more senators interested in the Bill of Rights though, don't you? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think there might be one or two interested in this legislation too. Let me explain why it should not take long. First of all, as to the consumer protection provisions, the majority of those amendments-- Senator Chipp —I'm sorry, what did you say should not take long? Senator GARETH EVANS —I said that there are some amendments which are going to take us a deal of time, clearly, because there is a degree of interest in them, but the great bulk of the amendments should not delay us long, certainly not as long as another Bill presently before this place. First of all, the consumer protection amendments have been widely exposed; they are essentially of a non-controversial nature and have not attracted any criticism. They are, however, urgently required to close loop- holes in the Act and to remedy deficiencies in the coverage of the Act. Many of the amendments to Division 1 of Part V and related provisions are part of a uniform consumer protection legislation exercise with the States. State mirror legislation, which will confer benefits on consumers and businessmen alike, will be delayed further, or the States may, even worse, decide to implement non-uniform legislation instead. Again I say in respect of the consumer protection provisions that passage of the product safety and information provisions in Division 1A to commence on 1 July 1986 is required now to allow suppliers time to prepare for the provisions coming into effect. As to the restrictive trade practices amendments, they again have been widely exposed and, in some cases, have been substantially modified to take into account our concerns and criticisms made in submissions on the Green Paper of February 1984. The major amendment in Part IV to strengthen section 46 is needed now to protect small business against anti-competitive price discrimination and refusal to supply. In addition, an effective section 46 is needed to prevent any potential abuse of market power which has been derived from recent acquisitions or mergers. The amendments to section 50 primarily close loopholes and anomalies. It is important to proceed quickly with these amendments to prevent exploitation of the loopholes now that the legislative intention is clear. I am referring in particular to the possibility, not in the context of any takeover at current moment but more generally, of natural person takeovers or joint venture takeovers to circumvent the Act. These possibilities are of particular concern and need to be addressed urgently. It also hardly needs to be spelt out in relation to section 50 that one particular amendment to section 50 is a matter of very great moment indeed in the public domain at the moment and that any further delay in resolving the question of what the applicable law is in relation to section 50 as it applies to bare transfers and monopoly power will not serve anybody's interests. The suggestion made by Senator Durack that this matter be delayed by reference to a Senate committee is, I would suggest, the worst of all possible worlds. There would be delay, which is clearly something which involves taking sides in this matter because delay clearly serves the interests of one particular party in the issue, but at the same time there would be no public inquiry proceeding as to the merits of the issue, which is what the Australian Democrats, for example, have indicated is their primary concern. So there would be delay without any compensating advantage to the public interest. As Senator Durack said in his contribution to the debate, the Trade Practices Commission has indicated publicly that it wants this matter clearly resolved by the Parliament as soon as possible. Indeed, I detected a certain half-hearted quality in Senator Durack's commitment to his motion at this stage by comparison with the fervour with which he advanced the cause when we were first dealing with this matter back in February. Just to complete the record, though, might I say something about the record of consultation which has already occurred on the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, because I think that again lends very strong weight to the argument in favour of getting on with the business of resolving the outstanding issues in this chamber and not further delaying the Bill by reference to a committee. Leaving aside the new product recall provisions, the majority of the amendments were exposed to public comment in a Green Paper issued, as I said, back in February 1984. Following evaluation of the public comments received further consultations were held with industry groups, business groups, representatives of small business, consumer groups and the Law Council of Australia. Proposals for product recall provisions were discussed in a White Paper issued in June 1985-now nine months ago. This White Paper was the culmination in turn of discussion with industry and consumer groups on the subject since 1980. The views of the various groups were well established and the public comment received on the White Paper, the majority of which supported the Government's preferred option, did not raise any new points. It was therefore feasible to draft the necessary legislation quickly. Since the introduction of the Bill on 9 October, now six months ago, further discussions have been held with the Law Council and the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia. The Government strenuously denies any suggestion that, given the short time between the closing date for public comments on the product recall White Paper and the introduction of the legislation, inadequate consideration was given to the public comments. As I have already said, consultations on product recall had been held since 1980 with interested groups and their views were well established, and the majority of public comments favoured the Government's preferred position. I think it bears mention that the actual provisions were developed in conjunction with the Administrative Review Council to ensure that the rights of suppliers were safeguarded by an adequate review procedure. So the current Government amendments and the Government amendments in the House of Representatives demonstrate the Government's willingness to discuss, and where appropriate to amend, the Bill to ensure that it does not have any unintended effects. For all those reasons it is fair to say that, although the debate in this place will not be very short, for obvious reasons, the matters in issue are important. This is important for a number of reasons to resolve them quickly, not least because of the consumer protection side of things. I urge the Senate accordingly to get on with the debate and to reject Senator Durack's motion. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.30) —I rise very briefly to support Senator Durack's motion to refer the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I speak as a member of that Committee in the belief that reference to it of this legislation will allow the exposure of a number of issues that would be best dealt with by one of the Senate standing committees, rather than by the Committee of the Whole procedure. I would instance only the following issues without attempting to say anything about the merits of each of them, which nevertheless would be worth examination in the committee procedure. If one looks at clause 5 (b) of the legislation one sees that there will be a substantial increase in penalties and I think that is a matter worth considering. The proposed amendments to section 45C seek a change in the definition of `a market' in terms of the substitution of the term `any market' for the term `a market'. We have already drawn attention to the potential problems that will arise if the Australian Capital Territory is to be defined as a market because of the way in which reference to territories has been included in the legislation for the first time. Similarly there are precedents arising from the Cool and O'Brien case in terms of the definition of the Wagga area, a small geographic area, as a market. There are also problems arising from clause 46 to which I drew attention in my speech during the second reading debate on the question of the interpretation of purpose in that clause. In clause 46, proposed sub-clause 7 one sees what might be called `the inferential purposes clause' which allows a determination to be made if that purpose, in the words of the legislation, is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the corporation. There is also the problem of the whole of clause 50 to which the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, has just referred. I will return to that in a moment, but clearly it is an area of current controversy and clearly an area which would benefit from some greater exposure and investigation. We also need to look at the proposals for section 52A of the principal Act in terms of unconscionable conduct, the whole of the proposed Part V, the whole proposed clause 65F on compulsory recall and the whole question of proposed clause 74 in terms of warranties and liabilities as they affect the provision of professional services. In that respect I must just mention that we have received representations from the Law Council of Australia and from bodies as diverse as the Australian Veterinary Association and the Australian Council of Professions drawing our attention to the difficulties which they believe will arise for them if the legislation proceeds in that particular form, particularly in dealing with the question of professional liability. These representations clearly indicate that the consultation about which Senator Evans has spoken, at least in regard to the clause 74 proposals, cannot be said to have been as widely canvassed or to have reached a point of as much unanimity in the matter as Senator Evans would have us believe. Indeed, that may well be the case in some of the matters arising from the Green Paper or from the previous exposure report dealing with product safety. The other comment I wish to make is in relation to Senator Evans's remarks about delay as it affects clause 50, sub-clause 2 in particular. Senator Evans put the proposition that delay serves one particular side in the current controversy over the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd takeover. Unfortunately it can also be said that to proceed with the legislation in its current form will equally serve one side of the argument. Frankly, there is no way in which it can be established that delay is inherently wrong because it favours one side of a controversy, if proceeding equally has the effect of favouring the other side, as it were. Therefore, to that extent I think that is not a relevant matter to be brought to bear. I take the opportunity to remind my colleagues in the Australian Democrats of their own commitment in this matter. Under the heading of `Policy Items-Legislation' the Australian Democrats' own policy document in relation to legislation states-- Senator Haines —Pay as much attention to yours and we will get on a lot better. Senator PUPLICK —I am attempting only to follow the lead of the distinguished leader of Senator Haines's party in insisting that we keep them honest. I have been chastised for using the honourable senator's distinguished leader's exact words-- Senator Chipp —By whom? Senator PUPLICK —By Senator Colston when he was in the chair. I am not prepared to risk the same from Senator Hamer. Nevertheless, the commitment which the Democrats have reads as follows: While a Bill is before Parliament it will be scrutinised, clause by clause, including any delegations of power, by the relevant Standing Committee. In fact, all that is being sought by this reference is an examination clause by clause, including any delegations of power, by the relevant standing committee. I have drawn attention to a whole series of items which I believe would be assisted by consultation and by exposure of some of those representations which we have received through the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. It is for those reasons that I believe that Senator Durack's motion for the reference of this Bill should be supported. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.27) —I find it rather extraordinary to hear Senator Puplick lecturing us about our particular policy items and then in the same breath supporting Senator Durack's reference of the entire Trade Practices Amendment Bill to a committee when this piece of legislation, which has been floating around for the last six months and is a direct result of inquiries which have taken some two years, aims to increase protection not only to individual consumers in this country but also to small business organisations-the very group of people which Senator Puplick's Liberal Party is always talking about the need to preserve and protect because of the contribution it makes to the country's economy and the number of people it employs. I ask Senator Puplick not to talk to me about our policy until he is prepared to stand up and be counted on his own. The fact of the matter is that the Trade Practices Amendment Bill which is before us at the moment covers a wide range of consumer protection measures from misleading conduct to false representation, corrects an anomaly in the, at the moment, rather embattled section 50 concerning off-shore mergers, looks at extensions of the warranties provision, provides additional protection in the area of mandatory recall and, in addition, looks of course at tidying up section 50 with regard to the issue of bare transfer of monopoly power. It is for that reason-that is, the scope of the Bill itself-that the Australian Democrats are not in favour of referring this piece of legislation to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. As far as the other provisions in the Bill are concerned, a reference to a committee would simply hold them up. In fact, it would defer the implementation of some significantly beneficial consumer legislation. At the very most what it would do with regard to section 50 and the current Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd-Holmes a Court battle is to delay the introduction of that section for so long that Holmes a Court would do a John Elliott and indeed do what he has done himself in the past-withdraw from his bid and wait it out. So it would at very best postpone whatever was likely to happen in that area and at the same time have the quite undesirable effect of delaying things like a mandatory recall of unsafe products legislation. People in the community who are aware of things such as the Tibaldi salami case and others will be aware that there are some problems in this area that need to be attended to. While I do not think it is going too far to suggest that it is quite possible that, in the months the Bill would be before the Committee, some fatality could occur for which this place would be blamed, honourable senators in this chamber do have to take into account that that is a possibility. On the question of proposed section 50 (2C), of course, comes the concern that a great many people have expressed about the need for a national interest inquiry to be able to be undertaken in the event of the bare transfer of a monopoly power and, in particular the transfer of a monopoly power from a company which is, to all intents and purposes, a public company into the hands of one man. Regardless of whether people are or are not impressed with the methods used by Robert Holmes a Court to revitalise companies in the process of making himself a lot of money, the fact remains that we have at risk an extremely large company in this country which plays a very important part in the country's economy and which employs large numbers of people in a variety of States. To jeopardise the existence of that company is, I think, something that this Parliament ought not to be a party to. So the Australian Democrats are not going to support the reference by Senator Durack of the entire Bill to a committee. We certainly would not have any difficulty if section 50 itself was referred to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, although why they should come up with any different arguments about it than the Green Paper I cannot understand. However, if somebody wants to send that off to a committee, we are not going to argue. What we would certainly prefer to do is, in the first instance, move an amendment to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill giving the Trade Practices Commission power to conduct public interest inquiries into takeovers of all sorts. Currently, under section 50 as it stands the Trade Practices Commission does have power of inquiry but it can only inquire in the public interest, as I understand it, if the mover of the bid seeks authorisation from the Trade Practices Commission. In the past the TPC's quite natural policy has been to inquire only if the control or dominance in the market was being increased by the merger or takeover rather than simply in the case of the bare transfer of monopoly power. Senator Gareth Evans —When are we going to see the terms of your amendment to that effect? Senator HAINES —In good time. Senator Gareth Evans —You are all heart. Senator HAINES —I know-what is not good looks is all heart. The honourable senator will certainly be given the terms of that amendment in time for him to consult colleagues, even if it means reordering the discussion in the Committee stage so that we can allow the Liberals to indulge in their extended debate on the section 74 changes about which they are currently hysterical. In the event of our not receiving support for the amendment of the Bill to include a public interest inquiry section, we will move to oppose the clause, and in doing so, excise proposed new section 50 (2C) from the Bill. I suggest that the Opposition look fairly carefully at this. The Opposition has indicated that it is its intention to oppose the Bill as a whole. Senator Durack —It is not our intention. We have done that. Senator HAINES —I know the Opposition has already attempted to do it, quite unsuccessfully. Unlike the Opposition, we are concerned, as I said earlier, about the other elements contained in the legislation that relate to increased protection for small businesses and for the consumer generally. There is certainly no way that we will be prepared to block an entire Bill for some whimsical reason of the Opposition. I am saying to Senator Durack and his colleagues that if they are prepared to block the entire piece of legislation, which of course includes proposed section 50 (2C), they might just as well, for the purposes of this exercise, support us when it comes to the debate on that proposed section and eliminate it, at least for the moment, at least until the issue of the acquisition by Bell Resources of a significant number of BHP shares is dealt with. At that stage the Government can, through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, or in any other way, come back to look at proposed section 50 and the amendments it wants to make to clarify what has always been the accepted practice, if not the actual law, contained within that section. If we do not get support for the excision of proposed section 50 (2C), we have decided to support the Liberals' motion at the third reading to vote against the Trade Practices Amendment Bill in its present form and at the same time-- Senator Durack —There is no Liberal motion at the third reading. Senator HAINES —Just wait a minute, Senator, before you get your knickers thoroughly in a twist. At the same time we would immediately introduce another Bill identical to the current Bill, but without proposed section 50 (2C), which the Government, if it has any commitment at all to consumer protection legislation, will be forced to support. It is about the only way we can see at the moment of having our cake and eating it too. We hope that some sort of reason will prevail in this place. Let me say at the outset that we do not support allegations that have been wandering around in the community that the Labor Government has introduced the proposed new section 50 (2C) in the middle of the game, so to speak. It is quite fortuitous that the Senate is dealing with this Bill now. It was before the Senate last year, but other business got in its way and we rose for the Christmas break before we had dealt with the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. Had we dealt with it at the time, section 50 (2C) would be firmly implanted in the legislation. All we are saying at the moment is: Take out proposed section 50 (2C) for the time being; use the procedures in this place and the procedures the Government has available to it somewhere down the track to reintroduce it either in another Trade Practices Act amending Bill or through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and allow some sort of inquiry to take place to take into account what effect the takeover by Bell Resources of BHP is likely to have. It would be preferable, of course, if our amendment with regard to the need for a public interest criterion to be introduced were to operate also, but certainly the excision of proposed section 50 (2C) will go a long way to allowing the community, the corporations and individuals concerned to clarify exactly what is happening in the market-place with the proposed takeover. We will not be supporting the Liberal Party's motion for reference to a committee at this stage. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.49) —I want briefly also to support Senator Durack's comments on behalf of the Opposition in requesting that the Trade Practices Amendment Bill be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I have listened carefully to the arguments of Senator Haines for the Australian Democrats and of Senator Gareth Evans and, to me, both statements sound singularly unconvincing. The argument that the Bill has to be rushed through in the next couple of days, for whatever reason, seems to me to be a quite spurious argument. The Opposition is not proposing that the reference to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee be without a time limit. We agree with the Democrats and the Government that the matter does need to be resolved fairly quickly but that there should be a delay of a shortish period for reference and consideration by that Committee. Senator Chipp —That would take four or five months. Senator SHORT —It is not necessary for it to take four or five months. It could be given to the Committee as a matter of priority. I understand that the Committee would respond to that, so that the matter could be back in this place in four or five weeks, not four or five months. Senator Chipp —There are 74 clauses. Senator SHORT —Yes, but not all of them are in great contention. The argument by Senator Haines that we voted against the entire Bill also is a very arguable proposition. Certainly we voted against the second reading of the Bill in the House of Representatives, but the reason why we did that was that several of the key amendments that we feel are very important were not supported and, therefore, we had problems with the Bill as a whole. We have received very important representations on these matters, as have the Government and the Democrats, and not just from a particular section of either the business or wider community, but from a wide cross-section of the community. There is a degree of concern on an issue which is not just a technical issue. It relates to a piece of legislation which is becoming increasingly important in this country in terms of determining the course of the development of our business and private enterprise sector. If the representations received on this Bill are to be given serious credence and consideration, I believe that all of us owe it to our constituency to be absolutely sure, when we take the final decisions as legislators on this very important piece of legislation, that we have done the necessary homework to take the right decisions. This matter affects the whole spectrum of business; it certainly affects large business, and, as the Democrats point out very rightly, it has fundamental implications for small business in this country. The importance of small business in the context of the total private sector environment is such that I believe that some of the provisions which will have an effect on small business need to be looked at more carefully. In my view a number of amendments have not been looked at properly. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills reported to this place two days ago on a couple of major issues. It disagreed with the Government on matters which we have not yet fully considered and that is another reason why the Bill should be given further consideration. I understand the Democrats' point of view, and I agree that we do not want to hold this matter up or have an interminable delay. To have a referral to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee does not automatically do that. We can give that Committee a time limit. I believe that it is essential to have that reference if we are going to make decisions at the end of the day which are of fundamental importance to the business community in this country and, therefore, to economic development and growth. We should give ourselves the opportunity of closer scrutiny. If we do not, I do not believe that we can honestly say that we are doing our jobs as legislators. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.54) —I rise to support Senator Haines's remarks rather than to add anything to them or differ from them in any way. I want to mention one specific aspect of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill only. I will choose my words very carefully because it is a complex matter. As I understand it, the situation is that the Trade Practices Commission, for which I have an unbounded respect, has for one of the few times in its history, or I might be correct in saying for the only time in history, showed an interest in a takeover of a monopoly. I put it no stronger than that. The Trade Practices Commission indicated that it had an interest in a monopoly. This is not just some ordinary monopoly company that makes matchboxes, matchsticks or whatever; it is the biggest monopoly in the country, the operations of which affect every living human being in this country. If the price of steel is varied it affects virtually every job in the country, whether it is at the lathe, at the bench or in the office. That is the importance of what is at stake in the interest shown by the Trade Practices Commission. Without any intent by the Government, as Senator Haines properly said, proposed section 50 (2C), as I understand it, will deny the Commission's showing an interest in the present take-over of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd by Mr Robert Holmes a Court's group. That was not the intention of the Government because, as Senator Haines said, this particular amendment was introduced last year long before Mr Holmes a Court's intentions for BHP became apparent. He might have been thinking about it but certainly his intentions were not apparent. All we are asking the Government and the Liberal Party of Australia to do at this stage, if they believe there is merit in the content of section 50 (2C), is to debate it another time. Let us not debate it while in the middle of one of the biggest ball games in Australian commercial history, while the greatest Australian company is in the process of being taken over. Senator Crichton-Browne —Not the greatest, the biggest. Senator CHIPP —I will change that. Senator Crichton-Browne —The most inefficient and incompetent bunch that has ever been in control of shareholders' funds. Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge that interjection so that it can be included in Hansard. It at least adds a little colour to my speech. Of course, I reject the interjection totally and make my own commendation of the management and expertise of BHP and the people who run it. Senator Crichton-Browne —I would not have Brian Loton running my bank account. Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge that interjection also so that it can be included in Hansard. That sort of interjection is uncalled for because that particular gentleman has no opportunity to reply in the same circumstances as those in which the allegation has been made. All I ask for of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party-we will be pushing them to vote on all these matters-is to pass the trade practices legislation, the first class legislation that is before us on consumer protection, restrictive trade amendments and whatever, but let us leave aside this extraordinarily contentious issue of the takeover of monopolies and particularly the current takeover bid of BHP by Robert Holmes a Court. One thing that bothers me about the whole question and the attitudes of both major parties is why they are so intractable about it. Why are they intractable? Why do they not do the simple thing of letting the Commission-I believe everybody in this chamber has a great respect and admiration not only for its constitution but also for the job it has done and is doing-look into this matter and tell this Parliament whether Mr Holmes a Court's takeover of BHP would be a good thing in the national interest? Are the allegations of my friend from Western Australia, Senator Crichton-Browne, accurate? Senator Crichton-Browne —I have spoken on the steel industry a number of times, as has been demonstrated. Senator CHIPP —Let them be heard before the proper tribunal and not intruded into a debate in this place where we do not have the opportunity of hearing BHP's side. Why not let the properly appointed tribunal, the tribunal created by this Parliament for the very purpose of determining whether that is in the public interest, have a look at his particular matter? If we pass this Bill, which the Labor Party and the Liberal Party will collude to pass, it will deny the Commission the opportunity to look at this particular transaction in the public interest. I hope that in the course of the debate when this motion has been defeated-and the reason we will vote against it has been aptly stated by Senator Haines, because we believe that the provisions are urgently required-there is still room for negotiation, particularly with the Liberal Party, which I would have thought championed companies like BHP, which have shown a remarkable record of growth and contribution- Senator Vanstone —Speak for yourself. Speak for your Party, not for the Liberal Party. Senator CHIPP —I am speaking for myself. I would never presume to speak for the Liberal Party and have not done so for many years, as the honourable senator would well know. Even though I have a fair bit of confidence in my own ability, one thing I could never do is to speak for the Liberal Party in this country. Senator Puplick —Especially when you were a member of it. Senator CHIPP —Even then I had some doubts about whether I could, yes. I plead with the Liberal Party in particular to contemplate whether an inquiry into this takeover is desirable in the national interest, because that is the question that must be considered. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.02) —I rise to support Senator Durack's motion that this matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Because of the suggestion that the matter may be delayed in the Committee, I want to place on the record the fact that, if it is so referred, as a member of the Committee I would certainly act to have the matter dealt with expeditiously. The long delays that have been mentioned by others in the debate would seem to me to be quite unnecessary. I believe that the matter should be so referred because of the unsatisfactory state of the current debate. We have before us a wad of amendments. A large number of amendments have been proposed by those on this side of the House and another large number of amendments by the Australian Democrats. Again, the Government is seeking to amend its own amendments, which seems to be becoming an unsatisfactory practice of this Government. Today we have before us a couple of extra amendments that were distributed only a few minutes ago. One has been proposed by Senator Vigor and there are some further-- Senator Gareth Evans —What is that about? Senator HILL —The Government has not seen the one from Senator Vigor yet? The Minister might have to address himself to that one. Further amendments have been put before us by the Australian Democrats today. Senator Haines a few minutes ago said that yet another amendment is envisaged in due course which we are yet to see. I would have thought that anybody, acting reasonably and objectively, would regard it as a very unsatisfactory state of affairs for the Committee of the Whole to continue the debate on that basis. It is not only the amendments that have been proposed by honourable senators that should cause concern. The Law Council of Australia, an objective and unbiased body, I would suggest, proposes amendments to almost half the clauses of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. I would have thought that that in itself would lead the Government to have some grave reservations about the quality of the Bill that has been presented to the Senate. It would suggest to me that the best course of action would be for it to be considered by a bipartisan committee which, in the quiet of day, could look at these matters. I will list a few that come to my mind as requiring further, careful and balanced consideration. Clause 34, in the consumer part of the Bill, provides for a non-reviewable decision and has received criticism from the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The solutions that have been suggested in the Senate to date are unsatisfactory. It is deserving of further consideration. There are amendments to section 46 of the Act that are intended to lower the threshold. I would have thought that that required further consideration. It seems to me to be worrying that the direction this country is taking under this legislation is contrary, for example, to that of the United States, which feels that larger companies will be necessary in the years ahead to compete in the international environment. We are finding so much of our business subjected to that area. However, under this Government we seem to be taking the opposite trend. Is that the best course of action for us to adopt? I suggest that the bipartisan Senate committee system is an excellent way in which that question can be examined. Proposed new sub-section (7) of section 46 requires further consideration. It provides that matters can be determined on the basis of inference. I would have thought that that would probably be so as a matter of law in any event. One questions why it has been introduced. The argument of some is that when it gets to the stage of interpretation it will amount to a reversal of the onus of proof. I am not too sure whether that is correct, but that is the sort of question that can be examined by the Senate Committee. The Senate Committee can take evidence and reach a conclusion which no doubt would be helpful to the Committee of the Whole and that would be the objective. Recently further consideration has been given to the question of section 74. Senator Puplick mentioned the concern that is now being expressed by veterinarians. When we look at the warranty provisions as they relate to services, particularly as they relate to services within the biological science area, there do seem to me to be very real questions that need to be carefully addressed as to whether we are applying a standard upon these professions that it is impossible for them to comply with. I suggest that the Bill requires further consideration in an environment which is more satisfactory for that careful consideration than this chamber. We are certainly not suggesting that there are not worthwhile reforms in this Bill, which we would like to see introduced and we would want to see introduced as soon as is practicably possible. That objective can be achieved by a proper usage of the Senate committee system. Senator Puplick and I, as two members of that Committee, have undertaken to use our best endeavours to ensure that such consideration is expedited so that a report can be brought back to the Senate as quickly as possible in order that the Senate might better fulfil its obligations to the Parliament and the nation. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(11.08) —I rise to comment on the performance of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Some rather astounding interjections were made by Senator Crichton-Browne. Senator Hill made it very clear that the Opposition does not support the existing legislation-the Trades Practices Amendment Bill. If that is so, presumably the Opposition will vote against this piece of legislation. As I understand it, Mr Howard has indicated publicly for some time that that would be the case. I believe the allegations about BHP must be answered. The first point I make is this: It is difficult to overestimate the importance of BHP to the Australian economy. It represents 2 per cent of our gross domestic product. It accounts for 8 per cent-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Siddons, we are discussing a proposal to refer the Bill to a committee. These remarks may be more appropriate when we are actually considering that clause of the Bill. Senator SIDDONS —I take the point, Mr Deputy President. I will confine my remarks to the importance of getting this matter sorted out as quickly as possible. Referring this legislation to a committee would simply delay the whole process. It would not alter the position of the two major parties in this chamber and the shareholders of BHP, Mr Holmes a Court and the management of BHP would be in a state of indecision for some months. They would not know what was going to happen. An important industry very largely would be paralysed because the executives' attention would be sidetracked to what was happening in the Parliament instead of getting on with their business. If we thought that there was any merit in looking at the trade practices legislation we would support this matter being referred to a committee. We have looked at the trade practices legislation and we are anxious for it to be passed as quickly as possible. We think it is an important piece of legislation. Our only concern is clause 50 (2C) which would have the effect of neutralising the power of the Trade Practices Commission to proceed with legal action which it has already initiated. For the very first time in its history the Trade Practices Commission has seen fit to take action in respect of the takeover of a company which is in a clear monopoly position. This is the first time the Trade Practices Commission has initiated such action. However, that action is stalled at the moment pending a decision of this Parliament. Surely we have a responsibility to the Trade Practices Commission, the executives of BHP and Mr Holmes a Court to get on with the business and to let them know what is going to happen. All we are suggesting is that the legal action which is already in process should continue under the existing legislation. As Senator Chipp pointed out, we are about to change the rules mid way through the most important takeover that has ever occurred. On a later occasion I will outline the importance of BHP to the community. To delay a decision on what is going to happen and to keep everybody in suspense is certainly against the public interest. I support my colleagues who have made it very clear that to put this matter to a committee at this late stage is the worst possible course of action. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.13) —I am concerned that the Australian Democrats are seeking to single out, in effect, one element of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 when there are so many elements that must receive the sort of scrutiny that Senator Durack's motion requires. As Senator Hill pointed out, the enormous volume of amendments to the Bill in this place is a clear indication of the half baked, ill-considered-- Senator Hill —I have another one. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Senator Hill says that he has just been given another one. It is a clear indication of the half baked, ill-considered nature of this whole legislation. Because it happens to suit the Australian Democrats' particular desperate search for issues so that they can stay alive as a party, by pandering to individual groups, the intrusion of this proposal into the proper examination of a Bill which is of significance to a large number of Australian people is, to my mind, elevating political expediency to an art form. This is what I would expect from the Australian Democrats. They are not concerned at all about the consequences of this legislation. They are concerned about one minor element of it on which they hope to make the sort of vulgar political capital which is their stock in trade. There are many reasons why this matter should be referred to a committee for some proper examination. Certainly the Government itself needs to examine the consequences of many of its own amendments because the manner in which they have been presented indicates a great lack of intellectual confidence about their content. I would suggest that this range of concerns clearly merits attention. I pointed to many of those concerns in my speech during the second reading debate. However, I do not want to go over that. For interest's sake, I had a good look at the comments that Senator Haines made in her speech during the second reading debate. I must say that, having looked at how incredibly misdirected her comments were, it would seem to me that the Australian Democrats would get a great deal of benefit if someone gave them the opportunity of at last understanding what this Bill is all about. Perhaps referring this Bill to a committee would provide them with that opportunity. Apart from all these issues, the clear fact is that the Government has totally ignored and failed to respond to many of the issues raised by, for example, the Australian Law Council. It failed to respond in debate in this chamber to very sound points that merit a response. This indicates to me with some vigour that it is most appropriate to refer this matter to a committee for proper examination. On top of all of those objections and on top of all the points that have been made in this chamber, I refer the Senate to the third report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The report is dated yesterday, 12 March. I would point out that Senator Haines is a member of that Committee. I regret that she did not participate in the detailed examination of this element at the Committee's meeting on Wednesday. I also am a member of that Committee and I draw the Senate's attention to some elements of that report. The report states: The Committee commented on this Bill in its seventeenth report but it indicated at that time that it was examining submissions which had been made to Senators in relation to the Bill by the Business Council of Australia and the Law Council of Australia and that it might make a further Report to the Senate on the Bill. I ask the Senate to pardon me for taking some time over this. However, I think it is absolutely vital that this Scrutiny of Bills Committee report, which expresses such concerns over elements of this Bill, be dealt with at some length. Following its consideration of those submissions the Committee, in its first report of 1986, drew the attention of the Senate to two further clauses of the Bill. The report of the Committee dated 12 March states: The Committee has now received a response from the Attorney-General to those additional comments the relevant parts of which are reproduced . . . I must say that I found the letter from the Attorney-General to be the most incredible nonsense that I have had the misfortune to read since I have been in this place. I commend a reading of that letter to honourable senators. I would like to incorporate the essence of the Committee's response which, of course, relates to the basic question of the burden of proof. This is something that I thought might have interested the Australian Democrats, but obviously this is not the case. They want to rush through the whole Bill except for the part that relates to their one bit of political expediency. I encourage the Australian Democrats to study this part of the report that obviously does not interest them. The report stated: While the Committee recognises that it is always open to a court to draw inferences from conduct it suggests that new sub-section 46 (7) goes beyond this accepted principle in permitting inferences to be drawn from the effects of the corporation's conduct. Indeed, the Green Paper, the Trade Practices Act: Proposals for change, suggests that this is the intention underlying the proposed amendment. In order to establish a contravention of section 46, as proposed to be amended, the plaintiff is required to prove: (i) that a corporation has a substantial degree of power in a market; (ii) that it has taken advantage of that power; and (iii) that in doing so it had one of the purposes set out in paragraphs 46 (1) (a), (b) and (c), for example the purpose of preventing the entry of a person into the relevant market. Sub-section 46 (7) would enable the court to draw an inference as to the third point, the purpose of a corporation, from the conduct of the corporation, the conduct of any other person-for example the person prevented from entering the relevant market-or from other relevant circumstances. The Attorney-General suggests in his reponse that below average cost pricing would not, of itself, be sufficient to enable an inference as to the purpose to be drawn. However, the Explanatory Memorandum states that- where a corporation with the requisite market power is, in the absence of countervailing evidence that its pricing was not aimed at destroying actual potential competition, selling at below average cost there may be grounds for inferring that it is taking advantage of its power for a prescribed purpose. Really that seems to me to be clearly a reversing of the onus. To continue: The Committee's point is that the burden will probably be cast upon the corporation concerned to provide the `countervailing evidence' referred to above. Either the Democrats believe in reverse onuses of proof or they do not. I do not think they believe in anything apart from how to appeal to individual group's special interests in order to desperately win a vote. Here we have a major principle, a reverse onus, and the Democrats of course wish to exclude that from any-- Senator Chipp —Why do you talk about us so much? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Because the Democrats are the people who are trying to make politics out of this issue. That is their typical style. They have been challenging us on our bona fides in respect of this matter but they cannot take a response in kind because their lack of principle on this matter is so overwhelming. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, on which I remind Senator Chipp his Party is supposed to be represented, concedes that there have been difficulties in establishing that corporations have had the anti-competitive purposes-- Senator Chipp —Why do you talk about us so much? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Because you are such a pain in the neck, if you would like to know, senator. To continue: The Committee concedes that there have been difficulties in establishing that corporations have had the anti-competitive purposes required under section 46 and that this time may be an appropriate place for the imposition of an evidentiary burden on the defendant corporation. In this connection the Committee notes that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its report referred to above was prepared to see an evidential burden imposed on the defendant in criminal proceedings- Where the prosecution faces extreme difficulty in circumstances where the defendant is presumed to have peculiar knowledge of the facts in issue. (Recommendation 6.13) (b) (i).) I continue to quote: Nevertheless the Committee feels that some doubt remains whether this is an appropriate case for imposing an evidential burden on the defendant and whether, if it is, the corporation should face the task not merely of rebutting inferences drawn from its own conduct but also of adducing evidence to counter inferences drawn from the conduct of others. Accordingly the Committee continues to draw clause 16 to the attention of the Senate in the hope of promoting a fuller consideration of the issues involved at the Committee stage of debate on the Bill. Here we have a clear indication that there are matters of concern which should properly be referred for detailed examination by the Senate. The effect of an amendment to omit proposed new sub-section 46 (7) also attracts the attention of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It notes: In his response the Attorney-General also argued that to amend clause 16 at this stage to omit proposed new sub-section 46 (7) might have- particularly serious consequences, since an amendment to remove from the Bill provisions already introduced into Parliament would almost certainly lead courts to the construction that the omissions were deliberately designed to negate what they would have provided for. The courts would, because of this, hold that `corporate purpose' could not be inferred and could only be proved by direct unequivocal evidence emanating from the highest level of management. This would make section 46 unworkable for all practical purposes . . . I have heard some legal gobbledegook and nonsense from the Attorney-General's Department, but this probably takes the cake. This is the absolute apex of nonsense. The Committee responded to that in this way: On one level, the Attorney-General's initial proposition is a simple truism. If the Government were, for example, to introduce a Bill containing a clause stating `Thou shalt not murder' and the Bill were to be amended in the course of its passage to omit the clause, it would be appropriate for a court to conclude that the Parliament did not wish murder to be made the subject of a penal sanction. However in the present case the mere omission of new sub-section 46 (7) should leave the common law, and the power of the courts to draw inferences from conduct, untouched- It would leave it totally untouched; common law would be there. For the Attorney-General's Department to pretend that, by omitting such a section, the bulk of the common law would be overwhelmed is pathetic and is, in my mind, an attempt to mislead this place. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The motion before the Chair is for referral of the Bill to a Senate committee. The honourable senator is perfectly in order to draw attention to the sorts of matters which justify such a referral. To argue them in detail is going beyond the motion. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am simply outlining the sort of nonsense the Senate has been inundated with on individual clauses to outline-- Senator Gareth Evans —Have you been instructed to filibuster or can't you help yourself? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I feel it important that these points, which have not in fact been raised in the Senate-- Senator Gareth Evans —But you had your chance. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I trust that I am taking it now in this general issue to debate whether or not the combination, the total, of these extraordinary problems that emerged throughout the Bill merit reference to a committee-not separating one individual bit that happens to suit the political purpose of the Australian Democrats but referring this Bill, which has quite properly generated the concern of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, as a whole to a committee. By way of conclusion, I simply point out that other clauses-for example, the definition of `recall'-creates problems. As the Scrutiny of Bills Committee points out, this is a matter of major moment which clearly should be referred to a committee. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee points out: Under new section 65R it would be an offence for a supplier to fail to notify the Minister within two days where the supplier voluntarily takes action to recall goods. No definition of what constitutes a recall of goods for the purposes of this provision is given and the Committee was concerned that there might be some uncertainty as to the obligations placed upon suppliers. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) once again responded with, I submit, some more nonsense. I commend to the Senate that, when deciding whether or not this matter should be referred to a committee, it give close attention to the overwhelming volume of evidence, firstly, that this Bill is improperly prepared; secondly, that it is incompetently supported in the letters from the Attorney-General that are revealed in the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee; thirdly, that it covers many matters that are half thought out; and, fourthly, that it has serious consequences which have been pointed out by the Law Council of Australia and which have not been adequately responded to by this Government. I thank the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) for his yawn because there is no doubt that the list of the Government's offences in this area is so incredibly long that when they are listed together, they create such a pile that it is a yawn to go through them. That is why I have touched on only a few of those matters which clearly merit reference of this Bill to a committee. If Senator Chipp is interested in what they are, I encourage him to read the very informative speech that I made at the second reading stage of the Bill. It may provide some light and wisdom to him, light and wisdom that he clearly lacks in the circumstance. However, I note that he still has his political antenna on high and is endeavouring to reduce this debate and this issue to a simple matter of how the Democrats can try to win some votes out of an issue which is surely much more important than that. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.30) —in reply-The motion that I have moved proposes that, instead of the Senate embarking on a long Committee of the Whole debate dealing with a lot of very technical matters, the Trade Practices Amendment Bill be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That is the position that the Opposition has maintained from the beginning in relation to this legislation. Our course of action is in no way dictated by any recent events of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd take-over proposal. Our stance was formulated before that situation arose; indeed, it was taken some time ago. We do not see any reason why we should change because of that particular circumstance, unlike the Australian Democrats, whose approach to this Bill seems to have been dramatically changed by the new circumstance and the debate that has been going on in the public arena over the last two or three weeks. Although there has been extensive debate on this piece of legislation both in the other place and here in the Senate during the second reading stage and now in relation to my motion to refer the Bill to the Senate Committee, and although there is the prospect of a Committee of the Whole debate of some magnitude and amendments have been foreshadowed by the Government, the Opposition and the Democrats which have been on the table for some weeks, until today not one of the proposed amendments has related to the section that has become the subject of public notoriety over the last two or three weeks. Only since the Senate got up two weeks ago has attention been paid by the Press or by the Democrats to that section. It seems to me that we are embarking upon decision-making in relation to this legislation purely in response to the public debate over the BHP take-over. The Opposition is at great pains to ensure that nothing we do in the Senate in relation to this matter will in any way stop the law existing when this take-over was mooted from applying. As we see it, that really is a matter for the Trade Practices Commission to decide and not for this Parliament. We should not be diverted from what we think the law ought to be for the future simply because this new situation has developed in the last few weeks. We think that if there now needs to be some consideration of section 50 and the amendment that has been proposed to it by the Government that adds to our case for referring the matter to a committee, because it would be desirable to give this matter the sort of close consideration which would be available if it were referred in the Committee rather than just dealing with it in a political type of debate. The Bill will have very major consequences. With the amendments that the Australian Democrats have foreshadowed it would be very suitable to have the Bill further examined by a committee. In view of the attitude of the Democrats and the great interest they have suddenly found in this matter, I am surprised that they are opposing reference to a committee. That seems to be a strange course that they are taking. Senator Chipp —Would you agree to only proposed new section 50 (2C) going to a committee? Senator DURACK —No. Senator Chipp —That is the crunch question. Senator DURACK —Senator Chipp's interjection only proves my point. We never wanted the Bill to go to the Committee just because we wanted proposed new section 50 (2c) to be considered; we wanted and we still want the Bill to go to the Committee, because we want all major matters that have been proposed in the Bill and the various amendments to be considered by that Committee. If the Democrats want to raise at this stage of the debate an amendment to proposed new section 50 (2c), no doubt that could be dealt with by the Committee as well. If the Democrats genuinely want that section to be considered by a committee, I do not know why they do not support the Opposition proposal. Anyway, the Opposition certainly will persist and will divide on this question. I hope that at the last minute the Democrats will have another think about it and will support the Opposition's proposal. Question put: That the motion (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sanders, N. K. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans Gareth Siddons, J. R. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. MacGibbon, D. J. Grimes, D. J. Townley, M. Foreman, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Jones, G. N. Messner, A. J. Robertson, E. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —by leave-I have an announcement to make concerning the division. Senator Button did not vote, in order to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Peter Rae. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.43) —I move: (1) Page 1, sub-clause (4), lines 12 and 13, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: `(4) The remaining provisions of this Act shall come into operation on such day as is, or on such respective days as are, fixed by Proclamation.'. The amendment changes the commencement date for the majority of provisions in the Bill from 1 January 1986 to a date to be fixed by proclamation. I understand that the amendment is uncontroversial. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 7-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 8 (Extended application of Parts IV and V). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.44) —I move: (2) Page 2, proposed new sub-section 5 (3), line 31, leave out `a proceeding under section 82 is instituted', insert `a claim under section 82 is made in a proceeding'. This amendment clarifies that the requirement for ministerial consent for reliance on extra-territorial conduct in a section 82 action applies regardless of whether the proceedings are instituted under section 82 or initiated under another section of the Act and a claim under section 82 is made subsequently. This takes up one of the points that have been made by the Law Council of Australia and it is one of a number of matters that have been very constructively discussed, not only with the Law Council but also with the Australian Democrats. I acknowledge the Democrats assisting us to reach a resolution on some of these matters. I commend the amendment accordingly and once again I do not believe that it is controversial. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 9 to 14-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 14A. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.47) —I move: (3) Page 6, after clause 14, insert the following new clause: Contracts, arrangements or understandings restricting dealings or affecting competition `14a. Section 45 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (6) ``of sub-section 88 (8)'' (wherever occurring) and substituting ``of sub-section 47 (10) or 88 (8)''.'. This is another matter that was raised initially by the Law Council of Australia and it is designed to remove a potentially undesirable overlap in the existing operation of the law. This amendment extends the operation and exclusion in sub-section (6) of section 45 so that it prevents section 45, in particular its prohibition on exclusionary provisions in sub-section (4) (d), from applying to arrangements which, while coming within the definition of exclusive dealing within section 47, do not contravene that section because they do not have the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition which is in sub-section (10) of section 47. This is a technical matter and a non-controversial one and I commend it to the Senate. Proposed new clause 14a agreed to. Clause 15 agreed to. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.48) —My colleague Senator Vigor was to have moved new clause 15A to appear in the Bill after clause 15. Unfortunately, he is not here at the moment and as this is a specific amendment in which he is interested, I would hope that discussion on this matter could be postponed until later in the proceedings when Senator Vigor has returned to the chamber. I move: That discussion on new clause 15A be deferred until a later hour this day. Question resolved in the affirmative. Clause 16 (Covenants in relation to prices). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.49) —The Opposition is concerned about sub-section (7) of the new section 46 which is proposed by clause 16 of this Bill. The new clause deals with the misuse of market power and it makes a number of changes. The one we are particularly concerned about is sub-section (7) which reads: Without in any way limiting the manner in which the purpose of a person may be established for the purposes of any other provision of this Act, a corporation may be taken to have taken advantage of its power for a purpose referred to in sub-section (1) notwithstanding that the existence of that purpose is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the corporation or of any other person or from other relevant circumstances. Of course, the matter that has to be proved is whether a corporation has breached, for example, proposed new sub-section (1), which provides: A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power for the purpose of- (a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation-- What has to be established is that the corporation is doing these various things for a purpose. Clearly enough, the purpose the corporation has will not be easily or usually proved by direct evidence but by inferences to be drawn from conduct. The way that that is done with the law as it is enables that purpose to be ascertained by what the proposed new section says is the `conduct of the corporation or of any other person or other relevant circumstances'. That is exactly the way in which a purpose is proved now. That is the way the state of anybody's mind is proved in law and has been so in the law of evidence for a very long time. It is a total mystery to the Opposition why the proposed new sub-section has been included. We are concerned that if there is some subtle purpose in the proposed new section which goes beyond the existing state of the law we will have to oppose it. However, before we take that step I want to know from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) whether this is merely a restatement of what has been the law. If that is the case, why on earth is it there anyway? I do not know whether we would be too upset or excited about it if the Minister says that that is all the provision is here for. However, as I said, if it goes beyond that we will hear what the Minister has to say and in that case we will probably have to consider opposing the clause. That may be going too far. At this stage I simply raise the point with the Minister so that he can tell us why this sub-section is appearing in the clause. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.53) —I am advised that this is intended to capture at least the spirit of the existing law whereby purpose may be inferred from conduct. As a practical commercial matter it was felt that people needed a bit more evidentiary assistance than they were given by existing law, which was essentially silent on the mode by which purpose could be established. It was felt desirable to spell out the fact that it might be ascertainable in other ways. There is quite a substantial body of correspondence and consideration that has been given to this matter through the initial consideration of it by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, on a reply in February to that Committee from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), and a subsequent further whiff of grapeshot from the Committee in the last day or so to which, I gather, some further points in reply are presently being drafted. I think, if that is helpful, that that is as much as I can say at this stage. I will see where Senator Durack wants to go from there. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.55) —The difficulty I have at the moment is that I have not seen the correspondence referred to by Senator Evans. Perhaps he could tell us whether the correspondence indicates any different position from the one he has stated. It seems very odd to me. I do not understand the answer he has given. Is it simply re-stating the common law position? If it is not, just exactly what is it meant to do? Is it meant to draw the attention of judges to what they know perfectly well, or is there some other purpose? The Minister talked about giving them a nudge. I would like to know what that means. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.56) — There have been some cases in which Australian courts considering this matter have demonstrated an unwillingness to take the step which I think most lawyers would have thought previously, on the authorities, would have been a proper step, namely, ascertaining purpose by inference from the conduct of the corporation or other relevant circumstances that are indirect in character rather than direct-in other words, the language of section 46 (7) now written. I am not armed at the moment, I am afraid, with a full legal analysis of the point in the way that Senator Durack has chosen to raise it. There was certainly a feeling in government, I am advised, that this clause does not represent any new adventure so far as legal principle is concerned. It is simply an attempt to articulate the point in a way that is helpful for small business, which might be minded to use this section, and more particularly for the courts that are then obliged to interpret and ascertain Parliament's intention. The other issue here, I suppose, that underlay the Government's feeling is that it was not just from the point of view of giving some guidance to the courts but more particularly some guidance to individuals about the way in which these particular sections might be used to their advantage. There has, I think, been a perception, which has become apparent in the course of the Government's consideration of this issue, by those who might reasonably wish to use section 46 that some direct evidence of purpose is the only way they can get to first base. If they are not armed with some leaked piece of correspondence or something of that kind from a company, then there is simply no point in their seeking the assistance of this section. I think it was a desire to lay out what really previously was implicit, not explicit, in the procedures and in the operation of this section in a way that would be helpful both to those who might be minded to use it and to the courts which would in due course be faced with the task of applying it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.59) —The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has been engaged in the correspondence dealt with by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). As the Senate knows, clause 16 of the Bill seeks to amend section 46 of the principal Act to prohibit a corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market from taking advantage of that power to eliminate or substantially damage competitors, to exclude potential competitors, or to prevent a person from engaging in competitive conduct. The new sub-section 46 (7) proposed to be inserted by the clause provides: . . . a corporation may be taken to have taken advantage of its power for a purpose referred to in sub-section (1) notwithstanding that the existence of that purpose is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the corporation or of any other person or from other relevant circumstances. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee suggests that the effect of the proposed new sub-section would be that proof of particular conduct, for example, pricing at below average cost, might give rise to a need for the corporation concerned to adduce evidence in order to rebut an inference which the court might otherwise draw that it had the purpose of destroying actual or potential competition. I dealt with this matter earlier when we were discussing a previous matter, but I would like to go into a little more detail. The report states: While a breach of section 46 only results in a liability to pay a pecuniary penalty to the Commonwealth (section 76) and not in criminal proceedings (section 78), the Committee expressed concern that, in circumstances where a corporation might be liable to a substantial penalty (up to $250,000), it should bear the onus of adducing evidence that it did not have the special purpose required rather than the onus of establishing this purpose resting on the Minister or the Commission. In this connection the Committee drew attention to the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its report on `The Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings' (Parliamentary Paper No. 319/1982) that provisions imposing an evidential burden of proof on defendants should be kept to a minimum. It was that point to which the Attorney-General's Department responded, and it was that response to which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, as Senator Evans said, fired another whiff of grapeshot. I presume Ministers, to the extent to which they are terrorised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, would always feel uneasy when they see a sentence starting: `The Committee thanks the Attorney-General for his response'. That is the same way of saying `We have no basic objection to this matter, but' and we have the but. I outlined earlier that the Committee did recognise that it is always open to a court to draw inferences. It suggests that proposed new sub-section 46 (7) goes beyond this accepted principle in permitting inferences to be drawn from the effects of the corporation's conduct. I outlined why that inference is underlined by the Green Paper and by subsequent statements and even the explanatory memorandum. As I said earlier, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's point is that the burden will probably be cast upon the corporation concerned to provide the countervailing evidence referred to above. So, following up Senator Durack's point, it does appear that this legislation does more than simply state the existing position. It pushes it considerably further. The Committee, as I said earlier, does concede that there have been difficulties in establishing that corporations have had the anti-competitive purpose and that that matter was raised. I repeat, because it is central to the issue, that the Committee feels that some doubt remains whether this is an appropriate case for imposing an evidential burden on the defendant and, further, whether, if it is, the corporation should face the task not merely of rebutting inferences drawn from its own conduct but also of adducing evidence to counter inferences drawn from the conduct of others. Accordingly, the Committee continues to draw section 16 to the attention of the Senate. The matter does not simply rest there in what we would suggest was a clear extension of the existing law. The point I was endeavouring to make, when the Deputy President quite properly took me to task, was that the Attorney-General's Department's suggestion that if this were withdrawn it would create its own inference that in fact these things were totally acceptable was a clear nonsense. The outline of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is as follows: However in the present case the mere omission of new sub-section 46 (7) should leave the common law, and the power of the courts to draw inferences from conduct, untouched, rather than having the positive and contrary effect argued for by the Attorney-General of negating all possibility of drawing such inferences. We suggest that the terrorising of the Senate, if you like, by the Attorney-General suggesting that if we do withdraw this section it will leave all the naughty people in the world this enormous scope to wreak havoc upon society is arrant nonsense. Senator Gareth Evans —You have to concede that it was a pretty ingenious argument. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Ingenious, but not clever. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee says that if the Attorney-General were correct as to the effect of the omission of proposed new sub-section 46 (7) this would as a general proposition enable the Executive to fetter to a considerable extent the Parliament's freedom of action in relation to legislation. The report states: In a case where a court did consider it appropriate to refer to the legislative history of a Bill under section 15ab of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 one would imagine that all that would be necessary to prevent the court adopting the construction advanced by the Attorney-General would be a clear statement in the course of debate by the parties opposing the amendment of their reasons for doing so. The rejection of an amendment which is, for example, considered unnecessary given the current state of the law could hardly be construed as an attempt to alter that current state of the law in the contrary direction. So I state what I stated earlier: It seems to me that the last correspondence that the Committee had from the Attorney-General's Department deserves not only a whiff of grapeshot but a 15-inch shell right through the engine room. It is a nonsensical proposition and I would be interested to see the response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee that Senator Evans has promised we will get. I presume this means that we will get it after this matter has been dealt with, which will not be terribly helpful to the Senate. As a result, I stress the significance and the importance of the line being adopted at the moment by Senator Durack. In the absence of a coherent response from the Attorney-General and certainly in the absence of any detail as requested by Senator Durack from Senator Evans, there seems little point in proceeding with the Government's amendment in this area. I join Senator Durack in asking Senator Evans whether in his view the extension, as indicated by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, does exist or does not exist. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.07) — There is a point in proceeding with this amendment because there are very good grounds for thinking that for all practical purposes the Trade Practices Amendment Bill would go on being unworkable without this clause, such is the disincentive posed by the existing provision with its language about establishing a purpose and the belief that seems to have been encouraged around the place that that purpose can be established only by some very direct evidence in the form, as I say, of leaked correspondence or something of that kind. It is important as a practical matter that litigants, particularly the small business people that were always envisaged to be the major beneficiaries or potentially very significant beneficiaries of proposed section 46, should have a provision available to them that is workable. All that is proposed here is, and I sought to indicate before that there was nothing particularly unusual in principle about it, to make it clear that certain inferences can be drawn from conduct. The response of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the initial report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills drew attention to seven or eight pieces of legislation cast in very similar terms-the Evidence Act, section 7f (2); the Crimes (Aircraft) Act, section 20c (2); the Companies Code, section 301, and so on. There are many other examples lying around the statutory landscape. I think the next point to make is that it has to be appreciated that the effect of particular corporate conduct, that is to say, in terms of the elimination of a competitor or something of that kind, will not be of itself enough to attract the inference of a breach of section 46. All that is involved here is, as in any other case where a prima facie case is established, that the defendant then adduces evidence going to the matter in issue. All this enables the plaintiff to do is to get to first base, as it were, on the question of purpose in a way that there have been very real obstacles to so doing in the past. The matter is by no means resolved by the inferences being able to be drawn under the language of proposed section 46 (7). It then becomes a matter for the court actually drawing the inference and that will be done on the balance of evidence that is adduced in the ordinary way. The most recent report, the so-called whiff of grapeshot from the Senate Standing Committee, when properly construed-and I have only had the chance to look at it in the last few minutes-pretty clearly comes out in an evenhanded sort of way drawing the Senate's attention to the issue, saying: `These are the arguments on one side; these are the arguments on the other side. Our duty is to advise the Senate of a potential issue of this kind. Let the Senate make up its mind'. That is a very common kind of report for a Senate standing committee to make and it has commonly resulted in the past in the Senate being duly grateful for the assistance thus rendered and then proceeding down the track of supporting the original legislation because there are good reasons for doing so. I draw the Senate's attention in particular to page 35 of the most recent report, where the Committee squarely and frankly acknowledges that there are good public policy reasons for going down the track of this particular sub-clause. Let me quote the relevant passage: The Committee concedes that there have been difficulties in establishing that corporations have had the anti-competitive purposes required under section 46 and that this may be an appropriate case for the imposition of an evidentiary burden on the defendant corporation. In this connection the Committee notes that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its Report referred to above was prepared to see an evidential burden imposed on the defendant in criminal proceedings where the prosecution faces extreme difficulty in circumstances where the defendant is presumed to have peculiar knowledge of the facts in issue. There endeth the paragraph from the Senate Standing committee. It is the case that we are here talking about civil proceedings rather than criminal proceedings, but the point the Committee is making by way of analogy is that there has been a willingness in the past to shift a burden on to defendants-even in criminal proceedings, where public policy demands a much greater reluctance to shift burdens in that way. There has been a willingness in the past to shift an evidential burden on to defendants in criminal proceedings in circumstances where the other side faces extreme difficulty because the defendant is presumed to have peculiar knowledge of the facts in issue. I suggest that this is very much the matter in issue here. When we talk about purpose, we are very often talking about something in relation to which the person who is alleged to have the purpose is certainly the person best equipped to give direct evidence about it and, for practical purposes, may be the only person able to give direct evidence about it, unless one can rely on inferences drawn from conduct. I suggest that this is a very appropriate piece of reasoning by the Senate Standing Committee. The most recent response by the Standing Committee contains reasons which are entirely sufficient for this chamber to support the position that has been taken by the Government. What we are about here is protecting people against corporate predators, in particular protecting small businesses which have a great deal of difficulty in protecting themselves, in circumstances where public policy demands that they should be protected because the activity of the predator has no redeeming larger justification. I suggest under those circumstances that Senator Michael Baume ought to consider where his true loyalties lie, rather than working himself up into a frenzy of anticipation over there as he stands ready to weigh in for the next round of this argument. Senator Michael Baume —I simply want to ask a question. Why did you leave out `Nevertheless' at the top of page 36? You said `There endeth the lesson', but the lesson does not end there. The Committee, having said that, then said `Nevertheless'. Senator GARETH EVANS —I know that Senator Michael Baume was a star schoolboy debater, but he is in the grown-ups league now. I began by saying that the Committee ended with an even-handed approach. On the one hand it may well be argued, the Committee said, that there is a good case that it may be appropriate to go down this particular track. It then said: Nevertheless the Committee feels that some doubt remains whether this is an appropriate case for imposing an evidential burden on the defendant- It went on in a similar vein, concluding with the statement: Accordingly the Committee continues to draw clause 16 to the attention of the Senate in the hope of promoting a fuller consideration of the issues . . . It does not draw this particular clause to the attention of the Senate in order to strike it down with all the vigour that is demanded of the Senate when confronted with a totally unconscionable and unacceptable piece of indefensible nonsense. That is not the way this particular argument is being put. It is a very gentle, dignified and gentlemanly reminder to us of our obligations to consider carefully these issues and to weigh and balance the competing public policy and legal considerations involved and to decide accordingly. Senator Michael Baume —And you have done so! Senator GARETH EVANS —We have had a gentlemanly debate about it. We have given it fuller consideration-rather too full consideration, looking at the way time is ticking away-and I suggest, under those circumstances, that we proceed to adopt the clause. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.15) —I do not disagree with most of the various points Senator Gareth Evans has made, but it worries me very much that this clause is interpretable in more than one way. I read at random one of the many submissions that have been put to us all; that is, the claim that the amendments proposed to section 46, and to section 84, to which we will come later, will have the effect of stifling entrepreneurial activity and limiting competitive behaviour. I am sure that Senator Evans has had the submissions put to him in that way, as have the rest of us. I do not want to go over the ground that has been traversed already on the question of the inferential aspect, but I ask Senator Evans for a clear statement that nothing in the proposed section is intended to affect normal vigorous competition and that the proposed section is intended to protect competition, not individual competitors. Will Senator Evans give the Senate a clear indication of that? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.17) — Senator Short thinks that I would deny motherhood. Yes, I am perfectly happy to give the Senate such an assurance. The whole philosophy of this legislation is to promote vigorous competition. The purpose of this clause is to protect the competitive process. It is not to protect individual competitors who may find themselves put to the wall by a proper and vigorous exercise of competitive forces in the market-place. Senator Short offered a very apt description of how legislation of this sort should be construed and I am happy to give the assurance in the terms in which he sought it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.18) —The consideration of this clause is confirming more strongly my view that the Trade Practices Amendment Bill should have been sent to a committee for consideration. I am particularly surprised that the Australian Democrats so far have not participated in this very important question about a burden of proof and the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in which the Democrats usually take a lot of interest. I commend the Democrats to look at this question, because the question the Opposition has raised here is of particular interest to this chamber and is usually of particular interest to the Democrats. I have now had the opportunity of reading the correspondence from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), which is referred to in the report of the Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The report is couched in its usual tactful and diplomatic way. I think it ought to firm up a bit on its views when it reports to the Senate. It seems clear to me that the Committee continues to have real concern about this clause. Having listened to Senator Evans trying to explain the purpose or effect of this clause, I am left with great concern as well. I hope that the Democrats will give it some thought, although I know that their attention in this debate seems to be on completely different concerns. I do think that this emphasises the fact that this debate is not all about the BHP take-over, it is about a lot of other major things. The amendments to section 46 of the Act deserve quite a lot of consideration. I refer to the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills of 12 March. Having discussed the views of the correspondence to the Attorney-General, on page 36 it states: Nevertheless the Committee feels that some doubt remains whether this is an appropriate case for imposing an evidential burden on the defendant and whether, if it is, the corporation should face the task not merely of rebutting inferences drawn from its own conduct but also of adducing evidence to counter inferences drawn from the conduct of others. Accordingly the Committee continues to draw clause 16 to the attention of the Senate in the hope of promoting a fuller consideration of the issues involved at the Committee stage of debate on the Bill. Senator Michael Baume —We would not be sloughed off. Senator DURACK —Of course, Senator Evans is anxious to slough off the debate, which adds to my concern. He also wants us to get on with the debate, as he usually does, but we are simply not going to do that. We are not just going to get on with it. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has enjoined the Senate to give very close consideration to this matter `to promote a fuller consideration of the issues'. That is what the Senate very definitely needs to do. In the circumstances I propose to move to delete clause 16 (b), proposed new sub-section 46 (7). The reason why I am doing that is that the Attorney-General, in his response to the Senate Committee, seems to be somewhat uncertain of the effect of this clause. In his first letter, which appears on pages 32 and 33 of the Committee's report, he states: Section 46 (7) does not reverse the onus of proof. It merely corrects the possible construction that the absence of direct express evidence of its purpose, from the mouth of the corporation . . . is a fatal flaw in any section 46 proceedings. I do not know what construction that would be. Apart from this, as far as I am aware, we do not have any directions to the court about how it is to construe the section. It is well known that courts determine purposes by examining and drawing inferences from conduct, amongst other matters. I do not really understand what the Attorney-General is getting at. He has said that section 46 (7) does not reverse the onus of proof. I must admit that that is a good start. He continues: Section 46 (7) makes it clear that a court is entitled to infer purpose from conduct, notwithstanding the absence of expressed statements of purpose. Courts have been doing this sort of thing for donkeys years. This business about parliaments today having to tell courts what to do about the evaluation of evidence is really just a lot of nonsense. The last paragraph on page 33, still quoting the Attorney's letter, states: The example used by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, where it suggests an inference could be drawn merely from the fact of pricing below average cost, is, with respect, not correct. Below average cost pricing, of itself would not be sufficient to enable an inference as to the purpose to be drawn. It would only be where that below average cost pricing is combined with other circumstances or other conduct by the corporation or the target that an inference could be drawn. That is not what the section says, nor do I think it is a correct assessment of how courts would proceed. Proposed new sub-section 46 (7) clearly states: . . . notwithstanding that the existence of that purpose is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the corporation or of any other person or from other relevant circumstances. The Attorney-General's answer on that possible case and way of proving a breach of section 46 is not consistent with what this new sub-section actually says. In a later letter the Attorney-General makes the most extraordinary statement. As quoted on page 36 of the report, he stated: . . . to omit proposed new sub-section 46 (7) might have-particularly serious consequences, since an amendment to remove from the Bill provisions already introduced into Parliament would almost certainly lead courts to the construction that the omissions were deliberately designed to negate what they would have provided for. The courts would, because of this, hold that `corporate purpose' could not be inferred and could only be proved by direct unequivocal evidence emanating from the highest level of management. That is absolute nonsense. The courts have already got perfectly clear rules of evidence on how these matters are to be proved. The mere fact that a proposal was put in a Bill in this Parliament and then was not acceded to by the Parliament would be completely neutral so far as the rules of evidence on which the courts proceed are concerned. To say it would have serious consequences and could lead to courts taking this step is quite unbelievable. It simply would not occur. The courts would not be construing a section in an Act to see what Parliament did because of its ambiguities. It would not be in the Act if we delete it. It would not be there. If the courts did look at the debate in the Parliament on this subject, which is highly unlikely, they would find very clearly that Parliament removed it only because it was thought that it was not adding anything to the present method of proof, but it was concerned that it might be seen to be changing the present method of proving a purpose. So the Attorney-General's argument just would not arise at all. The adding of a new sub-section like this, which does not on the face of it change the way in which matters are now proved in courts, may well lead to the courts being concerned to work out whether some change was intended and what it was. There do not seem to have been any substantial reasons advanced as to why it has been added. I think it will only confuse things if it remains. It may lead to interpretations which were never intended by the Parliament or which certainly have never been adopted by the courts. For those reasons, on behalf of the Opposition, I move: Page 7, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 46 (7), lines 12 to 20, leave out the proposed paragraph. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(12.31) —Just occasionally I wish that Liberal Party of Australia senators would match their behaviour in this place with their rhetoric with regard to their concern for small business people. Today they have made a sometimes spirited, sometimes less spirited, defence of what are essentially predatory companies which already have an advantage both in the courts and in the market-place because of their power over small businesses and consumers. They have argued that there is something sinister and quite undemocratic about the fact that there will be a reverse onus of proof when that onus is simply an evidentiary one. One day I will be able to cope with the inconsistencies that occur in the minds of honourable senators on my right, but I do not think it will happen today. Senator Gareth Evans —That is a dangerous assertion for a Democrat. I think you had better get on to another point. Senator HAINES —You cannot talk either, and on the basis that it takes one to know one, I would keep quiet if I were you. Essentially, this clause aims to provide some protection to small businesses and consumers from larger companies. If anybody needed any evidence at all- Senator Durack —Do you think it has that effect? Senator HAINES —Yes, I do. I think it does have that effect. If anybody in this place thinks there is not an increasing shift, if you like, in the market-place, he needs only to look at recent merger activity in this country to know that Australian industry is becoming more and not less concentrated and hence more uncompetitive than we would like to see it, with some firms having, acquiring or increasing what are already substantial market powers and, of course, in doing so, acquiring the potential to abuse that power. As far as we are concerned, the changes to section 46 with regard to lowering the threshold test for determining whether the section is or is not applicable to the conduct of a corporation will assist small businesses. In addition, of course, it will assist consumers, but it will assist small businesses in particular which have been refused supply as a result of misuse of substantial market power. Our concern is that the clause does not go far enough, that it does not extend to certain other groups and dealings in the community and that, of course, is what is behind the amendment that we intend to move-if we ever get past this clause in the Bill-in order to extend it to other dealings. I will refer to the examples that I want to raise with regard to that amendment when we consider that amendment. Certainly, we do not see any particular problems in this clause in the Bill. We believe it will have a distinctly positive effect on small business dealings with larger corporations and businesses. We would certainly not like to see that diminished or derogated from in any way. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.35) —I did not intend to speak further at this stage. But Senator Haines's sanctimonious, hypocritical comments in terms of what her Party is proposing in its support of small business leave me with no alternative but to say a couple of words on that point. I do not know how the deputy leader of a party, and an aspiring leader of a party, that claims to represent small business can say what she did. That Party will vote to support a capital gains tax which will hurt every small business person in this country. It voted to support the taxation of entertainment expenses, which hurt a range of small businesses in this country. It will support the Government, apparently, in regard to the fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles, which is already in the process in my State alone of putting thousands of car dealers out of business, let alone the small businesses that require those cars. It is a party that is opposed-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! This is getting a long way from the clause. Senator SHORT —This is my last point and I will then come back to the clause. It is also opposed to negative gearing which, along with all the other matters, will hurt small business. It is absolutely appalling and it is about time that the Australian public awoke to what the Australian Democrats are about. The argument that Senator Haines put was that our opposition to section 46 is damaging to small business. The inference is that the proposal is only in the interests of large business. That is simply not true. One of the major submissions that have been made on this subject, for example, is a public document in the form of a media release of 11 February from the Law Council of Australia, which I assume could hardly be seen to be a mouthpiece for big business in this country. It makes the point in relation to section 46 that it is bad law. Regardless of whichever group in the community one may think one is protecting or serving by introducing a piece of legislation, bad law is bad law and if it is bad law, it ought to be corrected. I will quote briefly from the media release of the Law Council of Australia of 11 February: Section 46 is to be changed to prohibit corporations from engaging in competitive behaviour in a market where the corporation has a substantial degree of market power. The amendment should clearly establish that the predatory purpose of a corporation cannot be inferred merely from the inevitable consequences of genuinely competitive conduct. For example, profitable but low pricing by existing efficient manufacturers which prevents less efficient competitors from entering the market should not be interpreted as an abuse of market power. The Act should make it clear that predatory purpose can be inferred only from conduct inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conclusion. One of the major concerns that we on this side of the chamber have about proposed new section 46 (7) is that it is not clear that that predatory purpose inference will be taken only in those cases. If one is not clear on that point, one is putting into the law a very dangerous clause because it will be unclear, confusing and difficult to interpret. Senator Durack, on behalf of the Opposition, has moved that section 46 (7) be deleted. At the very least, if that is not acceptable-obviously the Democrats will not support us on that once again-I believe that there should be an addition to section 46 (7) to make it clear that predatory purpose can be inferred only from conduct inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conclusion. If Senator Evans is not prepared to accept that on behalf of the Government, I believe it places very consider- able doubt on the assurance which he gave me and for which I thanked him a few moments ago. I was stirred to make some comments by Senator Haines's remarks, but I am speaking as well in support of Senator Durack's amendment. I also seek a comment from Senator Evans on the point that I have raised. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.40) — Let me turn aside from this rather unedifying spectacle of the Liberals and the Australian Democrats competitively slavering after the small business vote. Everyone knows that the present Labor Government is the strongest supporter and defender that small business in this country has ever had. Among the evidence for that is the present section 46 which we are now debating and to which I rapidly return, as this Committee should have. Let me address the sort of points that were made by Senator Short and, rather more laboriously, by Senator Durack earlier on. The kind of problem that exists with section 46 is the one that was shown up in the CSPB v. Farmers Ltd. case in 1978 and which has hindered the effective operation of section 46 in practice ever since. What we had in that case is a classic demonstration of the problem. We had a manufacturer in Western Australia-all these things involving predators of one kind or another seem to be over there but I will pass that by-who dramatically and spectacularly dropped his prices in the face of the imminent entry of a competitor into that particular market place. As the law then stood that was the only evidence that was before the court. The plaintiff sought to ask the court to infer section 46 breaching conduct from that. The court, I suppose, had the capacity in principle to do that but was met with no evidence from the defendant other than a straightforward denial, without any further evidence being adduced in support of it, that he was doing anything other than just dropping his prices, full stop. There was no question of there being some sort of evidentiary onus on the defendant, as there would be now under this provision, to go further than that and actually give credible reasons why he dropped his prices other than for the purely predatory purpose of driving out the potential competitor with there being no other commercial justification. Had there been this kind of provision in section 46 (7) in place at that time the matter would have been able to be dealt with properly and fully by the court weighing and balancing the evidence before it. As it was, the court was not inclined, without legislative support of the kind that is involved here, to go down that particular track. The case was lost by the plaintiff and section 46 has been very little relied upon ever since, with the view being very strongly taken, as I said earlier on, by the business community that unless one has something directly out of the mouth of the defendant itself, clearly establishing one or other of the prohibited purposes, it simply is not worth going to court over it. The section has been, for practical purposes, a dead letter. That is what we are trying to do with this legislation. Senator Short says that we ought to go further than the language of the section and actually spell out that the inference can only be drawn when the conduct in question is susceptible of no other conceivable interpretation than that it was motivated by these prohibited considerations. I honestly do not believe that it is necessary to go that far. Courts can be relied upon to weigh and balance the evidence that is before them and to draw the appropriate conclusions. The clause here in issue, after all, is not one saying that a predatory purpose must be inferred from conduct or shall be inferred from particular kinds of conduct. All it says is that a predatory purpose may be inferred from that particular kind of conduct. What will happen is that when there is prima facie reason for supposing that there is some breach of this particular section, there will be an evidentiary onus then having to be borne by the defendant. The defendant will have to advance some explanation for the conduct in question and the court then will be in a position of weighing and balancing, in the normal civil proof way, the competing considerations. Against that background of the litigation history of this particular clause, I think it can be understood why the provision is in its present form. While acknowledging the general point that Senator Short has made, the Government and I do not honestly believe that it is necessary to go any further in stating the form of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., it would be convenient if the Minister moved that progress be reported. Progress reported. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.45) —I rise today to speak on the trachoma and eye health report, which has been prepared under the auspices of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Health, with Professor F. C. Hollows, and is dated October 1985. I do not believe this report has come into the Senate, but it has been circulated and is one of some considerable interest to those who follow the problem of trachoma. The terms of reference of the review committee were to provide a scientific report of the ocular health status of Australian Aboriginals, assess the effectiveness of existing anti-trachoma and eye health programs and to make plans to deal effectively with trachoma and poor eye health amongst Aboriginal Australians. However, an examination of the report shows that it has failed to meet the terms of reference. I seek leave at this point to table a document, which is the response of the Northern Territory Trachoma Control and Eye Health Committee to the trachoma and eye health report. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —The response details the report's inaccuracies and omissions and the mathematical errors in a proposed budget, and I will go into this in more detail later. Unfortunately, the report deals with only Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia; it does not deal with Queensland and other places. I feel that I must speak on this report today as trachoma is, of course, a widespread problem in some Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and other places. I certainly do not criticise the Federal Government if its intention in commissioning this report was to aid in the more efficient control of the disease. However, I fear that if the recommendations in the report are adopted trachoma treatment and control will not be improved. Indeed, the implementation of the report's recommendations, I believe, would give the opposite result. There would be a lessening of the effectiveness of trachoma control programs. The program with which I am most familiar is that which operates in the Northern Territory. I would like to outline to the Senate the way in which that program operates. The body which manages the trachoma control program in the Northern Territory is the Northern Territory Trachoma Control and Eye Health Committee. This is an incorporated body of some 10 members. The interesting thing is that the majority of the members of this Committee are Aboriginal people of that area. On the executive of this Committee are the Chairman, Brian Dixon, the Deputy Chairman, Terry Tilmouth, and the Treasurer, Sam Wickman, all of whom are Aboriginal people. Also on the executive is Dr Devanesen, a very dedicated doctor from India who has given much to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, particularly on trachoma, and who is looked upon by the people with considerable respect and affection. The program works with regional co-ordinators in Alice Springs and Katherine who visit all Aboriginal communities and has some 250 trained Aboriginal health workers in the communities. These people have varying degrees of expertise in the detection and treatment of trachoma, but those who received training specifically aimed at trachoma control are regarded as being every bit as competent, if not more so, than many European health workers. The trachoma training that has been provided has been provided by Dr Jim Rogers, a specialist ophthalmologist from Tasmania who, I understand, has been less than impressed by the findings of the report which cast doubts on the abilities of the Aboriginal health workers in the Northern Territory. I understand that Dr Rogers regards the Aboriginal health workers as extremely competent, as well he should. The suggestion made in this report that trained ophthalmologists are needed to identify the different varieties of trachoma just does not stand up against the experience of the Northern Territory, where trained Aboriginal health workers are very good at distinguishing between the strains of trachoma at a very early stage of the disease. I would suggest that people who disbelieve this statement should go to various places in the outback to see the health workers at work. Father Frank Flynn was the man who really first identified the need to treat trachoma back in the 1940s, and since then there has been an ongoing program of one sort or the other in the Territory to aid in the control and treatment of the disease. The current program has been in operation since 1982 but it is, in effect, a continuation of previous programs. The Aboriginal health workers involved in the program in the communities are known to the Territory Trachoma Committee and I believe that it is quite correct to say that a rapport has been built over the years between the Department of Health in the Territory and those involved in Aboriginal communities in the trachoma program, such as Dr Hargrave, who did so much work in leprosy, and Dr Ella Stack. The report has recommended that the operations of the State and Territory trachoma committees be wound down in favour of setting up a more centralised organisation which would have its headquarters in Sydney. To do so would be to run the risk of damaging the good working relationship which has been built up over many years as a result of a lot of hard work by Aboriginal people and the Department of Health workers in the Northern Territory. The feeling of those who have been involved in the program in the Territory is that implementing the recommendations in this report would give no better result than is presently being obtained but that it would be almost certain to lead to a poor result in treating trachoma. The fact that some Aboriginal communities which were to be surveyed by the review committee would not co-operate is an indication of the reluctance of the Aboriginal people to depart from the established relationship which has developed between themselves and the Northern Territory health workers, and I believe too that there is some antipathy towards Dr Hollows. The Federal Government should bear that fact in mind before taking any decision to alter the existing arrangements, which would certainly be to the detriment of the Aboriginal people. I would see that there should be better co-ordination between the Federal and the regional health organisations, with the Aboriginal people certainly being encouraged to continue doing the work that they are doing. The other point which should be made is that, apart from logistical difficulties which would arise from the centralisation of the trachoma programs, there would be staff costs-the cost of travel by staff from the headquarters in Sydney and accommodation expenses-as well as equipment costs and the possible duplication of administrative costs and procedures stemming from the need for a head office and regional offices. All of these would have major financial implications. I understand that the trachoma report estimates that at a cost of $347,220 a committee would be able to be set up to service the central Australian area. Apart from the fact that arithmetical errors have been demonstrated, which would increase that figure to some $402,820, it must be pointed out that a similar sum would need to be spent to provide for a program in the north. It should be pointed out, too, that this compares extremely unfavourably with the figure for the entire budget requested for 1985-86 by the existing Northern Territory Committee-which, as I have mentioned before, consists mainly of Aboriginal people-which was some $199,000. The cost of the proposals in the Northern Territory would seem likely to amount to at least four times that figure, on the basis of the estimated figures in this report. The reason for the lower figure required by the Northern Territory Trachoma Committee is that that figure does not include any staff costs whereas the report proposals include calculations for wages and salaries. The present Territory program is staffed by full time Department of Health workers who are already paid by the Department of Health and whose duties include the management of the trachoma program. It is therefore far less expensive than what has been proposed. The Department of Health in the Territory has an extensive Aboriginal health section and its programs are comprehensive. To remove responsibility or substantially reduce its responsibility for the management of the trachoma control program will disrupt entire Aboriginal health programs and cut across the philosophy of the entire Department. The Federal Government owes it to the Aboriginal people of the outback and those who have devoted so much effort to the present program to think long and hard before it implements significant changes such as were suggested by this Trachoma and Eye Health Review. There is no doubt that the control of trachoma is a serious matter and even though it is now detected much earlier than used to be the case the requirement for funding is still there. I think something like 2,000 people were looked at and reported on by Dr Moran from the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, and he found about 43 people who were blind. I understand that of the $199,000 requested by the Northern Territory Committee this financial year it has so far received $98,000 in three separate payments. This piecemeal arrangement places serious limitations upon the existing Northern Territory program because it does not allow the Committee to determine fully programs for the year in the knowledge of having access to adequate funds. I believe that the Federal Government would be better served if it recognised the excellent work of the Northern Territory Trachoma Committee and the Aboriginal health workers and provided the funds the Committee needs before dismantling it in favour of a more expensive and less effective proposition. All in all, I guess this was an attempt to bring about a report, but the report, as I have said before, is deficient in various areas. I wonder why Queensland was included in this. Queensland, as I understand it, certainly has a high incidence of trachoma. There is another deficiency in the report. It provides various statistics, including a breakdown by race of the numbers of people screened during the 1985 review, particularly those communities examined in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia. It seems to me obvious that hygiene comes into this too in the control of trachoma. When one looks at the statistics and moves around the outback-it appears that there is less trachoma in settlements on river banks or on the coast. That seems to suggest that hygiene must come into it too. Where the children and grown-ups are close to rivers, the sea and such there is better hygiene and there seems to be less trachoma. In any case, I believe it is very heartening to see the work that the Aboriginal health workers are doing now in the outback. The work that they are doing now within their Trachoma Committee and the work that they do out in the bush amongst their own people has to be seen to realise the valuable asset that they are developing. Various inspections have been made and reported on in this report, I believe for statistical purposes. Such inspections should be kept up to show the results of the work that is taking place. I say to the Federal Government: Beware; in assuming that this report and its recommendations are correct it is being directed along the wrong road. I suggest very strongly to the Federal Government, to these people who are responsible for the funding of Aboriginal health in the outback, that they look very carefully at the work of this Northern Territory Trachoma Committee, which I believe is doing such a tremendous job in handling and controlling the trachoma problem. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(1.00) —I want to raise today the question of whether or not the jury system as it applies in Australia now is the most suitable and equitable system of determining court verdicts. I particularly want to address my remarks to the role of the jury in determining verdicts in criminal trials which require lay persons without any special knowledge or background or educational qualifications to analyse and make the most profound and final judgments on complex evidence of a scientific, legal or commercial nature-especially complex forensic matters. In the past few years there has been increasing concern expressed in a number of quarters about the role of the jury in the Australian legal system and, according to one commentator, Peter Sallman: . . . we are probably overdue in Australia for a full scale inquiry into the criminal trial process. There have been plenty of thorough inquiries into the police, pre-trial criminal investigation, sentencing and prisons, but nothing serious on the trial. I think that has to be qualified by the point that, as I recall, several law reform commissions have had a go at the jury system. It seems to be the fate of law reform commissions to be ignored substantially in their recommendations. That is not a criticism of the government; it is a statement of fact with which the chairmen and ex-chairmen of a number of law reform commissions would concur. At least one has certainly mentioned it to me on a number of occasions. Therefore it would seem that on a matter as important as this it will become necessary to try another way; in other words, to come at this situation differently. I will propose at some stage here, and I intend this speech to be a sort of curtain raiser to that, that an inquiry, possibly by our own Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, be made into that matter. Senator Puplick shrinks at the thought and I do not blame him. Senator Puplick —As a member of the Committee, I certainly do. Senator MASON —As he is a member of the Committee, I sympathise with him greatly, but I would have thought that this matter is now becoming so important that at some stage it would be a matter that this Senator could properly concern itself with. It is wise to bear in mind, I think, the conventional wisdom. There are two prevailing community attitudes. The first is that any criticism of the jury system is rather like being anti-motherhood-it is one of those things that you do not criticise. Then a rationalisation follows: If trial by jury is not perfect, it is at least the best system we have. I suggest that is not adequate for present day conditions. We speak and think of this now with the Splatt case in South Australia in the recent background, with its complete reassessment of forensic evidence after a commission of inquiry had looked at it, and of course the Chamberlain case is very much in the news at this time with its highly controversial material concerning forensic evidence. The system of trials has undergone a long process of evolutionary change. Trial by ordeal, with the use of hot and cold water and by other means, was the oldest form of trial. It was replaced by trial by battle, a period of inquisition and the star chamber system, until eventually the Magna Carta basis for the right of trial by jury appears to have come into common use. `No free man should be taken or imprisoned but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land', as chapter 29 of the Magna Carta says. By 1640 defendants had the right to call their own witnesses, whose word was not doubted unless contradicted by another witness. By the nineteenth century juries could reach their verdict only on evidence produced in court. Then, of course, there developed the traditions of beyond reasonable doubt and proof of innocence. We are looking back, then, at a relatively simple world compared with the world of the present day. I think this is really what is at the heart and core of this argument. Life, and indeed trials-criminal matters-are becoming far more complex than they ever were. I think we have to look really at whether or not a jury of persons taken off the street can reasonably be expected to make judgments on such matters. I think in some States in Australia already there have been changes in the law where matters of computer crime and things of that sort occur. Certainly, in that area it ought to be recognised that it is not really possible for a lay jury to make the kinds of assessments which would be necessary to come to an equitable verdict. Of course, it has been argued in some cases that we might replace the jury with a judge in such a case, or perhaps a judge and assessors, but there is no guarantee that a judge would have any greater understanding of complex facts in which he or she is not trained. It has to be said, with all respect to that learned fraternity, that surveys have found that some judges at least, and perhaps most judges, are reluctant to undergo specialised training for particular cases. There are many in the community who would argue that the jury system, even as it stands, is the best in existence and should be retained. I tend to share that view. The Canadian Law Reform Commission has argued that a jury brings to bear on its decision a diversity of experience, that it deliberates as a group and has the advantages of collective recall and that the deliberative process of a jury contributes to better fact finding because each detail is explored and subjected to constant scrutiny by the group. It has been said too that a jury, unlike a judge, can take into account the human factor and bring to bear the broad community conscience in its verdict and that there is a certain relief from the judge of the sole responsibility of making a decision, which in serious cases is important, all of us being no more than human beings. It has been claimed the jury system is a kind of bastion against oppression because juries are often reluctant to apply the law in cases where unjust, unfair or harsh results will occur. Of course, juries have been criticised for that tendency as well. Those comments are, I believe, idealistic. The system is not working well enough and is not likely to change and work well enough in the future unless somebody, somewhere, soon has a look at it and tries to do something about it. Just to look briefly at this question of trial by judge: If it were introduced on a wider scale, I think great difficulties would be encountered on matters of time. We have the present quite intolerable situation in which, in the Family Court of Australia, judges can take up to 18 months to hand down a final decision once hearings have finished. That is, of course, the cause for additional delays before hearings can begin. I do not think we could tolerate a situation where we made changes which made that situation even worse. The alternative to the jury system as it presently operates that has been advocated to me by a considerable number of lawyers, including some in this Parliament I might say, is the possibility of an examination of the idea of a trial before a judge and specialist juries in some cases. This would call for specialist panels of experts who are available for jury service in complex cases and who are empanelled in very much the same way as a jury is empanelled now, with the rights of challenge and with the normal provisions to provide inasmuch as that is possible, a jury as unbiased, as fair and as broad in its view as is possible. In other words, if we had a panel of experts, so called, they would not necessarily want to be the kind of experts who were unanimous, who were so close to their subject that they felt they would be uniform for that reason alone. I think it is necessary that such a panel would have to have a variety of experience and background and to be able to approach any subject, especially forensic evidence, from a variety of points of view. There are many questions that would need to be answered on that before that alternative could be implemented. This would include: Who would be on the jury-how indeed one does assemble these panels; what qualifications and/or expertise would be required of people who are on that panel-whether they went on to the panel as volunteers or whether they went on as normal citizens because it was regarded as part of their community service; would there in fact readily be available a sufficient number of such expert people in all categories and, if not, which categories could be used. Then, of course, there is the point: Should not such experts really be in the witness box giving evidence and explaining it and not on the jury trying questions of fact? I do not go along very much with that last point because both are possible, plainly. It is possible to have an expert jury and an expert giving evidence and there is at least then a better chance of the jury understanding what the expert is on about. Having briefly considered some of the more popular alternatives that have been advocated to the jury system, I would like to turn my attention to some of the reforms that I believe, and that people who know better than I do believe, should be instituted so as to make for the more efficient operation of juries. These reforms, which have come from a variety of expert experience, include: That jurors be provided with indexed copies of transcripts of evidence and written directions on points of law. That seems to me so self-evident that it ought to be implemented forthwith. The second reform is the narrowing of reasons for exemption so that jurors can be more representative of the community. I think that this in the modern world is something which is worth thinking about. An interesting and innovative one is that issue papers be produced for each juror, which would set out, among other things perhaps, the following: Those matters in the trial which are in dispute and those which are not; a summary of the prosecution and defence views of the issues, prepared by the prosecution and defence; and a glossary of technical terms and their meanings which have been agreed to by the judge and/or counsel involved in the case. The third reform is the provision of improved access to interpreter services. That, I think, is a continuing problem in the whole of our legal system. Aborigines, in particular, because so many of them are involved in criminal indictments in this country, should receive education on the nature of the criminal trial so that they really understand what their rights are and what is happening to them. Finally, judges who are required to hear trials which include the admission of complex evidence of a medical, scientific or corporate nature should undergo some mandatory special training in such subjects. I am not so cynical as to believe that many judges would do that of their own accord. They are plainly not going to sit on a case, in most cases, without at least trying to have some awareness of what they are working on. It is a busy life for our judges. They are all overworked, as we know. Some special provision might be made. Perhaps provision might be made for a group of judges who wanted to specialise in certain areas. That is another point of departure that might be studied. When one goes over all that two things are clear: First, when so many eminent people in the community find it necessary to criticise aspects of the jury system, which as all honourable senators will agree is one of the fundamental tenets of our democratic system, there is an urgent need for an inquiry into that system. The second point is that it is not going to be easy. No one person or no group of people are going to come up with the answers to this easily or quickly. If anything is done, it has to be done in a systematic way. I intend to move at some stage for an inquiry into the jury system and how it operates in this country, possibly by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That Committee, with the benefit of public input, could inquire into the jury system and could determine, I think, in broad terms, what might be done to improve the system. I do not say that such an inquiry would solve all the problems, but even if it looked at some of the things that I have mentioned in this speech, which have been raised by very respectable legal authorities in this country, the report of that Committee to the Senate might be something that the Federal Government might look at. It might be possible, in that way, to get this important matter elevated to a higher profile than it has had before we get a situation in which more and more Australians, who may be innocent, are found guilty because of the inadequacies of the system. I think once we look at it from that point of view, without going into individual cases or personalities-even to admit the possibility of injustice to the community and members of the community, whom it is the first duty of government to protect-the importance of this matter begins to be seen. It is not just an academic matter; it is a matter which concerns very directly the life and liberty of citizens of this country. On that basis I think it must assume a considerable importance. I have raised what I have said today as a preliminary to those interested giving some thought to that matter. It is clear that certainly not I-I am not a trained lawyer-and perhaps not any other individual group would have all or perhaps even most of the answers to this very complex question, but it is clear that when the question of the operation of the jury system has been subject, and reasonably, to study by three State law reform commissions and has been criticised by many more eminent people in society than I am, the time has come for a full scale inquiry into that system that will be effective. The sooner that happens, the better. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(1.14) —I want to support the concern expressed by Senator Kilgariff in drawing attention to some of the omissions and inaccuracies in the report on trachoma and eye health which was presented in October last year by a review committee comprising representatives of the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Health and Professor F. C. Hollows. I have taken a professional interest in follicular trachoma for a long time. I recall meeting Father Frank Flynn at Darwin many years ago now. Father Flynn was an opthalmologist himself and he displayed a lot of concern about the incidence of trachoma at that time, amongst Aborigines in particular. Four or five, or perhaps six, decades ago trachoma in Australia was a real problem, not only amongst Aborigines but also amongst white people living in dry, arid zone areas, which provided the environment for the spread and contraction of this disease due to the dusty conditions that they were living under. Of course, that is one of the main reasons why people contract the disease follicula trachoma. Senator Kilgariff referred to hygiene. Really, it is a question of hygiene and training Aboriginal people living in the more remote areas to look after their health in this respect. I recall going some years ago from Port Augusta to Coober Pedy, where I carried out, to my knowledge, the first optometrical clinic there. This was well before I was in Parliament. I examined 30 or 40 Aboriginal people at that time and I was unable to examine the eyes of half of them because they had mucopurulent conjunctivitis and, I strongly suspect, were well on the way to contracting trachoma. I had to ask the sister to provide them with chloromycetin to get rid of that infection before I was able to examine the patients, which necessitated a further visit. The Aborigines in that area, of course, are in an ideal environment to contract this disease. It is a disease that emanates from the eyelashes. In the old days it used to be called granulated eyelids, which is, in effect, what it is. The lids become granulated and blinking the eyes causes scarification of the cornea, which eventually results in the cornea becoming opaque and ultimately the patient becomes totally blind. Those Aborigines in Coober Pedy were white with the dust of the opal mines there. Of course, that dust causes corneal irritation. There are a lot of flies in the area which transmit disease. Also, it is interesting to note that the eyelid action of Aborigines is far slower and far less frequent than that of Europeans. The flies can do their work a little bit more effectively because of the slowness of the lid action to dispense with them. It is a serious matter and I do not think this report is a very credible document. Certainly it attempts to come to grips with the problem but, as Senator Kilgariff has said, to suggest that a body be established in Sydney is quite ridiculous. There is far more merit in developing greater co-operation with the Commonwealth and ensuring that more funds are made available so that these diseases can be dealt with more effectively by the States and the Northern Territory local government. A critique, I suppose, of this report was presented by a committee which consists of 10 members, seven of whom, I understand, including the Chairman, are Aborigines. There is also an Indian, a Filipino and Dr Ella Stack, who is a medical doctor in Darwin and a former mayor. These people decided to get an independent assessment by an epidemiologist of excellent qualifications. He has been somewhat critical of the misinformation that this report contains. Senator Kilgariff pointed, I think, to the arithmetic errors in the report. At the end of the report it is suggested that 50 pairs of spectacles were provided at a cost of $80 each. The amount shown is $40,000, whereas it should be $4,000. Senator Kilgariff referred to Professor Hollows. There is no mention in the report of the fact that he was unable to perform the various clinical inspections himself and had to rely on others to do it. I see in the comments on the misinformation in the report that Professor Hollows was not acceptable in some areas of the Northern Territory and in fact was unable to gain admittance. There are other omissions in the report. For example, when it refers to the southern committee of the Northern Territory it does not mention the fact that, for the first time, a medical officer has been doing almost full time work on trachoma and, on every trip that he has carried out, has written several articles and reports containing accurate information and pointing out the discrepancies that occur from time to time. The statement also states-but it does not go into this in a great deal of detail; it should have more regard to it-that the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress does not give particular priority to trachoma treatment in screening because of the various priority needs in the area. Three Aboriginal health services agree with that. Certainly there is a significant incidence of severe trachoma amongst Aborigines around Alice Springs and this will continue to produce an unavoidable overburden of blindness for Aborigines. This area also has a high incidence of hepatitis B, respiratory disease and sexually transmitted diseases. That is quite a significant and damning statement, I think. This has been a great worry to people in the Alice Springs area, as this pool of untreated trachoma lies around the periphery of the town. It shows that the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress does not place as much emphasis on the problem of trachoma as it does on other areas of Aboriginal health. Nevertheless, it is a serious matter. I agree with Senator Kilgariff's suggestion that more attention ought to be given to the good work that is being done and has been done by the Northern Territory and State health departments. I think, it ought to be followed up with more co-operation from the Commonwealth, more funds and assistance in this very important area. I want to raise briefly another matter; that is, the problems that we are experiencing and have experienced for some time with lightning strikes by parliamentary staff affecting the provision of meals here. I know it has been a long and protracted problem, but I do sympathise with the staff. They have co-operated in changing operational aspects of their management in providing the Parliament with food and drinks, and I think that that is commendable. There are matters that need to be discussed and some that have been the subject of continuing discussions. I think this morning there was a meeting with the conciliation and arbitration people in the Australian Capital Territory, and that was followed by a meeting with Joint House and union representatives. It seems to me that it is a matter that ought to be easily resolved. I understand that 22 years ago the mother of one of the present staff was a permanent casual here. The present employee indicated that her mother was receiving $5.20 an hour for that sort of work 22 years ago. Today they are receiving something like $8 an hour. Permanent employees get about $6 per hour. That seems to me to be a very small increase in their hourly rate of pay after such a long time-22 years. We have to consider that people in their sort of employment outside this Parliament attract tips that I have not seen evident from many members of the House or the Senate, which provides added remuneration outside. I do not think that staff here expect that. I do think it is fair to suggest that something ought to happen quite urgently on this. It should be in the hands of the Presiding Officer to make some sort of determination about it. I do not think it comes under appropriations and staffing. The Clerk is shaking his head. Nevertheless, I think we as members of parliament ought to be concerned about it, particularly when we are deprived of the vital sustenance that enables us to stand on our feet and contribute so vigorously to the debates in the Senate from time to time. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I do urge the President and the Speaker to do all they can to resolve the problem quickly and perhaps to present a report to the Senate, hopefully today. I would like optimistically to believe that in the very near future the problems of the staff in Parliament will be resolved. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(1.28) —On this occasion I wish to make some remarks regarding the success of an undertaking which has been promoted by the National Film and Sound Archive known as the Last Film Search. I am glad that Senator Ryan is the Minister on duty in the chamber because I know that she and many members of her Party have given a great deal of support to the film industry and to the work of the National Film and Sound Archive, and that she and others have a great personal interest in this matter. On 20 October 1981 the Last Film Search was launched by the film maker Peter Weir at a ceremony in Melbourne. The purpose of this exercise was to scour Australia, and indeed to extend the search to overseas, in order to try to find as much as possible of the remaining holdings of pre-1951 nitrate film. Most of this film, of course, has already entirely vanished. It has decayed and decomposed and simply physically does not exist any longer. The Last Film Search got under way with its theme `Nitrate Won't Wait'. That is precisely the problem. A great deal of Australia's film heritage is on nitrate film, which is simply incapable of lasting many years. The object of the film search was to discover as much of this nitrate film as possible and to preserve it: Where it could only be preserved, the preservation itself was a worthwhile exercise; where, however, it was in a condition to be copied, the film is being copied on to stable acetate stock. The film industry in Australia is one of our oldest industries. It dates back well into the 1890s. This country was an absolute pioneer of the development of the moving picture industry and there is, in terms of Australia's recorded heritage, a greater proportion of our country's heritage recorded on film than there is of almost any similar country's heritage anywhere in the world. The film industry and the non-commercial sector of film making have a major contribution to make in preserving Australian history and identifying unique features of Australia and its national life. The search was conducted, not only in terms of an advertising campaign sponsored by the National Film and Sound Archive but equally by having a quite unique program in which the field officer of the Last Film Search, Mr Michael Cordell, in fact spent two years travelling Australia by car and caravan. In the course of those two years he probably travelled more extensively throughout Australia, including its most remote regions, than almost anybody else has in recent years. The aim of the project was to take the caravan into remote locations; to get coverage in the local media and local radio and, where possible, local television; to indicate to people that if they had old nitrate film, would they please bring it to Mr Cordell and steps would be undertaken to acquire it or to get it on loan, or whatever it happened to be. I think it is also important to recognise that this is an expensive process and to recognise that Kodak (Australasia) Pty Ltd was prepared to contribute $100,000 to this undertaking. I think it is deserving of very great credit for having been prepared to be a major sponsor, indeed the major sponsor, of the whole project. I think it is important to indicate that this project-the Last Film Search-has been an outstanding success. Let me put it in this perspective: A silent feature film is approximately 6,000 to 8,000 feet in length and the Last Film Search has already acquired more than a million feet of film and is currently negotiating for the acquisition of almost as much again-almost another million feet of film, which it hopes to be able to acquire. This, by measure of its own success, has caused some difficulties to the extent that, I think, the success was far greater than anticipated. As a result, delays of up to two years are being experienced in examining the material and in turning it round; that is to say, in turning it into a usable film on stable acetate stock. It is important, I think, similarly to indicate that some very significant discoveries have been made. For instance, the search has recovered the whole of a feature film made by the great film maker, Longford, in 1918, called The Woman Suffers. It has recovered further segments of The Kelly Gang, a film made in 1906, which indeed was the world's first feature film. I think that is indicative of not only the great success of this project but also the great historical significance of the Australian film industry. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a brief summary of the feature films, short films, films about personalities and films about major events which have been recovered as a result of the success to date of the last film search. Leave granted. The summary read as follows- SOME MAJOR FINDS: Feature Films: Several minutes of The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906); complete copy of The Adorable Outcast (1929); incomplete and decomposing copy of The Woman Suffers (1918); fragments and partial copies of others from the silent and sound eras including two silent films that cannot be identified from existing histories of the Australian film industry. Short Films: The 1897 Melbourne Cup; Harum Skarum Skirt, a 1908 comedy made in Newcastle; scores of fragments and complete issues of Cinesound Review, Australian Movietone News, Australasian Gazette and other newsreels; a hard-core pornographic film from the 1920s; film of every royal visit to Australia this century; numerous theatrical commercials and electioneering films which give a fascinating window on Australian life in the first half of this century. Personalities: Documentary, newsreel or home movie footage of Prime Minister Bob Hawke (as a child of 5), Sir Robert Menzies, Boy Charlton, Walter Lindrum, `Smithy', Amy Johnson, Banjo Paterson, etc., etc. Events Great and Small: The unveiling of the `dog on the tuckerbox' near Gundagai; everyday life in Brisbane in the mid-1890s; Scotch College, Melbourne, in the 1930s; Neville John Dossetto in the maiden flight of the first aircraft built in Queensland; new technology in farming methods in the 1930s; the first car to travel around Australia; Aboriginal life early this century, etc. Senator PUPLICK —The other thing that I think ought to be indicated is that it is not just the recovery of film that has been successful. The Last Film Search has brought to light materials such as stills, posters, photographs, scrapbooks, scripts, vintage equipment and so on. Indeed, at a fascinating visit to the Film and Sound Archive I had an opportunity to look at some of the diaries recovered as a result of the Last Film Search. These include diaries of people actually involved in film making, books of newspaper cuttings of films and films actually being produced, letters memento and memorabilia, all of which are important for an understanding of film culture and for an understanding of the historical development of the Australian film industry. Australia has, unfortunately, a rather poor record in terms of the amount of the silent films made in this country which have actually been recovered-probably only about 5 per cent. This is considerably less than is the case in places such as the United Kingdom or the United States of America. At the same time, the film search has given an impetus to a search to collect our old recordings. If one looks again at the collection of the National Film and Sound Archive, some of the old sound recordings, some of the old gramophone records, some of the old Edison cylinders, some of the material which is preserved there are quite fascinating. There are, in fact, gramophone records which are made on aluminium discs rather than on the sort of vinyl that is current. There are the old Edison cylinders which are still in playable form and, more to the point, there are enormous resources and collections of sheet music, a great deal of it unlikely ever to be played again but, nevertheless, indicative of part of the nation's cultural history. I understand that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation later this year is to produce a one-hour documentary on the success of the Australian film search, the Last Film Search, and I think that will bring to further public attention the great work that the Film and Sound Archive has done. In mentioning the Archive, I think that both Graham Gilmour, as the Director of the Archive, and Ray Edmondson, as one of the principal people concerned with the preservation of Australia's film heritage, deserve a degree of public recognition which is as great as the recognition actually given to the film stars and the film makers because they are contributing mightily to the Australian film industry. Mention of the ancient sound recordings gives me the opportunity, perhaps, to raise one matter with the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), which I am sure she would view sympathetically. That is that, of course, the old silent films were accompanied by piano music. Most of that piano music was in the form of piano roll and piano rolls are one of the very small but interesting areas which have been adversely affected by the Government's decision to reimpose a sales tax previously removed by Mr Howard when he was Treasurer. In the latest changes to sales tax arrangements the piano roll has been resubjected to a 15 per cent sales tax. There is only one company in Australia, that is in New South Wales, the Mastertouch Piano Roll Co., which actually continues to make piano rolls. Interestingly enough, there are no longer any companies in the United Kingdom making piano rolls and there are only two companies in the United States making them. This company, which operates in Sydney, not only is producing piano rolls of contemporary music but, of course, is seeking to recreate the music which was appropriate to the old films and music which has some historical significance. Some of the reproductions, for instance, of original piano rolls which actually feature Percy Grainger's playing of his own music and playing of some of the great classics, is a very important contribution in a very small area. I would hope that the Government, when it is doing its next Budget sums, would be able to look sympathetically at the very simple proposition: Here is one company with a small output but, nevertheless, the margins are very, very small and I do believe that freeing them from the imposition of that sales tax would be of assistance. There are two other matters which I raise very briefly. The first is that I have recently written to the Victoria Racing Club suggesting that one of the things that it might like to undertake as a bicentennial project would be to create a documentary history of the Melbourne Cup. Interestingly enough, the first film actually made in Australia is a film made by a visiting French cameraman with a Lumiere Camera, of the 1896 Melbourne Cup. In the Last Film Search a film of the 1897 Melbourne Cup was recovered. My understanding is that within the holdings of the Australian film archives probably almost every Melbourne Cup since 1896 has been recorded in whole or in part on some sort of reproducible film. I believe that the Club responsible for sponsoring the Cup could well find it a very worthwhile project to put together, with the assistance of the Film and Sound Archive, the history of the Cup, which would be a history revealing not only the great horses and jockeys but also the fashions, the personalities, the people involved with the Cup. Perhaps nothing could be more appropriate within the framework of the significance of the Melbourne Cup in Australia's national life. In fact, this would be worthwhile as an undertaking. The other point is that I hope the Government will look at one of the recommendations of the recent report of the advisory committee inquiring into the Film and Sound Archive under the very distinguished chairmanship of Joan Long. That report dealt with the question of compulsory deposit. Although at this stage the advisory committee has recommended that deposit of film made in Australia should in fact be on a voluntary basis, I believe in fact it should be on a compulsory basis in the same way as the deposit of books with the National Library of Australia is made compulsory and that we should require film makers, particularly those who are benefiting from the Government's tax assistance and subsidy measures, to deposit with the Film and Sound Archive a completed film, a master, and certain other materials such as a completed script and a completed cast list. I am glad to have had the opportunity to record in Hansard the success of the Last Film Search, to pay great tribute to those who were involved with it and to record my belief that the preservation of Australia's national heritage in film and sound recordings is a major contribution to the cultural life of Australia. I know it has great support on this side of the chamber. I know it has support from the Minister and from her side of the chamber. I hope that in the years ahead the Last Film Search and its extension to the search for sound recordings will continue to have great success and will continue to be a great credit to all of those involved. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(1.43) —Today I want to draw the Senate's attention to some far more disastrous figures that are hidden in the detail of the balance of payments figures that came out yesterday. These balance of payments figures, in themselves, were sufficiently serious to concern most commentators. Within those figures there is in fact a far more serious, far more disturbing element; that is, that there is $3 billion of tax revenue now put at risk as a result of the collapse of oil exports revealed in the February figures and the massive reduction in motor vehicle imports. If we can deal with the oil exports problem first, because this is a problem that I have been drawing to the attention of the Senate for quite some time. The collapse in oil prices has been seen generally by most commentators as only having an impact on our balance of payments, but if the current trends continue-those that have already been shown in the February figures-the Government revenue by way of levy and tax relating to oil exports will fall by $1,500m in the coming year. The impact that will have on the Government's budgetary strategy is, of course, enormous. That $1,500m is self-evident from the figures that we have had available. The balance of payment statistics demonstrated, for example, that in February exports of mineral fuels-that is, excluding coal, coke and briquettes; in other words, exports of mineral fuels made up of oil, condensate and liquefied petroleum gas-fell from the January figure of $355m to only $95m. In the financial year 1984-85 these exports totalled $2.4 billion and Australia became, for the first time in its history, a net oil exporter. We can see what happened in February, according to those statistics, and that is not simply a once off situation. It is now a permanent disaster, not only for Australia's balance of payments but also for the revenue collecting arm of this Government. This Government, of course, has yet to acknowledge it, yet to recognise it and yet to act on it. Having looked at this figure and, of course, the dramatic drop in revenue that will emerge as a result of the fall in motor vehicle sales, one wonders how safe our $2m in tax cuts that are promised for September are. Already we have seen the Government announce that it has to cut government spending by $1.4 billion if it is not to have a deficit of $6.4 billion in the coming Budget. Given this additional inevitable burden, unless something dramatic happens to change it, the Government is going to face an additional blowout of that deficit to make up for this extraordinary, this enormous collapse in revenue. Let us see why the oil revenue collapse is certain to continue. The documents in response to the takeover bid from Mr Holmes a Court indicate quite clearly what the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. thinks will happen to oil exports in the coming months; that is, of course, provided the world oil price remains low, and most forecasts are that it will. The company has released information that it would expect Bass Strait to cut back production from 500,000 barrels a day to about 430,000 barrels a day, of which 350,000 would go to domestic refiners. The Sydney Morning Herald has reported: The oil can stay in the ground, but the Government, which charges the partners an average of about 55 per cent as levy on the exports- that is levy on exports alone, apart from any other taxes-- stands to miss out on $1.19 million a day and the partners jointly will lose $975,000 in revenue a day, on the loss of 80,000 barrels a day in exports. That is what the Sydney Morning Herald reported last week. This week the Australian reported, under the heading: `Oil price plummet forces Kingfish rig to shut down': The crash in world oil prices forced the indefinite shutdown yesterday of a production platform in Bass Strait, Australia's main field. This was Kingfish A. The article continues: Kingfish A is one of 12 production platforms in Bass Strait which together produce most of Australia's crude oil requirements. The rig has produced about 35,000 barrels of oil a day from a total Bass Strait production of 400,000 barrels. We have already seen BHP's forecast becoming fact. One oil rig so far has been shut down and on top of that other exporters have had great difficulty in proceeding to sell the oil for which they have already received export permits from the Government. The Australian article mentions this, saying: Oil industry analysts speculated that one of the main contributing factors in the decision to close Kingfish A was Esso/BHP's inability to export crude recently. Three export cargoes-two from Esso and one from BHP-have been due for shipment in the past six weeks but none has left Australian shores. The fact is-I raised this with Senator Evans some weeks ago-that, as I understand it, many approvals that the Government has given for exports simply cannot take place because the price is too low and clearly will stay too low. As I said, we have always concentrated on the impact that is having on the balance of payments. We saw in yesterday's figures the continuing disaster, that the fall in oil exports was certainly one of the major elements in the deficit going out by another $1.03 billion in February, to take the eight-month total to $9.5 billion as a current account deficit. Despite what Mr Hawke has said-I am grateful to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) for at least telling the truth on this matter-there is no sign of any turnaround. As I see it, it is not simply the balance of payments problem that should concern the Senate or Australia; it is this incredible impact on Government revenues. Quite frankly, I think the Sydney Morning Herald massively understated it. As I understand it, there is a range of excises and duties on export oil, the minimum being about 50 per cent and the maximum being up around 90 per cent. I think it would be appropriate to say that on average about three-quarters of each dollar of oil revenue goes to the Government. That would mean, of course, that if we had these huge export revenues last year we are going to see a revenue cut of $1.5 billion to $2 billion if the the current inability to sell oil is perpetuated. If the Government really wishes to encourage oil exports, I suppose the only thing it could do would be to reduce its slice of that action, but if it did so, of course, that also would have a downward impact on Government revenues. I just wonder whether the $6.4 billion dollars deficit figure which we were warned of last week in the leaked Cabinet document does not include any kind of estimate of this magnitude-$1.5 billion to $2 billion-for falls in Government revenues from oil this year. This is only half the story. The other half relates to another $1.5 billion in revenue to be lost from motor vehicle sales. The Sydney Morning Herald on 12 March ran a story headed: `Car sales slump set to force tax repeal'. Here was the suggestion that, because motor vehicle sales had dropped so dramatically because of the fringe benefit belting that the Government gave this industry last year in its fringe benefit taxes, the Vehicle Builders Union had been sufficiently effective and dynamic to force the Government to change its policy and reduce the level of tax. Let us face it: What this is all about is that the Government now recognises belatedly that by trying to get more tax out of people by fringe benefits it has destroyed the tax raising prospects, which are big bickies, involved in the actual sale of motor vehicles. On top of that we had devaluation, which has destroyed the competitive capacity of a large proportion of imported vehicles-that is, of course, where the Government makes most of its money. The revenue consequences now are enormous. I spoke this morning to one group in the motor vehicle industry, who told me that in February sales of motor vehicles overall were down about 25 per cent, which is about 10,000 units, and that a bigger proportion of the fall came from these far more expensive imports, with Japanese prices going up 30 per cent or so because of the devaluation. The reality is that not only do we have the enormous excise; we also have enormous sales tax. So there is a double whammy involved every time there is a reduction in motor vehicle registrations. We have already heard from the vehicle builders union a claim that General Motors-Holden's Ltd dealers in New South Wales showed an overall drop of 45.16 per cent in company fleet passenger purchases. We have had a suggestion that in Victoria there has been something like a 20 per cent cut in passenger sales. The significance is obviously enormous when we look at the sort of revenue the Government makes from motor cars. In an article by Mike Kable in today's Australian newspaper he points this out: . . . the 57.5 per cent tariff is applied on the landed cost of cars, not on the ex-factory price. As most senators would know, the minimum price now for a reasonable imported car is about $25,000, apart from once offers at around the $10,000 level. That would not be the landed cost; there would be a reasonable margin between that and the landed cost. On top of that landed cost we have sales tax involving $3,500 on a car selling for $25,000. So we end up with something like $12,500 per imported vehicle, being the total revenue to the Government. If we did have a reduction of just 5,000 imported vehicles a month that would involve something like $60m overall per month, because there is a $12,000 or so loss of revenue to the Government per vehicle. That alone works out at about three quarters of a billion dollars in revenue, plus that sales tax of $150m or so. It is just under $1 billion even if the registrations are cut by only 5,000 per month, yet the evidence so far is that the figure is 10,000. It seems to me that $1 billion to $1.5 billion is a very moderate expectation of the revenue fall if the difficulties in the motor vehicle industry, that have largely been generated by this Government, are not resolved. Imports have been cut. Perhaps this is the only example of Mr Keating's J curve working. Presumably he hoped that he would have a 100 per cent failure rate with the J curve, because this in fact will cause a revenue disaster for the Government. The consequences for taxes and government spending are indeed enormous. I do hope that the Government applies its mind to this matter because it seems to have escaped its attention so far. It is a matter of the gravest consequence to Australians' hip pockets, to the tax rates they are going to face. I believe it puts in serious jeopardy the tax cuts that this Government has promised for September of this year. I ask the Government to give a guarantee that they will proceed. (Quorum formed) Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer and follows the question I asked yesterday about the Government's ability to meet the trilogy commitment with respect to revenue. I remind the Minister that he pointed out yesterday that he did not have precise figures in his head but gave the answer that, on a more strict definition of the trilogy, the commitment would be met. I further remind the Minister that in the Budget Papers circulated by him at Budget time it is made quite clear on pages 59 and 382 of Budget Paper No. 1 that the trilogy commits the Government not to increase tax revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product in 1985-86. Is the Minister now in a position to give a firm assurance to the Senate that the Government will meet that trilogy commitment during the current financial year? Senator WALSH —The Treasurer was asked a very similar question yesterday. I do not know whether Hansard is out, but I have here a proof copy of what he said: It is not yet clear how receipts will finish the year, as it is not yet clear how the trilogy ceiling will settle down. He added that at this stage we have only one quarter's national accounts and, therefore, the estimate of GDP at this stage must be considered to be somewhat uncertain. As I said yesterday, the figure of $1.1 billion increase in receipts was alleged to have been contained in a submission of the Treasurer which was leaked, and the most recent estimate of which I am aware is that the receipts will not overshoot the Budget estimate by that size; it will be something less than $1 billion. At this stage, until the final outcome, both of GDP in this year and of receipts, becomes clearer, one cannot give a precise percentage. As the Treasurer said yesterday, present indications are that the receipts as a proportion of GDP will not exceed those of 1984-85. I think I perhaps should add that both outlays and receipts have been artificially inflated because of the Government decision to compensate oil refiners to some extent for the stocks which they held and which they were continuing to accumulate, through the month of February in particular, at prices well above the actual import parity price. The Government was in a position-and bear in mind that there has never been any legislative backing for the crude oil absorption policy-where the refiners could have refused to take delivery of oil in February at the then administered price of about $A44 a barrel and waited until the 1 March crude oil price adjustment which brought the price down to about $A28 a barrel. Knowing that that was the position, the Government agreed, subject to the refiners maintaining their lifting schedules, that they would be compensated to some extent for the stock losses held. The effect of that has been to artificially inflate both outlays and receipts for that year compared with what would have happened had the Government not made that decision. Presumably oil refiners would have lifted a good deal less Australian crude in February than they did and the Government would have lost revenue on the crude oil excise but saved the compensation which is recorded as an outlay. Senator CHANEY —I have a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that answer and acknowledge that, if the Government chooses to incur extra expenditure and to raise extra taxes, that will change the figures. Given the uncertainties which the Minister has outlined in his answer, is it not true that he is telling the Senate that it is not possible for the Government to give a firm and categorical assurance about meeting the trilogy and that in fact that will have to be a matter of retrospective assessment when the final figures become available some time in the next financial year? Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney should be well aware of the fact that final outcomes deviate very substantially from Budget estimates. Anybody who was a member of the Government in which John Howard was the Treasurer should be aware of that because, as the Treasurer noted yesterday-and in this he was mildly in error-the cumulative total overrun of the Howard deficit was $2.8 billion. In fact, that was the overrun in the deficit in the last Budget that Mr Howard presented; in one Budget alone the deficit blew out by $2.8 billion and in all of his five Budget outlays were in excess of Budget estimates, most spectacularly in the final, irresponsible year in office, when outlays were in excess of Budget estimates by almost $2 billion. Members of the present Opposition who were members of that Government ought to have a very good idea, ought to know very well, that estimates put out in the Budget are never precisely matched by the outcome, but the difference between this Government and the discredited former Treasurer and the Government that he represented is that this Government presents honest estimates and, of course, the discredited former Treasurer in Budget after Budget produced dishonest estimates of what outlays would be. Senator COLSTON —Did the Minister for Education indicate on 14 February that the Government would be able to respond to the 1984 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts entitled `A National Language Policy' in the next few months? Has the Minister received a letter from the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia dated 20 February in which it is claimed that she indicated to the Federation that `in the next few months' actually meant the end of this year. If so, can the Minister comment on the Federation's claim and indicate whether it is correct? Senator RYAN —As Senator Colston, and I believe other honourable senators who are interested in this matter, would be very well aware, the achievement of a national language policy which is equitable, able to be implemented and able to be adequately resourced is not a task which can be completed very rapidly. Since receipt of the Senate Committee's report I have had officers in my portfolio working on the achievement of that task. It is true to say that, because of the complexity of the task, we have not yet arrived at a draft which I believe should be the basis of a Cabinet decision. However, I am hoping to announce shortly that some increased resources will be going to the performance of this task. In the meantime further consultations, as I have promised, have been undertaken. I had a very full meeting with FECCA on 18 February and during that meeting I tried to explain to its representatives some of the difficulties entailed in developing a national language policy. There was some impatience, I understand, expressed by FECCA members and they were very anxious that I pin myself to a precise date for the production of this policy. It is not possible to put a precise date on this, if only because further consultations are necessary. I think FECCA would be very displeased if we were to rush a policy which did not meet its aspirations. However, I still believe that we will be able to produce a policy in the next few months. I told FECCA that at that time. I cannot be more precise than that at this stage, but I have invited it to make further comments on the detail of that policy and on the mechanism for implementing the policy. It has undertaken to do so and I look forward to receiving its suggestions and incorporating them into this very important exercise. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does he agree that the fall of 0.7 per cent in the index of manufacturing production during the December quarter seriously threatens the Government's growth predictions, especially its oft repeated forecasts of strong import replacement growth and an improvement in the current account? In the light of this disturbing result and yesterday's unconvincing trade figures, will the Government undertake to relieve Australian manufacturers of the crippling burden of high interest rates as well as the imminent additional costs, in particular its new taxes and the superannuation award? Senator BUTTON —I suppose that the short answer is no. On the basis that Senator Watson put so much intellectual effort into his question, let me put a little into my answer. First of all, in respect of the very slight fall in manufacturing production output for the December quarter, one has to remember that that was a fall on what was a record base in terms of the last four years. For the first time, in that quarter and in the preceding quarter, manufacturing production had risen to a level as high as the levels of manufacturing production before the resource boom. Senator Watson seems to have a pained face. Perhaps he can elucidate later any problems he has. Senator Watson asked whether, because of that fall and because of what he characterised as the disappointing trade balance figures published yesterday, the Government would embark on a series of what he would perhaps call remedial measures that he thinks might correct that situation. The first of those related to the Government doing something about high interest rates. I have answered that question on a number of occasions before in the Senate. The Government will be judged on the timing of any decision it makes on that issue, but the Government has to make a judgment about it. In respect of the question of taxes-- Senator Chaney —That is fairly precise. You have to make a judgment. Senator BUTTON —The point is that the judgment will not be made by Opposition senators; it will be made by us and we will be judged on it. That is the point honourable senators opposite have to understand. No amount of questioning in the Senate will influence that decision very much, particularly questioning of the calibre we have had this week. On the second measure-the question of new taxes-I do not know what the honourable senator means by that. What taxes is he suggesting we should change as a result of his flimsy little set of figures? Senator Watson —What about the fringe benefits tax on cars? Senator BUTTON —I say to Senator Watson that I have answered that question too once or twice this week. If the honourable senator does not bother to listen there is not much point in his coming into the Senate. I do not propose to answer that question again. The Government will decide that matter and will make an announcement about it pretty shortly. Senator Chaney —And live with the consequences. Senator BUTTON —And live with the consequences, yes, of course. I know that Senator Chaney finds that statement disarmingly frank, but it is true. Senator Watson also asked about the superannuation case. That will go ahead. Senator WATSON —I ask a supplementary question. I acknowledge that the index has fallen from a perhaps higher base, but should not manufacturing activity be increasing due to the effects of the devaluation of the dollar? Senator BUTTON —Yes, it has. I said in my original answer to the honourable senator that levels of production in the manufacturing sector were higher than they had been for five years. Some of that may be attributable to the devaluation. Senator DEVLIN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services to a comment in the local media and to statements in the Department's 1984-85 annual report on inadequate transport services in the Australian Capital Territory. What steps are being taken to alleviate this problem? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that for many years, particularly when Parliament is sitting, there have been problems associated with public transport in the Australian Capital Territory and there were inadequate resources in the combined public and private sectors to move government passengers from both Parliament House and the Canberra Airport. Honourable senators would be aware that from time to time this has been a point of some contention with members of parliament as well as citizens, especially when peak periods coincide. Honourable senators would also be aware that there was a very serious decline in airline traffic in the last two years of the Fraser Administration. In the last three years there has been a substantial improvement in traffic movement at the Canberra Airport. In the peak periods difficulties occur from time to time when passengers need to be shifted from the airport into the city and to various other parts of Canberra. The Government was aware of the problem and took steps in 1983, when that upturn in traffic took place as a result of the Government's economic policies. Some 54 additional drivers were made available in the Canberra area by the Department of Administrative Services to cope with the increased traffic so that less pressure would be placed on the private transport industry. That move has made some impact upon the problem. The Government now finds it necessary to examine the problem further because there has been a tremendous increase in traffic movements at the Canberra Airport. Currently the Government, in consultation with the Transport Workers Union, is looking at improving the service still further by using small buses, freight drivers on overtime, and attempting to increase the availability of hire cars and taxis. We believe that all those steps the Government is considering at the moment, as well as those steps that have already been taken, will not only improve the traffic from the point of view of members of parliament but also make private transport more readily available to the citizens in Canberra. Senator CHIPP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Why did the Government in the person of Mr Hayden, on Friday, 21 February, at the time when the corrupt dictator Marcos was beleaguered in the Philippines, announce twice on that day that if the United States bases in the Philippines were under threat from guerrillas-he did not say whether he meant Aquino guerrillas or communist guerrillas-the ANZUS Treaty could be invoked, if not activated? Would this mean that as a result of such an invocation or activation he had in mind that Australian troops could be committed under ANZUS to defending American bases in the Philippines? Will the Government give an assurance to the Australian people that it was not asked by the Americans to sound out the Australian public on that day and that those statements were not made at any suggestion of the United States Government? Will the Minister get an assurance from his colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs that under no circumstances, whatever happens in the future to American bases in the Pacific, would Australian troops be committed to defend them under ANZUS? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government, through Mr Hayden, had two principal reasons for drawing public attention to the possibility-no matter how remote-of developments in the Philippines leading to invocation of the ANZUS Treaty. One reason was to ensure that it was well understood that the Treaty had a two-way function and that it carried not only assurances of support for Australian security, but also obligations which Australia might incur. I believe that that answers the last part of Senator Chipp's question. The other reason was to underline that what was happening in the Philippines was of direct relevance to Australia in a number of important respects of which this was one. What was said, I am assured by Mr Hayden, derived in no way from suggestions or promptings by the United States or anyone else. Senator MORRIS —I direct my question to you, Mr President. Can you advise the Senate of the result of this morning's hearing in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission concerning the parliamentary catering staff? What order was made by Mr Commissioner Caesar? The PRESIDENT —First, I appreciate the interest that the honourable senator has taken in this matter and I also appreciate the number of occasions on which he has been to see me in a genuine attempt to secure a settlement of the matter. In accordance with my practice of making statements to the Senate on matters of this nature, I intend to make a brief statement on this matter to the Senate after Question Time. Senator SHORT —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce noted a paper by one of his leading parliamentary colleagues and a leading member of the Government's Industry Policy Committee, Dr Theophanous, entitled `The Reindustrialisation of Australia'? What would be the effect on Australian industry if Dr Theophanous's proposal that further import quotas be introduced and linked to the proportion of domestic manufacturing which a company carries out were implemented across the main areas of demand for manufactured goods? Does the Minister agree with his colleague's proposals and does he consider that they would improve Australia's competitiveness? Also, would he agree that Dr Theophanous's views appear to be supported by statements by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Simon Crean, following the meeting in Melbourne yesterday of the Executive of the ACTU, that the Hawke Government has failed to develop policies which would exploit Australia's devalued dollar and make local manufacturing more competitive? Senator BUTTON —I have not had the opportunity of reading Dr Theophanous's paper which, I understand, amounts to some 75 pages. In fact I do not believe that I have seen it at all-- Senator Gareth Evans —You can have my copy. Senator BUTTON —I have been offered Senator Evans's copy. Dr Theophanous was certainly a prominent member of the Industry Committee, but I am not certain whether he still is. As I understand it, the burden of his argument is that there are two essential points: First, he advocates a move away from multilateral trade negotiations towards bilateral trading arrangements; and, secondly, he suggests that there should be quota restrictions on imports with those quotas being granted to businesses which agree to manufacture a matching amount of goods locally. It is incorrect to characterise Australia's trading position as being exclusively locked into multilateral negotiations. Australia pursues both multilateral and bilateral trading arrangements and will continue to do so because both have their advantages. It certainly would not be in Australia's best interests to move away from the multilateral trade negotiations which are currently taking place and will take place further later this year, particularly, if for no other reason, because of our very deep interest in those negotiations relating to agricultural products, for example. As to the imposition of quotas, the first thing which should be pointed out about the imposition of import quotas is that they create artificial scarcity for goods and the first impact is inflationary. This Government has sought to avoid that because the reduction of inflation is a policy which we have pursued with vigour since our election to office. Secondly, the effect of quotas would be to disadvantage the poorer sections of the Australian community because in a sense quotas constitute a regressive indirect tax. These are quite compelling social and community reasons for not introducing import quotas of the kind advocated by Dr Theophanous. There is another important policy reason. The very real problems that Australian industry has at the moment are a result of policies over a long time which have led to structural maladjustment in the economy and structural incapacity in Australian industry. Those things have occurred because of the pursuit of those policies on quotas which Dr Theophanous seems to be advocating. In answer to a question yesterday I referred to the survey by the National Australia Bank on these matters and its views about the likely consequences of and the speed with which the J curve effect might be obtained. One of the things it pointed out in that article was that these problems which the country is facing at the moment are 30 years old and stem very much from wrong policies of the past. One of those policies which were wrong in the past was the cosseting of Australian industry by regimes such as quotas. The effect of that was that not only did costs rise-and this was detrimental to poorer sections of the community in Australia-but also the Australian industry concerned became out of touch with technological and marketing developments and all those things that were happening in other countries. The successful manufacturing countries in the world-and I particularly mention countries such as Sweden and West Germany-would never have considered the imposition of policies of this kind for the simple reason that they know their success is based on their international connections and competitiveness, particularly their competitiveness in terms of technology innovation and so on in their industry. A quota is a shield against that. The bottom line is that one has to choose, as I have said on a previous occasion in connection with the motor vehicle industry, between putting industries in iron lungs and saying to them `get up and walk'. Senator McINTOSH —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to statements made by the Indonesian Armed Forces Commander, General Benny Murdani, reported in the Northern Territory News of 4 March, in which he said that there was a danger in too much liberalisation, that unlimited freedom would only give birth to various types of anarchy and the revival of communist forces and that Indonesia should prevent a revival of the liberal democratic parliamentary system? Can the Minister tell the Senate what the Government's response to these statements is, and whether it has any intention of responding to these statements in the same manner as it responded to similar recent sentiments expressed by the Government of the Republic of Korea about opposition demands for constitutional reform? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has seen the Press report to which Senator McIntosh referred although we do not yet have the full text of General Murdani's reported speech. The Government does not wish to be drawn into a debate on points reportedly made by General Benny Murdani. Questions related to the type of government which there should be in Indonesia are clearly matters for Indonesia and its people to determine. However, I should say on behalf of Mr Hayden that the record of the Suharto Government in maintaining political stability and promoting economic growth in Indonesia has been an impressive one. But, just as Australia has done in relation to other countries, we have made clear to the Indonesian Government our views on certain aspects of developments in Indonesia which have been of concern to Australia, and we will continue to do so. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. In view of today's labour force figures that reveal an increase in unemployment to 8 per cent, does he agree that this confirms the reported prediction by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations that unemployment will increase this year? Are further increases predicted by the Government or was the Treasurer speaking for the Government when he said on the Sunday program of 2 March that unemployment would not rise again? Senator WALSH —If Senator Lewis would care to think back a bit I trust that he would remember my saying on a number of occasions here that any single month's figures for the number of people employed based on that Australian Bureau of Statistics survey are unreliable. I have said that in the months when the figures have gone up-not just in this case. To give Senator Lewis some idea of the sort of variability that that series displays, it showed that in the previous month, from December to January, there was an increase of 60,000 in the number of people employed; an increase of 88,000 in the number of people employed from October to November, even though it showed a fall of 16,000 employed in the month from September to October. I repeat that figures for any single month from that series are known to be unreliable. If we make an assessment over a somewhat longer period and plot a trend, that is likely to be more reliable. On that basis, for the three months ending February 1986 the unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, fell from 8 per cent to 7.9 per cent, in spite of the fact that the participation rate increased from 61.1 per cent to 61.5 per cent. Of course, a rise in the participation rate normally is an indicator of a healthy labour market, that is, people who are marginally interested in employment are being encouraged actively to seek work whereas in a depressed labour market they would not be. I also draw Senator Lewis's attention to the job vacancy figures of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd which in February showed a higher level of job vacancies than applied in January. In other words the indications from the ANZ Bank and the ABS employment and unemployment figures for February reveal that they are running in opposite directions. One should not assume from either of those series, being for one month only, that they indicate any particular direction. One can only get a meaningful assessment of that over a considerably longer period. Senator COOK —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs advise the Senate of details of any aid the Government may have committed to the Philippines in the wake of the election of President Aquino? Is the Government taking any steps to establish whether ex-President Marcos had any investments or holdings in Australia? If some investments or holdings are established, will the Government take action to return them to the people of the Philippines? Senator GARETH EVANS —We noted the sceptical interjections on this matter from the other side of the chamber which are entirely consistent with the course honourable senators opposite took over the years in defending the Marcos administration. I have no doubt they are profoundly disappointed with the change that has occurred there. During Mr Hayden's visit to Manila earlier this week he did, on behalf of the Prime Minister, invite President Aquino to visit Australia. While he was there he announced a number of further measures of support. In the first place Australian bilateral aid to the Philippines will be increased by 50 per cent to $25m. A team of officials will be visiting the Philippines in the near future to discuss the appropriate programming of that aid. Secondly, we have expressed willingness to help in establishing appropriate arrangements to co-ordinate international aid and economic assistance. Thirdly, a revolving trade credit of $50m, which had been due to expire on 15 March, will be continued following on negotiations with the Philippines Government. Fourthly, training under the defence co-operation program, which was suspended last month, has been resumed. Let me take this opportunity to correct a media account of comments that were reportedly made by the Philippines Defence Minister Mr Enrile in this respect. According to those reports, Mr Enrile's comment about not requiring Australian military assistance was clearly in reply to a question about the possibility of direct assistance in contending with the forces of the New People's Army. Mr Enrile is reported as going on to say that he saw no need for an expansion in the defence co-operation program although he did comment favourably upon the high quality of Australian military training forces. Of course, it is in the context of training forces that that military aid has essentially been directed in the past. The final matter is that Australia has indicated through Mr Hayden that we will give sympathetic consideration to any request by the Philippines Government for assistance in securing the return of assets and investments outside the Philippines. I understand that no evidence of actual investment in Australia by the Marcos family, or anyone on its behalf, has yet been uncovered. But the issue was discussed by Mr Hayden with President Aquino and Mr Hayden said then that Australia would do whatever it could to assist in the repatriation of assets consistent with the due process of the Australian legal system. The Government is investigating whether any assets in Australia were acquired by Ferdinand Marcos or his associates with official funds and what action might be taken in respect of any such assets. The issues are obviously complex and it would not be appropriate to make any further statement about the complex issues that would arise from the resolution if evidence of such assets did turn up. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and is in relation to the $3m being spent by the Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of the International Year of Peace. Are all the recipients of grants required to submit an audited statement with respect to the spending of those grants? Secondly, are the recipients of the grants permitted to spend grant moneys on the purchase of equipment, for example, typewriters and copiers? If so, what happens to this equipment at the end of the International Year of Peace? Senator GARETH EVANS —I may have some briefing on this, but I think under the circumstances it would be appropriate if I sought a detailed reply from the Minister and let Senator MacGibbon know as soon as possible. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is addressed to my good friend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Arthur Gietzelt. The Minister would be aware of media speculation that the Commonwealth disposed of some surplus Defence Service Homes Corporation land to the New South Wales State Government at below the price offered by private developers. Was this the case? Is the Minister prepared to elaborate further on the principles which apply in the disposal of surplus Commonwealth land? Senator GIETZELT —It used to be the function of the Defence Service Homes Corporation when it was known as the War Service Homes Commission to acquire land, subdivide it, build homes on that land for veterans and provide a subsidised interest arrangement which is characterised now in the Defence Service Homes Corporation. Over the years DSH set about disposing of surplus land when the policy to build homes was changed some time in the 1970s, and its only purpose now is to provide home loans at a subsidised interest rate. The Corporation therefore no longer buys land, subdivides it and builds homes on it. The consequence is that over the years there have been disposal arrangements in respect of the land that was acquired in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The land to which I think Senator Richardson is referring is a site of about 40 hectares in the Castle Hill area which was disposed of by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services to the New South Wales Land Commission. The processes that operate in respect of such disposal are that that Department, on policy grounds, makes available to either the State Government or the local authority any surplus lands that are not required by the Commonwealth. With this particular site the Commonwealth Government took steps to get a valuation from the Australian Taxation Office and then proceeded to offer it to the New South Wales Government. Agreement was reached on a price in excess of the valuation made by the Taxation Office valuation section. The price that was finally negotiated with Landcom New South Wales was in excess of three quarters of a million dollars more than the valuation placed on the site by the valuation section. The Government's attitude is that the States should be given priority in respect of this land. I remind Senator Richardson that this policy has not greatly changed from that of the previous Government when Prime Minister Fraser made the condition that it must be available for private home building purposes. Of course that meets the criteria of Landcom which carries out subdivisions and makes land available for private purchases. So we have met not only this Government's policy but also that of the previous Government. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. If, as the Minister has already indicated, the Federal Government is preparing to review the fringe benefits tax because of its likely adverse effects on the vehicle building industry, will the Federal Government also provide a similar review of the quarantining of farm losses, given that the introduction of quarantining is likely to cause a slump in rural land values, and in fact is already starting to affect the price of rural land and causing hardship? Senator BUTTON —I cannot answer that question precisely. All I know is that there have been a number of discussions with concerned bodies about aspects of farm quarantining in the fringe benefit tax package. Perhaps the greatest area of concern, to my knowledge, has been the possible effects on the forests industry. I cannot answer the question any more precisely than that, but of course the Government is always prepared to ensure that the tax regime is beneficent rather than benign, and I am sure discussions will take place. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I refer to and welcome the highly pragmatic decision of East-West Airlines Ltd to withdraw its plans for a $340m resort complex on Lindeman Island in the face of popular opinion so clearly demonstrated by the people of Queensland and elsewhere in Australia. Subsequent to the withdrawal of the East-West scheme, what is the present and anticipated future status of the national park at Lindeman Island? Will the Minister give an assurance to the Senate that the Federal Government will monitor any possibility of future development on Lindeman Island, or on any other declared national park in Queensland along the lines of the now abandoned East-West concept? Senator RYAN —Like most senators in this place, I welcome the decision of East-West Airlines to withdraw from proposals to develop a major tourist resort on Lindeman Island. As to the present status of Lindeman Island, Lindeman Island is a part of Queensland, although located within the outer boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I deplore the Queensland Government's original decision to revoke two-thirds of the national park so that it could be developed as a private tourist resort. The Commonwealth Government has responsibilities relating to the Great Barrier Reef under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and the World Heritage Convention. On behalf of the Minister I can assure the Senate and the Australian public that proposals for developments on Lindeman Island, and indeed all other parts of the reef, will be monitored closely in the light of those responsibilities. Senator TEAGUE —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs explain the circumstances surrounding the landing of six Indonesians near Darwin this week after allegedly travelling by fishing boat from Jakarta? Is there any connection with the circumstances that led some eight Indonesians to the Torres Strait Islands last year? Have the six Indonesians applied to stay in Australia? If so, have any of them made previous applications for Australian residency? Was their presence detected by our coastal surveillance organisation, or is it true that they spent two days on Melville Island before being discovered by local Aboriginal residents? Senator RYAN —I do have some information in response to Senator Teague's question in several parts. Those parts of it which are unanswered I will refer to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for further information. On 11 March this year an Aboriginal settlement on Melville Island, just north of Darwin, reported to the Northern Territory Police the arrival of a fishing vessel and the beach landing of four males and two females. The landing was at approximately 2 p.m. on 11 March on an isolated beach near Snake Bay which is inaccessible by land. The Northern Territory Police reported the landing to coastal surveillance, who in turn advised Customs, health, quarantine and immigration authorities. The first report received by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs at 8.30 p.m. on 11 March was that four males and two females of Vietnamese appearance had landed from a dilapidated fishing boat. A second report at 11 p.m. on 11 March was that an Indonesian fishing boat under sail containing four males and two females had run aground at Snake Bay. Further unconfirmed information received is that the group has informed Melville Islanders that they are Indonesians seeking refugee status. The Northern Territory Police launch left Darwin for the area late in the afternoon on 11 March and was expected to arrive at Snake Bay early on the morning of 12 March. It is understood that a Customs launch with quarantine and health officials on board left later in the evening and was expected to arrive mid-morning. The incident was reported on Australian Broadcasting Corporation news, Darwin, at 7.55 a.m. Darwin time on 12 March as the landing of a group of Indonesians on Melville Island. Because of the condition of their boat members of the group are to be moved to Darwin. The situation will be assessed at that time. That is all the information I have available to me at this stage. Senator ELSTOB —Can the Minister for Education give an indication of how successful the secondary allowance scheme publicity campaign has been? How long will the campaign run, and are schools involved in the campaign? Senator RYAN —I am pleased to report that there has been a significant increase in the number of students applying for and gaining the secondary allowance. Part of that increase is, I am sure, due to the publicity campaign which we have been running. Also contributing to the success of the growth of the scheme, I am sure, is the active participation of schools, school principals, school counsellors, the Australian Teachers Federation and parent bodies. At the beginning of March this year there had been an 8 per cent increase in applications for the allowance compared with a similar period in 1985. My Department has mounted a concerted effort since the last Budget to encourage applications for benefits under not only the secondary allowance scheme but all other schemes of financial assistance to students as a part of encouraging young people to stay in the education system. This, of course, is consistent with our policy of encouraging increased participation by young people in years 11 and 12. Publicity for this scheme will continue for some time yet, but will eventually be subsumed by a new campaign which will emphasise the benefits of the single age related scheme of financial support for young people which will begin in 1987. Honourable senators will remember that as a first step towards the implementation of the new arrangements the Treasurer announced in the last Budget an increase of more than 50 per cent in the secondary allowance scheme benefits for 1986 and the means test was eased. Publicity materials have been widely distributed through the schools and other avenues. In conclusion, I am asked to put in a further promotion and to remind honourable senators that the benefits have been substantially increased, and in their visits to schools or the contacts with the schools authorities I think it is very important that they continually remind people in the position to advise young people of these increased benefits. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. On Tuesday a Labor senator for Tasmania, Senator Coates, asked a misinformed question relating to a Federal-State agreement for the export of woodchips beyond 1988. He stated: It is a fact that the Premier of Tasmania is displaying an extraordinary lack of co-operation and is still refusing to sign the agreement with the Federal Government for the export woodchip industry beyond 1988 . . . The Minister, Senator Walsh, did not answer that part of his question. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, indeed signed the agreement on 9 January and is presently waiting for the signature of the Minister for Primary Industry? Can the Minister tell the Senate why Mr Kerin has not signed the agreement? Is it a fact that now the election is over Mr Kerin is going back on his agreement and seeking to interfere with domestic timber operations in Tasmania? If so, has the Minister the constitutional power to do so? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether the agreement was signed or not. I will seek a response from Mr Kerin. I find it highly improbable that Mr Kerin is going back on any agreement. I find it highly believable that Mr Gray is. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women seen the article in the South Australian Advertiser yesterday headed `Half the nation's managers soon will be women'? Mr John Young, one of Australia's top management consultants, claimed that women are often better managers than men, they are more personable and are better equipped than men to make tough decisions. Can the Minister say whether this attitude, which clearly is in sympathy with the affirmative action legislation, is representative of employers more broadly in the community? Senator RYAN —My attention had been drawn to the advertisement referred to in Senator Crowley's question, but I am very pleased to hear about it at this stage. I am sure all honourable senators with progressive views who are committed to improved opportunities for women will be pleased to hear that there has been such a vote of confidence in the capacity of women to undertake managerial positions in the private sector by a leader from that sector. I can say that there has been a very heartening response by leaders in the private sector to the Government's affirmative action proposals. I think it is being recognised more and more that in denying opportunities to women the private sector is denying itself a very important pool of talent from which people of executive capacities can be drawn. It is heartening that a reform such as this is receiving such broad-based support. I hope that the somewhat ambitious claim of the person Senator Crowley just quoted will be realised in the very near future. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and refer to a report in the Australian this week concerning the Burke Government's package of Aboriginal land rights for Western Australia, which includes the removal of the right of veto over mining on Ab- original land and the exclusion of consideration of the value of the minerals to be mined from factors to determine the level of compensation to traditional owners. I ask: Is the Western Australian package acceptable to the Federal Government? Does the Federal Government have any disagreement with the two aspects concerning veto and compensation to which I have referred? If the Federal Government does agree with the Western Australian Government's land rights proposals, why is it not prepared to implement amendments which would apply the same conditions in the Northern Territory, instead of proceeding with its proposed amendments, which do not remove the right of veto or eliminate the matter of the value of minerals to be mined from considerations going to the determination of compensation to traditional owners? Could it not be said that these are only two of a number of deficiencies in the Federal Government's amendments which will see the development of the Northern Territory, a non-Labor Territory, continue to be fettered while Western Australia, a Labor State, will be permitted to get on with developing its resources? Senator RYAN —Senator Kilgariff is obviously giving us a bit of a promo for the speech on his private member's Bill he will be making later this afternoon. As to the attitude of our Government to the package of improvements for Western Australian Aboriginals, agreed to last week, it will be clear to Senator Kilgariff and to other senators that our Government has accepted that package as being, at this stage, the most practical way of ensuring that Western Australian Aboriginals get permanent title to a significant amount of land in Western Australia. There are other aspects to the package which are also pleasing to us, such as the commitment by each of the State and Federal governments of $10m per year over a period to develop infrastructures such as water supply, sewerage and shelter in those areas of Australia where Aboriginals are living in the poorest circumstances. It will also be clear to honourable senators that the package does not represent what we would have liked to see in Western Australia but is, rather, a realistic assessment of what is possible in Western Australia at this stage. There is absolutely no reason why, having achieved a modest package of advancement in Western Australia, we should agree to erode rights that have already been achieved in another part of Australia. As Senator Kilgariff is very well aware, we will not undermine the veto rights of Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. We do not believe that the veto as exercised is making any real difference to mining activity in that Territory. There are other factors for a drop-off in mining activity in the Territory. It seems a false kind of argument to suggest that, because the achievement of land rights in Western Australia has not been accompanied by the achievement of a right to refuse mining entirely on Aboriginal land, we should attempt to remove this from Aboriginals in the Northern Territory who already have it. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Special Minister of State aware of ongoing disquiet about the future role of the Australian Federal Police in north Queensland? When will this unit's operations be placed on a secure planning base, with funding and staffing priorities determined according to, firstly, the size and difficulties of travel in this area, and secondly, responsibility for two international airports? Can the Minister give an assurance that the present internal review will give urgent attention to the special characteristics of this region for Federal Police operations and set appropriate levels of resources, personnel and independence in decision-making? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Special Minister of State advises me that he has received representations concerning the Australian Federal Police presence in north Queensland. The role of the Australian Federal Police, as provided in legislation, is principally to provide police services in relation to the laws of the Commonwealth. This role will continue to be discharged, having regard to the resources available and the priorities indicated by the Government as guidelines for the Commissioner from time to time. Any alleged disquiet which may have been brought to the honourable senator's notice is likely to be related to a failure to perceive this role in its full context. As the honourable senator is aware, the Government has indicated that AFP investigations into drug trafficking, organised crime and large scale fraud on Commonwealth revenue are to be accorded the highest priority. I can assure the honourable senator, on Mr Young's behalf, that any future review of resource deployment will be made in that context and decisions made by the Commissioner following the most careful consideration. The full resources of the AFP will remain available to combat its major priority targets wherever the criminal activity occurs. Senator REYNOLDS —I ask a supplementary question. Could I receive some assurance that the Australian Federal Police in north Queensland will not continually have to run cap in hand to officers in Brisbane before they can actually follow up the guidelines the Minister has read out? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will see whether Mr Young wishes to make any further response in reaction to that last question. I think discretion is the better part of valour. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer him to his Government's intention to ask the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to investigate Queensland electoral laws. Does he agree that the right to a fair hearing is a fundamental legal right and that the Human Rights Commission denied that right to the Queensland Government when it did not even interview the Queensland Government when it was investigating Queensland industrial laws last year? Is he aware that the Human Rights Commission has been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of Australians by its actions in banning parliamentarians from its offices, distributing a paper which advocated the killing of disabled infants, distributing educational material which contained extreme left wing assertions about our society, refusing to investigate a private citizen's complaint of trade union intimidation, and advocating homosexual immigration on the grounds of family reunion? In light of this sorry record, does he have any confidence at all that this Commission would be capable of conducting any impartial and thorough investigation of Queensland's electoral laws? Senator GARETH EVANS —All I can say is this: Without conceding any of the particular allegations that have just been made by Senator Boswell, so long as the Commission continues to incur the displeasure of Senator Boswell and those like him, I think we can all be confident that it is in excellent hands and doing a first rate job. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I direct a question to the Minister for Finance. It relates to the question that was asked earlier by Senator Chaney and the statement of the Treasurer yesterday on the trilogy. Did the statement of the Treasurer yesterday and the answer which was given to Senator Chaney commit the Government to a subsequent adjustment in taxation paid by Australian taxpayers if the collections for 1985-86 show the outcome of an increase in the proportion of the gross domestic product, or can the trilogy be regarded as a Budget aim and not a firm policy commitment, as it was presented by the Prime Minister at the last election? Senator WALSH —The first time that the Prime Minister referred to the trilogy it was put in terms of an average over three years and did not refer to any particular year. I know that different versions have appeared since. If I understood it correctly, the main substance of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's question was whether the Government would adjust taxation levels or rates at this stage in order to ensure that there is no very minor overrun as a proportion of GDP. The answer to that, of course, would have to be no because at this stage nobody knows what GDP will be for this year. Nobody knows either, with precision, what total tax receipts will be. Therefore, we have two uncertainties; so we cannot calculate one as a proportion of the other, when neither the numerator nor the denominator is known. The Budget Papers this year did forecast that taxation receipts would be the same proportion of GDP as they had been in 1984-85. I think from memory that that figure was 23.3 per cent. I do not know whether one could be certain that when the national account figures for the last financial year are revised, the 23.3 per cent for 1984-85 will no longer apply, or if it does apply it will be because of an action of rounding out the figure. The national accounts figures are subject to very large revisions. Surprisingly, this takes place sometimes as long as two and three years after the event. When those figures are revised, of course, that affects the GDP as recorded at that point. The general picture is that it is still expected that taxation receipts as a proportion of GDP will be very close to that proportion which was forecast in the Budget. But one cannot be sure of either the numerator or the denominator. I will pass the proposal on to the Treasurer, but I would say that it is highly unlikely that the Government would make any adjustment to taxation rates for that reason. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Mr President, I ask a supplementary question in order to clarify my question to the Minister. My question was: If the outcome of the figures when they are known shows that the revenue collections exceed the expectations of the trilogy, will the Government make a subsequent adjustment? Is the trilogy to be regarded simply as an aim when setting the Budget parameters, or is it a firm commitment that adjustments will subsequently be made? Senator WALSH —I am sorry if I misunderstood. If the question was whether there would be some adjustment in the next year if there is an overrun in one year, I would certainly expect that that is a factor which would be taken into account. Just to set the record straight, my attention has been drawn to the fact that the figure which appeared in the Budget Papers for 1984-85 for tax receipts as a proportion of GDP was 25.3 per cent, and not 23.3 per cent. Senator WALSH —Senator Short asked me a question on 11 February-and he raised the matter again some time later-regarding the Footscray Swim Centre. I understand that Mr Willis has replied by correspondence, but I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the further information. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Senator Walsh —On 11 February 1986 Senator Short asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the following question relating to the Footscray Swim Centre CEP project. Is the Minister aware that the project is massively behind schedule and has major cost over-runs? I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that a private company, formerly called Elate, but now called the Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd, appears to control the project and the CEP funds, rather than the Footscray City Council, which is the legal and authorised sponsor. If so, was this arrangement contrived to avoid the Hawke and Cain Governments' directives in relation to the Builders Labourers Federation? I ask also whether the arrangement has made the swimming pool project and the Commonwealth liable for State payroll tax and higher workers compensation charges. Finally, I ask whether the Minister will undertake to have all the circumstances surrounding this CEP project, which is rapidly taking on all the appearances of a major scandal, made the subject of urgent investigation, including the background to its initial approval. Will the Minister give the Parliament an assurance that no further CEP funds will be allocated to the project in advance of such investigation? I have a supplementary question. I ask Senator Walsh again for an assurance that all the circumstances surrounding this project will be the subject of urgent investigation. I undertook to seek further information from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and he has provided the following response: I am aware that the project is behind schedule and that costs have exceeded the original project estimates for reasons largely beyond the sponsor's control. The principal reason for the delays has been the increasing unavailability of skilled tradespersons among the long term unemployed. Against a background of significant reductions in unemployment in the building industry in Victoria, particular difficulties have occurred in recruiting plumbers, carpenters, electricians and some professional categories. The delays have caused serious disruption to the work schedules and adversely affected productivity of workers on the site. They have been compounded by additional man hours lost in the following ways: * workers compensation...11037 hours * sick leave...4989 hours * unpaid absenteeism...2043 hours * bereavement leave...230 hours * inclement weather...5808 hours * industrial action...5800 hours * removal of asbestos...65 hours The delay and cost overruns, while regrettable, do occur in large scale and complex construction undertakings. On advice from the State Industrial Relations Task Force, the then State Ministry of Employment and Training requested that the Footscray City Council form an independent construction company on the basis that the State Building Awards applicable to independent companies are more suitable to building and construction activity than the Municipal Award. This arrangement was not contrived to avoid any Federal and State Government ``directives'' regarding the Builders' Labourers' Federation. The establishment of the independent company necessitated new arrangements for workers compensation (costing $247,457 to 17 December 1985) and incurred a liability for State payroll tax (costing $66,518 to 17 December 1985), and additional expenses tied to the various awards. These costs were met with CEP funds. I have written to the Victorian Treasurer seeking agreement to exempt the Footscray Swim Centre project from payroll tax. The Footscray City Council remains the authorised sponsor of the project and controls the CEP funds. The Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd operates under the direction of the Council and the majority of directors of this Company are councillors and council employees. It has been agreed by all parties involved in the construction of the Footscray Swim Centre that an independent audit be undertaken by a private firm of chartered accountants and a feasibility study be carried out by the State Public Works Department. These have already been arranged. Decisions on the possible provision of funds over and above those already agreed will not be made until the results of the financial audit and feasibility study are available. The initial approval of the project was made jointly by the Commonwealth and State Government delegates following recommendation by the community based CEP Consultative Committee in Victoria. Information provided by the Footscray City Council in support of the need for and benefit of the project includes the following. The old swimming pool had serviced the whole of the Western Suburbs providing swimming lessons for 70,000 school children from 40 schools, forming part of the education, recreational and social life of about 125,000 people and employing 19 people. By 1983 the pool was in such a bad state of repair that it was losing $180,000 per annum and Council was faced with a choice between demolishing the pool or rebuilding it. If the pool had been rebuilt without CEP funds Council would have had to impose a 6% rate rise for all Footscray residents over ten years. The project, when completed, will have had considerable benefits to participants, Council and the community by providing work experience and training for disadvantaged unemployed people which has enabled the majority of ex-participants to obtain permanent employment in the normal labour market; a multi-purpose swimming/health centre for people of all age groups in the Western Suburbs, including 180,000 to 200,000 school children (more than double the number using the old pool), general public access for 92,000 people and permanent employment for at least 50 people. Senator Short raised this matter again in the Senate Adjournment Debate of 13 February 1986. The information provided in response to Senator Short's Question Without Notice of 11 February 1986 has covered many of the issues raised in the Adjournment Debate. However, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided additional information as follows: The project was approved to employ 124 people over 12 months. The employment of target group labour was staggered over the first few months as detailed planning and design phases of the project had to be completed before the construction commenced. The original approval provided for a CEP grant of $1.974m towards a total project budget of $2.824m of which $850,000 is being contributed by the Footscray Council. As a result of delays and cost overruns, variations totalling $445,000 have been approved, bringing the total CEP grant to $2.419m. The project approval required an $850,000 sponsor contribution by Footscray Council. Of the $850,000 contribution, $200,000 has been expended and the remaining $650,000 has been committed to the project. Following preliminary discussions, I chaired a meeting of all parties involved on 5 March 1986. All parties were in favour of completing the project but agreed that decisions on possible additional funding should await the results of the independent audit and feasibility study referred to above. The Council will release the remaining already committed sponsor contribution, as the funds are required. In relation to the Honourable Senator's inspection of the site, while it is not disputed that there have been delays, it is clear that substantial progress towards completion of the project has been made. It is not possible at this time to give any assurances as to the the final amount and a time-scale for the completion of the project. As I have said, the provision of any further funding will be dependent on an audit of the project's finances and a report by the State Public Works Department. I am aware of the agreement between the Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Footscray and Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd which is what I understand the Honourable Senator is referring to as the ``trust deed''. This agreement stipulates that upon completion of the project the construction company shall return to the Council control of the Swim Centre. I should point out that Council has retained legal ownership of the Centre during the construction phase and has indemnified the directors of Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd. Trojan Owen and Associates was appointed by the Footscray Council to manage the project under the direction of the Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd. Trojan Owens was selected by the Council, without tender, on the basis of its previous experience in management of construction projects. The responsibility for the selection of Trojan Owen and Associates as project manager rests solely with the Footscray Council. The Federal Government agreed to this decision on the basis that all management fees would be paid by the Council from its sponsor contribution. I understand that as at 17th December 1985, $170,601 has been paid by the Council in management fees. The CEP Guidelines require that sponsors must provide an audited statement/certificate as required. It is normal for this certificate to be provided at the completion of the project. The independent audit of the projects' finances now being arranged will clarify the situation as will the investigation of the construction aspects of the Swim Centre by the State Public Works Department. Under the agreed administrative arrangements governing the operation of CEP, sponsors are required to provide the State Government with regular financial statements detailing payments. I am advised that these have been provided. Senator GARETH EVANS —I was asked a question yesterday by Senator Sheil about the Vietnamese Army. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The Government is not aware of a decision by Vietnam on 14 January to prepare to attack a civilian refugee camp inside Thailand. The Government has seen, however, recent press reports indicating that in early March 1986 Approximately 1,000 Vietnamese troops attacked a military base of the Khmer Peoples' National Liberation Front inside Thai territory, opposite Cambodia's Battambang Province. These reports indicate that no attack was made on any civilian refugee camp, in particular on the site two camp situated in Thailand 8 kilometres to the south-west of the scene of the Vietnamese attack. The likelihood of attacks on civilian refugee camps has been reduced since the last dry season military operation because of the separation of Cambodian resistance military bases from the civilian camps. We have made it abundantly clear in the past that we condemn armed incursion into the sovereign territory of another State. The Government condemned the Vietnamese incursion into Thai territory during the 1984-85 dry season and will continue to condemn Vietnamese incursions into Thai territory. The Government has frequently deplored the prolongation of the cycle of violence in Cambodia; we believe that a solution should be pursued by peaceful means, not by armed conflict. We shall continue to call for dialogue between the principal parties. The Government suspended its bilateral development assistance program to Vietnam in January 1979 following the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. This aid has not been resumed. Australian contributions to United Nations and other multilateral organisation projects has continued. Cutting out this essentially humanitarian and emergency assistance would be a punitive measure, with no prospect of furthering the achievement of a satisfactory resolution of the Cambodia dispute. It would be a counter-productive step which would merely serve to isolate Vietnam further internationally and in the region. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Haines asked me a question concerning domestic violence. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- I refer to Senator Haines's question on domestic violence directed to me in this place yesterday. The two conferences on domestic violence referred to by Senator Haines arose out of a resolution of the ALP National Conference in 1984. As a result of that resolution I, as the then Attorney-General, requested the Australian Institute of Criminology to hold a national conference on all aspects of domestic violence against adults and children. The Institute convened a two part conference in Canberra on violence in the family-the first on domestic violence was held in November 1985 and the second on child abuse was held in February 1986. The principal aims of the conference were to identify a body of common information and agree upon future strategies to deal with violence in the family. Included in a comprehensive range of resolutions and recommendations passed by the conference was a call for an immediate national response to the problem of domestic violence. I am informed that the Institute forwarded the resolutions of the domestic violence conference to the Attorney-General on 20 December 1985 and those of the child abuse conference on 4 March 1986. At the same time the Institute also forwarded copies to 50 Commonwealth and State Departments and agencies with a covering letter to the effect that the Institute will be following up this matter in June to seek an account of actions taken in response to the resolutions. The replies will then be collated and forwarded to the Attorney for action to be taken at the national level. In the meantime the resolutions are under consideration by the relevant Commonwealth Departments. As Senator Haines might be aware, the Law Reform Commission's report on domestic violence is expected to be available to be tabled by the Attorney-General shortly. The Attorney wishes the report to be given urgent consideration so that action can be taken to introduce legislative reforms on domestic violence in the Australian Capital Territory. In addition to legislative reforms, the Attorney-General is also anxious to provide what might be called ancillary relief. He is anxious that there be support for victims and counselling which may avert some instances of domestic violence as well as provide relief for those who have been its victims. This, of course, will require additional resources and the Attorney-General will be actively seeking those. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator COATES —I was misrepresented by Senator Walters a few minutes ago in her question to Senator Walsh in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Senators Walters accused me of asking a question-a misinformed question, I think were her words-on Tuesday. I am afraid Senator Walters has indulged in her usual tactic of misquoting and half truths. She quoted me as having asked: Is it a fact that the Premier of Tasmania . . . refusing to sign the agreement with the Federal Government for the export woodchip industry beyond 1988 . . . My words that she omitted to add immediately followed, and they were: . . . in the terms to which he agreed towards the end of last year? The fact is that I understand that Mr Gray has signed a piece of paper containing words which he drafted. But it is not the terms of the agreement which he made with Mr Kerin towards the end of last year. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation, Mr President. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —Senator Coates has tried to explain away his question of misinformation. Indeed, he and I quoted exactly from the Hansard. The point is that Mr Kerin has not yet sent an alternative agreement for Mr Gray to sign. So he has not refused to sign Mr Kerin's request. He has signed an agreement which Mr Kerin has refused to sign. Mr Gray has not refused to sign an agreement because no alternative agreement has yet been sent to Mr Gray. So Senator Coates is quite wrong and is misinformed. The PRESIDENT —On Tuesday I informed the Senate that the Presiding Officers and the Public Service Board, as respondents to the relevant industrial award, had lodged with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a formal notification of an industrial dispute within the Commonwealth Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. The matter was listed for hearing this morning before Mr Commissioner Caesar. At the conclusion of the hearing Mr Commissioner Caesar issued a statement and order as follows: On the basis of the undertakings given to me by Mr Banks and Mr Barry of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union that they would take all necessary steps to have industrial action cease I order the parties to this dispute into conference, the subject matter of that conference to embrace all matters of concern to the members of the FLAIEU. The conference to be held as a matter of urgency and a report on the progress of the conference to be made to me at an appropriate time. I request the union to accept the responsibility of notifying me when such a report would be appropriate and in any event before any further industrial action is taken in pursuance of their claims. I have been advised that at a subsequent meeting of catering staff who are members of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union, it was resolved to lift all bans in line with the order given by the Commission. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Messner proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The need for the Government to change its policies in response to the emerging crisis in economic management. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.10) —Although this matter of public importance speaks of the emerging crisis in economic policy, it is about one thing only, and that is jobs for Australians. The whole point about the economic crisis that is developing in this country is that the Government's policy is aimed at improving the situation in respect of jobs but clearly it is leading us in another direction. The view is put forward by many in the Government-and, of course, this one emanates very frequently from the left wing of the Australian Labor Party-that there is one very simple reason for the job creation, and that is the increase in production. What that means is improving and increasing the opportunities for people to find work in factories, in offices and throughout the whole community and ensuring that the gross or the overall product of Australia is advantaged. The emerging crisis that is coming, then, is a crisis for the aspirations for the Australian people. Over the last few years, and certainly the last few days, we have seen the Government wallowing in an orgy of self congratulation on the third birthday of its having come to power in 1983. One of its great claims to fame has been the so-called creation of some 600,000 jobs over those three years. While we acknowledge that the Government has done that, the fact remains that there is still some 8 per cent of the work force out of work. The Government has made very little impression upon that hard core of unemployed people in Australia. Indeed, when we break down the statistics further-and I do not want to bore the Senate with too many statistics-we find that 21.3 per cent of young people are still unable to find jobs. This is notwithstanding the ineffective Priority One: Young Australia campaign that was so deftly and cleverly exposed by Senator Vanstone here during discussion of a matter of public importance a few weeks ago. A second point of great importance so far as unemployment is concerned is the growing average time that people are finding themselves out of work. Compared with a shorter period some three years ago when this Government came to power, people are now out of work on the average for 41.3 weeks in the year. Senator Peter Baume —Tragic. Senator MESSNER —That is a tragic situation for Australians. But this is only the start. This is only the point that we have reached now. The Opposition is looking forward to what is to come according to some of the basic indicators that are emerging at the moment. The statistics that have come forward on unemployment over the last six months show that the level of unemployed people in the community has bottomed out at about 8 per cent. That means that the Government has made no impression on finding jobs over the last six months. Fewer people each month are finding work in the work force notwithstanding seasonal variations that have occurred in the last few months. The whole process of job creation as defined by this Government has wound down. This Government is finding it increasingly difficult to create jobs at anything like the rates that are necessary to bite into that hard core of unemployed that we see before us. This is the reason why there is a growing perception in the community of a sense of crisis. This is why people are worried about job opportunities for their children. They cannot see where the jobs will come from in the future. They keep reading of bad reports from overseas. They keep reading about the inadequacy of this Government's measures and its outright failures in coming to terms with such projects as Priority One. They read of the useless waste of money that is going to such projects as Tilley Devine's centre in Canberra. Rightly or wrongly, $140,000 has been tossed down the drain and this money will not create very many jobs in the community. If Senator Elstob wants any further proof of the sense of crisis that is developing in Australia, let me just read to him a few newspaper headlines. Senator MacGibbon —Was Tilley Devine Priority One? Senator MESSNER —I believe she was somebody's priority one. I can take at random numerous examples of newspaper headlines which demonstrate the growing perception of a crisis in economic management. Today's Australian Financial Review has the headline `Fringe benefit tax threat hits car sales'. That headline refers to a major threat to one of Australia's main industries as a result of this Government's positive attempt to introduce a most damaging tax which is going to tear apart the car industry, not only in my State of South Australia, in particular, but all over the Commonwealth. The Australian of 5 February has the headline `Government ``is killing the housing industry'' '. A headline in the Australian of 1 March 1986 reads `Home loan rates won't fall, warn housing experts'. The Australian Financial Review of 24 February has the headline `Government pressed to bail out housing sector'. A headline in the Australian of 25 February reads `Why not a farmers' strike?'. If anything gives one the impression of a sense of crisis in the country it has to be the fact that normally conservative farmers are prepared to do that kind of thing. What about those who are less fortunate who are finding it difficult to find homes? What about the people who are unable to live on their incomes at present because of inflation? More and more newspaper articles are being written about their problems. One article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald talked about the poverty epidemic in Sydney and the burden on Sydney's emergency services. The article is headed `Nowhere they can call home'. Another article refers to one of the jewels in the crown of the Labor Government-the so-called health insurance program, Medicare. We learn from the Australian of 6 January that, even with the marvellous Medicare looking after us, there is now a waiting list for surgery topping 50,000 throughout the Commonwealth. We are told that, as a result of this Government's incompetence, 50,000 people are unable to get the surgery that they need. The Courier-Mail of 18 July tells us that families need help. An article in the Australian Financial Review refers to another attack by this Government on the major employment generating sector. The headline to this article refers to record high bank rates-that is, interest rates-which are threatening small business. We all know about interest rates. This Government has had a positive and determined policy to keep interest rates high in order to ensure that there is some control over the Australian dollar. Of course, this is having widespread and devastating effects on small business and on housing starts. We are finding that fewer and fewer people are able to obtain their first homes. As a result fewer and fewer jobs are being created in the building sector. While we have had a look at the short term effects, maybe we should consider the long term time frame of these events. I would like to refer to the National Australia Bank's latest issue which talks of Australia's balance of payment problem. We have all read about that. We all know about the difficulty that has been brought about through this Government's deliberate policies. I quote one particularly interesting point. The bank talks of current account structure, the difficulties of trading and imports versus exports. The article states: While most major industrialised countries have in- creased their share of world exports over the last 15 years, Australia has fallen from a world ranking of eighth to 23rd. It goes on to say in another part of the same paragraph that the proportion of manufactures in Australian exports was 28 per cent in 1983-84, less than half the proportion in most industrialised countries. That means that manufacturing jobs are not being created or generated for kids who live in the outer metropolitan areas. When this Government tries to convince us that somehow we are improving opportunities for Australians by introducing such things as fringe benefits taxes and capital gains taxes and by abolishing negative gearing for the building of homes for Australians, we have to wonder what it is on about because clearly it is not interested in the welfare of Australians or in giving Australians homes or jobs. Senator Short —And it is killing small business. Senator MESSNER —Or, as Senator Short points out, small business, which has been a great generator of jobs throughout the Australian community in the last 30 years. Let us remind ourselves of that time frame again. In the 15 years from 1970 to 1986 the Australian Labor Party has been in office for six years. We all know the difficulties that the Fraser Government had in coping with the first period of Labor government from 1972 to 1975. There is another factor common to that time of which we also ought to remind ourselves. For the first 10 of those 15 years the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions was none other than Mr Robert Hawke, now Prime Minister of Australia. In that period we saw the damage done to the Australian economy and the jobs destroyed by the Whitlam Government. The combination of the Whitlam Government and the presidency of the ACTU by Bob Hawke was enough to destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs in 1974, and we all know that we are still suffering the effects of that period of government. In the last five of those 15 years we have been plagued again by Mr Robert Hawke, who has been Prime Minister for three of those five years. One has to ask who has really been guiding this economy for the last 15 years. On the evidence provided by the National Australia Bank, the most important and critical area of job creation has not delivered. Why? I put it down to the fact that we have had Mr Robert Hawke in charge of major sections of the economy, a man who has had no concern for Australians. He has concern for the power of the trade union movement, yes, but not for ordinary Australians and for the creation of jobs in Australia. It is pretty clear that Bob Hawke lies down at every opportunity when put under pressure from his trade union friends. He has no option. We remember the Tax Summit last July when the Prime Minister weakly bought himself out of a deal in order to save his own face and rubbed Mr Keating's right in it. That is the kind of Prime Minister we have. He will not stand up to union pressure, which of course we are all suffering from in terms of lack of opportunity at present. We also saw Mr Keating yesterday going cap in hand to see Mr Kelty and Mr Crean of the ACTU and being told that the Government was not doing enough for the economy. We do not even have to listen to the National Australia Bank; we get it straight from the trade unions, who are saying that this Government is on the wrong track and that Mr Keating and Mr Hawke are on the wrong track. Indeed, they are saying: `We have done our bit. How about you doing your bit for a change'. Those unions are clearly putting more and more pressure on this Government for change, as is the gang of seven Ministers and as was Senator Gietzelt yesterday when answering questions here about affairs in his Department. The fact is that the crisis which is coming upon us is critical to the future of job opportunities. We now know that there is need for change in the economy. We need a changed approach to improving the competitiveness of Australian industry, and that means taking on the trade union movement. Senator Button knows this because every day at Question Time here he hedges all over the place when asked about the balance of payments problem and about the fringe benefits tax. Even left-wingers such as Dr Theophanous are talking about these issues as well. We have seen the introduction of a capital gains tax obviously designed to stifle incentive and investment in the economy, notwithstanding that the Australian Council of Trade Unions says that there should be more investment. Present policies have to change. They are leading to an increasing burden of debt in this country, the total debt having doubled since this Government came to power from around $30 billion to more than $60 billion. While all these back bench pips in the Labor Party are starting to squeak in their rural seats and other places about interest rates and what is happening to farmers, to homes and to jobs, the larger pips are now also starting to squeak. I recall Senator Button's answers in the Senate in the last day or so. He cannot give us any indication of when the so-called J-curve is going to bring us out of this horrible time into some Garden of Eden where jobs will be created. He says that it is not next month or the month after, or the month after that. He cannot give us any indication of when he expects that to turn around, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Hawke in his ignorance is saying that it has happened and has turned around. Senator Short —If Senator Button isn't stupid, who is? Senator MESSNER —We know who has led us down the wrong path in the past and it is pretty obvious that the Prime Minister is the one. Let me just come to one thing that puts this whole matter into perspective. One half of the Chinese word character for crisis is the point of danger. The second half is opportunity. The point is that this Government has the opportunity right now to grasp a change of policy and a change of direction to provide jobs for Australians and to provide security for Australians. It is very fond of taking away security from Australians as it did for pensioners through the assets test and the lump sum superannuation tax. Now is the time for it to change its policies so that it will head Australia back in the right direction towards improved competitiveness and an increase in job opportunities. It should be producing policies which will reduce interest rates, not increase them. It should be abandoning its disastrous tax package of a fringe benefits tax and a capital gains tax and the abolition of negative gearing. It should be attacking the whole question of the slowness of job growth. If it relies, as it is now doing, upon the statistics that have been thrown up over the last three years and crowns itself with glory in the hope that it will convince Australians that that is going to continue, it is wrong, because the signs are on the board, and are coming up faster and thicker in the official indicators now that this Government is in real trouble with its economic policy. Unless it changes direction, the children of Australia and those who have been unemployed for nearly a year on average now will find it harder and harder to obtain positions in the future. It is those things which the Government should be attacking, not patching up the cracks in the wall with approaches such as Priority One, which has already proven to be an absolute shambles, and such silly moves as the Tilley Devine and Wyuna-type community employment programs which are of such short duration. Let me conclude on this point: The time has come for a change not only of policies but also, hopefully, of government. We are looking forward to that change at the next election, whenever that may be. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.30) —The matter of public importance on the economy which has been proposed by Senator Messner is a typical Liberal Party nonsense. It is a typical knocking effort by the Opposition. The Liberal Party is hoping for an economic collapse in Australia; in fact that is its only policy. It does not have an economic policy. It is particularly unfortunate that this matter of public importance has been submitted by a former Minister in the Fraser-Howard Government, a government which presided over the plunge of Australia into the deepest recession since the 1930s, a recession which saw the destruction of Australian manufacturing industry and jobs lost in the hundreds of thousands. The fact is that there is no crisis of economic management in Australia. The real crisis is a crisis in the leadership of the Liberal Party. Yesterday, in various opinion polls, we saw the judgment of the Australian people on the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. Today, the Melbourne Age has a major article entitled `Backbenchers rebuff shadow treasurer'. That article points out that the shadow Treasurer of the Liberal Party, Mr Jim Carlton, is `struggling to establish his authority'. The real crisis at the moment is a crisis in the economic policy leadership in the Liberal Party. It is that sort of crisis which has prompted responses from the Liberals such as the matter of public importance we are discussing today. They are trying to keep the troops together, trying to keep on the rails a seriously divided party. The Liberal Party is seriously divided over economic policy. It is seriously divided over privatisation, and that was evident in the recent South Australian and Western Australian elections. It is seriously, perhaps critically, divided over wages policy. The final division to which I referred-the division over wages policy-was heavily underlined and underscored at a recent meeting in Melbourne of Liberal Party Executive members with the Business Council of Australia. The wages policy the Liberal Party puts forward appears to be different for big business and for small business. There is considerable anxiety within the Business Council of Australia about the Liberal Party's wages policy. Quite frankly, that is understandable. Ordinary Australians know that there is no economic crisis in Australia. In fact, any economic problems which might be occurring at the moment are due to the Government's success in boosting economic activity and demand. This country is experiencing faster economic growth than was forecast, and I believe that that growth is probably the principal cause of any problems we may have at the moment. I prefer by far to have rapid economic growth and the problems we have at the moment than the stop-go, no growth, stagnation policies of the Fraser-Howard Government. The principal policy espoused year in, year out, by spokespersons of that Government was one of fighting inflation first. That is what it told the electorate. It asked the electorate to make sacrifices, to pull in its belt, to fight inflation first. Every other policy objective was subservient to that policy. Unemployment was deliberately run up and excess capacity created in industry, all in the name of fighting inflation. Yet the Liberals left office with inflation at 11.5 per cent per annum. Mr Fraser and Mr Howard said they would bring inflation down to below double digit levels, but when they left office it was running at 11.5 per cent per annum. In the name of the objective of bringing inflation down, employment was devastated and despair and misery were created for young Australians, with a youth unemployment rate in the vicinity of 30 per cent. In the name of that policy, interest rates charged by savings banks for home loans rose from 9.5 per cent in early 1980 to 13.5 per cent two years later-a 4 percentage point rise in interest rates in just two years under that Government. Senator Parer —What are they now? Senator MAGUIRE —Interest rates are 13.5 per cent. That Government left office with a prospective deficit of $9,600m. That was the legacy of the Liberal-National Party Government. It left a prospective deficit of $9,600m, despite a sevenfold rise in five years in petrol revenues. The Liberal record was one of declining investment, falling production, small business collapses and soaring unemployment. That is what the Australian people were left with. The people did not want a government with that record. They did not want Mr Howard. They wanted jobs and opportunities. In 1983 the electorate overwhelmingly rejected that Government's policies. That is why the Liberal Party is in opposition now and that is why the community sought change. It wanted growth and not stagnation. This Government was elected on a policy of giving a controlled stimulus to the economy without the inflationary pressures experienced under the previous Government. We undertook to fight inflation and unemployment simultaneously through the vehicle of an incomes policy and, particularly, the prices and incomes accord-the agreement negotiated between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. A key element of that agreement was the indexation of wages and salaries for cost increases as a result of increases in the consumer price index. A vital part of that policy was the mechanism of centralised wage fixing through the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That was a key element of this Government's policy, and it remains so. Wage indexation through that process enables the purchasing power of wages to be maintained. Most importantly, in particular circumstances, the centralised wage fixing system allows the discounting of wages for specific or special reasons, for example, inflationary pressures occasioned by a devaluation of the dollar. Those sorts of pressures have came through into our consumer price index, and the mechanism of centralised wage fixing will allow those factors to be taken into account. As I have indicated, the crisis for the Liberals is that they do not have a wages policy. They cannot decide whether they want a centralised or decentralised wage fixing system in this country. In fact, very important elements of the Opposition want to emasculate the Arbitration Commission and end the centralised wage fixing system as we know it. That raises the very pertinent question of how, in the unlikely event of the Liberal Party being elected to government, it could then discount wages for such a special factor as the devaluation of the dollar. The Liberals still do not have an answer to that question. We are still waiting, as is the electorate, to hear what their policy will be on that matter. Next month's national wage case will be based on consumer price index rises in the September and December quarters of last year. Those rises totalled 4.2 per cent, but after the wage case hearing, which is to get under way next month, wages and salaries will increase by only around 2 per cent. The other 2 per cent will not be awarded as a response to the devaluation of the Australian dollar. Discounting will enable the devaluation effects on Australian price levels to be quarantined without creating further rounds of wage and price increases. Following the national wage rise next month, there will be another Government initiative to keep down wage pressures in the economy. The first round of income tax reductions will start in six months' time, in September. I am pleased to see that the trade union movement in Australia has accepted the discounting of wages in return for this tax reduction. That is a very far-sighted move by the union movement which is recognising that the sources of one's disposable income are many and varied and that take-home pay can be affected just as much by reductions in income tax as it can by higher money wages. Those income tax reductions which will occur in September will match the 2 per cent discounting of wages and salaries through the national wage case. As I have already indicated, there is no crisis in economic management in Australia. In fact, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Paris-based club of the world's rich industrialised nations, has painted a glowing picture of the Australian economy on many occasions. It has indicated that in a range of reports on the Australian economy. The OECD certainly does not see an economic crisis in this country, and neither does the Australian community. The fact is that this country has had the strongest economic growth of any major Western country over the last three years. For several years we have had a growth rate that is among the highest in the industrialised world. That is a far cry from the past and a very refreshing change from the stop-go policies of the Fraser-Howard administration. As I said earlier, that Administration depressed the economy in order to hold down prices and it even failed in that-it failed to hold down inflation. Over the past three years real economic growth in this country has averaged almost five percentage points a year. That is a very high figure by world standards and it is certainly extraordinarily high compared with the negative growth in the economy recorded in the last year of office of the Liberal Fraser-Howard Government. By next June the Australian economy will have grown by almost 15 per cent compared with March 1983, when we came to office. In a three-year period the Australian economy will have expanded in size in real terms by about one-seventh and that is a major achievement for this Government. The Liberals destroyed jobs; we have created them. Economic growth in this country plus the process of wage indexation has had the effect of lowering real unit labour costs for production. That is something honourable senators opposite do not talk about very much, but the fact is that since this Government has come to office there has been a very big improvement in the real unit labour costs of production in this country. That in turn has worked to improve the competitiveness of Australian industry. There is no crisis for Australian business. Businessmen know that the sorts of claims that are being made by Senator Messner and others are rubbish. One only has to look at the share market this week. Liberal senators believe that the share market is an important indicator of economic activity, it is their sort of indicator of what happens out there in the real world. The share market is setting new records at the moment. As that is the sort of indicator that honourable senators opposite believe in, I am surprised that they do not seem to be aware of that trend. Business knows that under this Government there has been strong growth in investment and production and that is being reflected in the financial markets. Under the Fraser- Howard Government the only growth in this country was in receivership and liquidation. This Government has brought down inflation from 11 1/2 per cent in the declining year of the Fraser-Howard administration to 8.2 per cent now and, as I indicated earlier, there is the prospect of discounting wages in next month's national wage case which will hold down future price rises and give further relief on the inflation front. We have created hundreds of thousands of jobs, not destroyed them like Mr Howard did when he was Treasurer. During the 1983 election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) pledged to create 500,000 jobs in three years. That pledge was ridiculed by the Liberals but accepted by the community and endorsed overwhelmingly. Let us look at what has happened since the National Economic Summit in April 1983. To be quite truthful we did not actually create 500,000 jobs in our first three years in office, we created 590,000 and the three years is not even up yet. We have over-achieved our target of jobs created and we have done it in a shorter time than we anticipated. We still have two months to go with that particular pledge. The 1985 Budget target has been exceeded in employment growth. The jobs forecast has been over-shot. It is out of date and it has had to be changed. Unlike the previous Government, we did not need to reduce our employment forecast, we had to increase it. Earlier, Senator Parer asked where these new jobs were being created. Overwhelmingly they are being created in the private sector. These are not band-aid or `make work' jobs under some schemes; between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of new jobs in Australia are being created by the private sector as a result of the expansionary policies of this Government. They are being created in a wide range of industries throughout the nation. As a result of the expansion in employment under this Government, there has been a very significant fall in the jobless rate in Australia. I do not find the present 8 per cent unemployment rate at all satisfactory, I would like to see it reduced significantly again and again, but the fact is that since the peak in the recession under Mr Fraser and Mr Howard when we had 10.4 per cent unemployment, there has been a 2.4 per cent reduction in this rate. That is a very significant reduction. Unfortunately, economic recovery in Australia is being held back in certain areas. It is of great concern to members of the Government that the State of Queensland is not pulling its weight in the recovery. I notice today that Senator Parer, who is from Queensland, is on the list of speakers in this debate. Perhaps he will refer to these problems later. I notice that once again Queensland has the highest unemployment rate in Australia of 10.3 per cent. Senator Robertson —What about its bankruptcy rate? Senator MAGUIRE —That is just so bad. Queensland's unemployment rate is the only one in Australia in the double digit range. It is no secret that the State with the second highest unemployment rate is Tasmania with 9.7 per cent. It is a matter of great regret that these areas of Australia are holding back the national economic recovery. Senator Robertson correctly pointed to bankruptcy levels. The fact is that in the 1985 calendar year there was a 22 per cent rise in bankruptcies in Queensland, from some 900 to more than 1,100. Senator Robertson —What was it in the Labor States? Senator MAGUIRE —Significantly less than that. The only State with a bankruptcy increase rivalling that of Queensland was Tasmania with a 20 per cent rise. Obviously policies need to be changed in those regions of Australia in order to help broaden out the economic growth that has been occurring in the economy. There has been a significant growth in consumer spending in Australia. This reflects enormous consumer confidence. Clearly consumers do not see a crisis in this country as claimed by Senator Messner. Retail sales are growing at an unprecedented rate of 13 per cent a year. That growth is about 4 or 5 per cent above the inflation rate and it is a rate that has been unheard of in Australia in recent years. We have had extremely strong investment growth in this country and that trend is continuing this financial year. I have made out a case that there is no economic crisis, no emerging crisis in Australia. The Hawke Government has major economic achievements. It has major runs on the board in less than three years. It has presided over rapid investment growth, rapid production growth, as well as rapid growth in employment. Australians are going back to work, and going back to work in record numbers. Most particularly this Government is trusted by the community as an economic manager. We are more highly regarded by the community as economic managers than is the Opposition. I believe it is a matter of fact that the Opposition will not regain public confidence with its current divided economic policies. That is why the Opposition will stay in opposition after the next election. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.52) —I believe Senator Maguire's contribution reflects a general attitude within the Australian Labor Party in that it is so preoccupied with history that it is blind to the economic realities of today. One only has to hear Senator Walsh's answers to questions to know that that is true. I would like to take up points made by Senator Maguire in his contribution to the debate. He talked about growth. The question I would like to pose today in the Senate in this matter of public importance is this: Growth, but at what cost to the Australian economy? I acknowledge that there has been an artificial growth. We all know that. Those happy days are coming to an end. Even the Australian Manufacturing Council is concerned now. It recognises that what it has referred to as the short term boom related only to a short term situation. It is concerned about the longer term implications. We are now coming to the time of those longer term implications. We have to acknowledge that in the last 12 months the Australian Labor Party has been boasting of its tremendous achievements in the area of growth. We have heard members of the Australian Labor Party make such boasts today. We will continue to hear those boasts. We will continue to hear of its tremendous achievements in the areas of employment and its ability to manage the economy. We all know how well it is going. However, if these achievements were real we would now be sitting on top of the world. Instead we are now sliding down a precipice with increasing speed. It is a tragedy. What has really happened to our economy? There has been a massive devaluation of our dollar which has affected the ability of Australians to pay their way. How does the international community perceive Australia and Australian economists? Go overseas and ask people what is going wrong; they will tell you. They ask us what we are doing about it. They are literally amazed that we are not doing enough about it. What should have happened? We had a devaluation of the Australian dollar. We were told that exports would rise and that imports would decrease. However, no one really took into account the seriousness of the effect of the devaluation on the Australian manufacturing sector. Unfortunately, the Australian manufacturing sector, as a result of the Government's policies, has been left very uncompetitive. I believe that it will take some years to rectify that position. The manufacturing sector just cannot turn the tap on and off and find manufacturing jobs overnight. Unfortunately, the percentage of our manufacturing output today is below that of a number of countries which we would normally regard as inferior to Australia in terms of productive capacity. I refer to countries such as New Zealand and Sweden. Devaluation should have led to a decrease in imports. What has happened? The reverse is true. Unfortunately, because of the Government's policies the boom in what we term ready money has led to a huge increase in imported goods such as cars, furniture and a whole range of white goods. Imports are still exceeding exports. This is the major problem we are facing. This is leading to a worsening balance of payments situation. We are not exporting sufficiently; we are importing too much. These higher costs of imported goods in turn are causing a rise in inflation. Our level of inflation is substantially higher than that of our major trading partners. In fact, if we look at inflation and interest rates we will see that they are more than twice that of our major trading partners-the people we are supposed to export to. What hope have we got unless we rectify the situation? Therefore, we are seeing an acceleration of inflation and on unacceptably high interest costs which are having a very bad effect on long term investment prospects. In reality, we now have a situation which is not related to the history of six months ago or even four years ago, which we hear so much about, but one which is deteriorating towards stagflation. What has happened? Labor's policy on wages costs and its unrestricted growth-which I acknowledge-have led to a policy which I believe has been detrimental to the long term prospects of the Australian economy. Unfortunately, the Labor Party's attitude has shown a complete lack of appreciation for the effects of commodities on the economy and the effect its policy is having on our manufacturing sector. That is tragic. What have these policies led to? The have led to massive increases in imports. They have led to a worsening of the balance of payments situation. They have led to a drop in the value of our Australian dollar. They have led to increasing inflation and crippling interest rates. What are we now faced with? We are now faced with the prospects of reduced employment and investment opportunities. Till now I have talked very much in generalities. Let us get down to the specifics. Let us get down to the substantial increase in overseas borrowings. Borrowings accounted for 84 per cent of the total inflow of foreign investment. That is a tragedy. However, we have been led to believe that it is essentially the private sector that has been responsible for most of this increase in more recent times. The reality is that it is in the public sector where this is happening. Public sector borrowings have far outpaced private sector borrowings, certainly over the last three-year period. The official foreign debt, which is the Federal one, rose by 129 per cent but the non-official public debt has skyrocketed to a massive 361 per cent. Therefore, it is the semi-government authorities and commissions such as the electricity authorities which seem to be totally unconcerned. The Federal Government seems to be totally unconcerned about what this sector is doing. The Government is washing its hands of and is ignoring the situation. There is nearly a 400 per cent debt. It is true that the private sector debt has increased, but by not nearly as much. It has increased only by 169 per cent. The total public sector share of the debt has risen from 37.5 per cent in 1982 to 41.3 per cent in 1985. We have already seen that we have a significant overseas debt problem. I think that Senator Townley has spoken on this matter on a number of occasions. Since 1982 we have seen this debt increase threefold-it has tripled. At what cost? In 1982 our total debt was just over $24 billion. Within three years, by June 1985, the debt had reached $69 billion. Even if we take into account our international reserves we see that our net overseas debt is $56,635 billion. By the end of June this year it is expected to reach $80 billion. The consequences are that our interest bill will go up quite significantly. In fact, our interest bill in relation to the debt I have been speaking about has risen from 7.7 per cent of total spending in 1983-84 to 8.9 per cent last year. It is estimated to lift to over 10 per cent in the current year. That is a distressing figure. Our capacity to service this debt is becoming an increasing problem. It increasingly depends on the performance of our export sector. However, our export sector is not performing for a number of reasons. True, some of those reasons are of an international character. Many of them of course are of an internal nature and are the responsibility of the current Government. So in the past we have sat back and expected that the sheep's back would not crack under the weight or strain of carrying an increasing non-productive sector of the population. We have had to place reliance on our primary industries. Our continued neglect of the manufacturing and tertiary sectors and of research and entrepreneurial development has led to this once great economy now finding itself in the realms or classification of a developing-type economy in terms of our output, our debt structures and in our ability to compete with the rest of the world. The Government's short term strategies have failed to take into account the long term trends in the commodity markets and the increasing adverse effect these are having on the Australian economy. Let us look at the import purchasing power of a range of important export commodities including wheat, rice, grain, sorghum, sugar, beef, bananas, oranges, tin, nickel, bauxite, aluminium and a number of others. They all play a very important role in the Australian economy. But we are finding that the prices for them have been steadily eroding over time. Prices have been declining in the last decade. The tragedy is that these commodities, when compared with the cost of importing manufactured goods, have lost half their relative value. In other words, the commodities on which our economy depends are able to demand less and less in terms of imports, including sophisticated machinery, which includes computer equipment, engineering products, advanced consumer goods, and so on, being imported in increasing quantities. We have been experiencing a squeeze in commodities that is not expected to improve, certainly in the short or immediate future. What is happening? In the mining industry we are seeing depressed world prices. There is a problem with world over-supply and dumping in the dairying industry, the sugar industry and the wheat industry. I believe that this Government's policies are not directed to overcoming some of the international problems that are going to have a major impact on our community. We cannot take into account economic policy without considering what is happening to the rest of the world. The rest of the world has failed to grow at a rate sufficient to accommodate Australia's own growth ambitions. This is one of the problems. We have to acknowledge that because of low commodity prices around the world the resources boom has now fizzled. Australia's current account trade deficit cannot be allowed to continue to grow at its present rate. Unfortunately, the Australian Labor Party has been so locked into its own rhetoric and its own publicity programs that it is beginning to believe itself. The economic recovery certainly has come to an end. There are serious problems. Even the left wing of the Labor Party is acknowledging these sorts of problems. The Australian community cannot afford the continual undercutting of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's wage hearings by the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions-in effect, deals which are done in advance. What about the manufacturing sector? Senator Button —But your Leader is going to undercut it altogether. Senator WATSON —I acknowledge the dilemma that the Minister is in. I acknowledge that he is trying to do something about removing the awful fringe benefits tax. I only wish that he could persuade a few more of his colleagues to change their tune, because I believe he is trying to do the right thing. He can see the problems and is one of the few in his Party who can. Some of his left wing mates at the back of this chamber can see the problems, but the trouble is that the rest of the leadership, the Hawkes and the Keatings, cannot see the problem, and until they come around to the Minister's view and those of some of his colleagues who might not share his political philosophy, Australia is going to have a problem. That is what is happening. One of the great tragedies about the Labor Party is that it is integrating itself with big unions and big business and it has turned a blind eye to the poor. Australia is a lucky country for the 25,000 millionaires, the 100 deca millionaires and the one per cent who control 25 per cent of the nation's wealth. But what about the two million people who live below the poverty line? Under this Government we have never seen such a rash of takeovers. This Government will be identified as the takeover government. Industries are being taken over as never before, and this Government just sits by and does nothing-it allows these things to prosper. I only wish I had more time to continue because I believe the economic performance of this Government is abysmal. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.05) —I am not quite certain what to make of Senator Watson's contribution but I feel it probably deserves some comment. The first point I would like to make, having listened to him, is that perhaps he has not been an avid student of the newspapers. If he had been reading them of a day he might have remembered that only a few weeks ago certain big names in the Liberal Party of Australia-Mr Howard, Mr Brown and others-trooped along to the Business Council of Australia, finally got in the door and found that unanimously members of the Business Council lambasted them for an hour about this nonsense of accusing the Government of being all about big business and about big unions. Senator Watson obviously missed all of that. The reality is that John Howard had to troop out the door, tail between his legs-I might say a position that he has become used to in recent times-with a hangdog look, with all the troops following him, their chins hitting their feet as they walked out. And why? Because the business base of the Liberal Party told them where to go and how to get there. The reality is that that business support cannot ever be won back. The Party has ratted on its base; it has ratted on everybody else in the community and it has nowhere to go. I think the important thing is to take it further with these fascinating comments on take-overs by Senator Watson. I do not know whether the huge crowd assembled here in the chamber caught it all, but as I could pick up his remarks I gleaned a certain disdain and distaste for take-overs-a plea, a crying out if you like, for the Government to intervene and stop these things. I must say that that seems to run contrary to every other voice from the Liberal Party over the last few days and weeks. I suspect that it is merely another manifestation of the hopeless split that exists in Liberal Party ranks. I am not sure whether Senator Watson is part of the Howard camp, the Peacock camp, or whatever camp. I cannot quite work it all out; it is a bit much for me. One thing I can say is that if I had the misfortune to lead the Liberal Party at any time I would be awfully worried about having people such as Senator Watson behind me. I turn to more substantial matters than criticising Tasmanian senators, which, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, is something that happens all too often in this place. I turn to the actual terms of the matter of public importance. It refers to the emerging crisis in economic management. I wonder by what standard we have worked out that there is a crisis. It seems to me that when there is an economic crisis the first people to wake up are the vast numbers of people out there generally referred to as Australians. They seem to be able to work out when things have turned sour and things have gone wrong. I recall looking only last Saturday and Monday at the Age and the Herald and seeing some polls on what Australians thought of the political leadership of the country and of the alternative political leadership. I recall that Mr Howard has hit a new record low of 13 per cent. I know he is working hard at achieving single figures and I am one who believes that within a matter of weeks it can happen. The realities are that Government popularity, way ahead of the Opposition's, has remained high in all of the recognised opinion polls right through the term of this Government. In mid-term it is pretty difficult for governments to be so popular. It has not been a feature of Australian political history in the last 20 years, but it is a feature of Australian political history as it is being made right now. And why should it not be? The reality is that with consumer spending high-and getting higher-consumer confidence getting better and investment growing the people of Australia just cannot see where the crisis is. It is all right for oppositions, travelling in the polls in the way they are, with that desperate need to find some issue to kick themselves along with and to score at least some points, to try to talk up a crisis. I suppose if I were in opposition I might consider it myself. The reality is that with the economy in the shape it is in at the moment it will be a bit difficult. Those opposite will have to do a lot better than the contributions made by Senator Watson and Senator Messner to get us to the point of crisis. I suspect that they will have to do better than the contribution Senator Parer is about to make. However, if one looks at the terms of the matter of public importance-`the emerging crisis in economic management'-the first and most striking point one really has to ask is just how thick can the hide of this Opposition be? If we were handing out awards for gall and hide, this Opposition would have to take the cake. I have been known to have a pretty thick hide and a bit of gall myself over the years, but I have to take my hat off to those opposite. This is spectacular. If we look at what this Government inherited only a few years ago after a dark, bleak leadership period for Australia under Fraser and Howard, we see what it has had to contend with. It will be instructive for honourable senators to bear with me for a few moments while I go over some of the things we inherited and then turn to a comparison with the things this Government has done. Senator Parer —What about today's problems? Senator RICHARDSON —I will try to explain it to the honourable senator. I know it is difficult, but I will try to explain that all those people out there, generally called Australians, do not believe there is a crisis, have faith in the Government, and will re-elect it. I know it is a problem for the honourable senator and I know he is ambitious, but he will just have to be patient. I turn now to what we inherited just three years ago when we came to office. As someone endowed with a somewhat long memory, as some of my colleagues well know, I remind honourable senators of what devastation the conservatives were responsible for inflicting on the Australian economy during those seven years. I notice in Senator Watson's contribution we had yet again that other quaint Liberal trait of saying that we have to acknowledge the extraordinary international difficulties that Malcolm Fraser and John Howard encountered. The Whitlam Government had to face the oil shock of 1973. If one looks at the last 15 years, that was the single biggest international event of economic impact we have experienced. Those opposite try to write that off as Whitlam's fault, but when it comes to the regimes of Fraser and Howard, which existed under very fortunate economic climes around the world, they try to infer that in some way they were the victims of an international collapse. The reality was that there was a collapse of competence in their government and that is why it had a problem. The previous Government inflicted a mauling on the Australian economy that it had not experienced since the catastrophe of the 1930s and the Great Depression. Let me just go through a few of those points. Dealing with unemployment, the main reason why this Government was elected, in my view, was the issue of jobs. By the time we got into government unemployment was 10.4 per cent of the work force. Malcolm Fraser in his 1975 election policy speech stated: Only under a Liberal-National Party Government will there be jobs for all who want to work. Let us look at the record of how many jobs there were for all those who wanted to work. Senator Peter Baume —Tell us about now. Senator RICHARDSON —In August 1975-in case Senator Peter Baume has forgotten-278,000 people were officially unemployed and they represented 4.6 per cent of the labour force. By March 1983 the number of unemployed had grown to 731,000, or 10.4 per cent of the labour force. During the last year of the Fraser Government, from March 1982 to March 1983, the number of unemployed increased by 270,000 people. That means that people were being thrown out of jobs at a rate of almost 750 every day. For every week the Fraser Government was in office between 1975 and 1983 another 1,000 Australians ended up on a dole queue. That is the sort of crisis those opposite gave us; it is the sort of crisis we have helped to cure. Let us look at inflation. When we came to government it was 11.5 per cent. Looking ahead to next year, it will finish up at 5.5 per cent and going down. That is still too high in terms of what our trading partners have, but the reality is that this Government started from a miserable position and it takes some time to catch up. We have the runs on the board and we have shown that we can get inflation down. We will keep that up. I would like to make particular reference to interest rates, because that subject seems to have achieved a bit of publicity in recent days. A number of people on the other side have tried to claim that they are the highest for 50 years. If one looks at the statistics, that really cannot be backed up; it is not correct. In June 1979 interest rates on 10-year bonds and 90-day bank bills were 10 per cent. In the last year of the Fraser Government that had risen to 16.5 per cent. Today the rate is 13.5 per cent and going down. In 1979 the interest on bank bills was 10.35 per cent, in the last year of the Fraser Government the rate was up to 18.75 per cent, and it is now 16.5 per cent and going down. Home owners with a mortgage in June 1982 would have been paying 13.5 per cent interest. That ceiling has been maintained. Those Australians who own homes are still paying 13.5 per cent and will continue to do so. Every time housing interest rates went up under the previous Government-if we go back to 1979 they were 9 per cent-it meant $300m was transferred each year from the pockets of Australian families into the financial institutions of Australia. That was not unusual. More importantly and significantly, let us look at John Howard, that man who has masqueraded as an economic manager. I know Australia saw through him a few years ago-probably not half as much as they will next year. Let me just go through his record as a person framing our Budgets. Every one of the five Howard Budgets was overspent-every one of them. If we look at the Budget estimate and the actual result, we see that he went too far. Not surprisingly, the worst excess was in the financial year 1982-83-a big year for John Howard and Malcolm Fraser. In 1982-83 we had a Budget estimate of expenditure of $47,067m. By the time the figures all came down we had $48,982m, a massive increase and one that should have surprised no one because that was at the stage when the economy was free-wheeling, when the Government had given up trying to manage it, and it made its last desperate attempt to win an election. Of course, it did not succeed because the rest of Australia saw through it. Let us look at deficit projections, which are probably more important from the point of view the way the financial markets judge governments these days. In only three out of five Budgets the deficit turned out larger than John Howard thought it would be. But 1982-83 again was a big year because there was a massive blowout in the Budget deficit from a projected figure of $1.6 billion to $4.5 billion. This was the biggest blowout Australia had ever seen. Had that Government stayed in power longer, as I heard Senator Maguire say earlier, it would have been facing a deficit of the best part of $10 billion. When we look at Liberal promises, at the extraordinary promises Mr Howard has been making of late, that $10 billion would be chicken feed. That would be passed in the run to the first turn, let alone the home straight. God knows where Australia would finish up if we had to put up with it. I also heard the plaintive cries from the other side about wages explosions. In the last two weeks in two statements, one by Mr Howard and one by Mr N. A. Brown, the Opposition has done its third somersault in six months on wages policy. We understand that and we are used to it. I understand that Mr Brown has now said categorically that wages will be set mostly by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. He walked away from the previous nonsense of the Fraser experiment-the evidence of 1981-82, when wages grew by 13 per cent or 14 per cent two years in a row. Once we let the handbrake off, wages will go berserk. Big unions will continue to win big increases and damage the economy. That is something this Government has stopped by a process of conciliation. It is something we will continue to stop. We will manage this economy as well as we have in the past. We will be re-elected because Australians accept the fact that this Government has done the job and it has the runs on the board. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.20) —I am pleased to support my colleagues on this matter of public importance relating to the need for the Government to change its policies in response to the emerging crisis in economic management. Senator Richardson in his opening remarks somehow tried to denigrate the fact that talks were held between the shadow Ministry and the Business Council of Australia. Yet yesterday or today we saw in the newspaper a photograph of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) who has been called to Melbourne to attend a meeting of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to get his marching orders because obviously he too has some concern about the economic management of the country, but he cannot do much without getting Mr Kelty's approval. The crisis is an economic one and it is of the Government's own making. Either through stupidity, false optimism or simple deception the Government has kept the people in the dark about the serious economic problems of the country. Government policy is going in the wrong direction and the Government must change its policy mix. We have seen recent attempts to do this by the more responsible people on the other side, such as the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), but each time he has been shot to pieces. Senator Maguire and Senator Richardson both have said that there is no crisis at all; there is not an impending one, nor will there be one. They are telling the Australian public, small businessmen and farmers: `You have never had it so good'. We have heard that before. That has shades of the Whitlam era-`You have never had it so good'. I do not know why they would take that view when they have only to look around the countryside and talk to people and they will find mass meetings of small business people saying: `We have come to the end of our tether, we cannot afford this Government. What can we do to get out of it; what can we do to get rid of it?'. That is the sort of message I get when I speak to those people. The Chairman of the National Farmers Federation is stopping farmers from taking violent action because of their concern. The two senators on the Australian Labor Party side have said that there is no crisis. Let us look at it. We have signs of slowing economic growth-the cornerstone of government policy-and we have a fall in manufacturing production for the December quarter. There was talk about something to do with the previous Government being responsible for the fall in the manufacturing industry. I will tell honourable senators what killed the manufacturing industry: It was the policies of the then leader of the ACTU, who is now the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who did the damage to the manufacturing industry and I do not think that it will recover. It is a great shame. Who would be brave enough today either to extend his or her industry or to start another one, even on an import replacement policy, with the sorts of problems these people have in front of them, such as interest rates and the uncertainty of labour costs? We have had a drop in motor vehicle registrations in January, for the fourth consecutive month. The Minister for Finance often claims that motor car registrations are a good guide to the economy. The number of building approval has fallen sharply since September; bank deposits have fallen in January, for the third consecutive month; and home lending by building societies fell by 12.7 per cent in December. There are indications that the current account deficit is not about to turn around, as is evidenced by a continuing poor export performance. The dollar has further declined by 4.6 per cent in the past month and has declined by 17.3 per cent since February 1985, according to the trade weighted index. We have continuing high interest rates, which are choking economic growth, at a time when interest rates are falling world-wide. We have inflationary forecasts of around 8 per cent for 1986; over double that of our major trading partners and four times that of Japan. In fact, a study by a senior Treasury official, Mr Alan Henderson, cites the following features of the Japanese economy which contributed to Japan's performance: A decentralised labour marker that is sensitive to trends in profitability. A degree of unionisation with unions being company-based. A small government sector. Absence of wage indexation. A substantial part of earnings (over 25 per cent) made up of bonuses. Bonuses are based on profitability, not paid automatically, whether or not a profit is made. He further states: Flexibility in structure of relative wages, level of wages and in the administration of minimum wage laws. An export-oriented manufacturing sector that focuses the attention of key unions on international competitiveness. Another sign of crisis is that our expected earnings growth in 1986 is around 10 per cent, including two national wage hearings and a productivity increase. We have a growing overseas debt, now running at over $70 billion and increasing at the rate of $1 billion per month. It has been calculated that for every taxpayer in Australia this represents approximately $17,000 and it means that every baby born this year will be given a debt of $6,500. We have record low farm incomes and declining rural land values, reflecting a price-cost squeeze. There is a likely increase in the level of unemployment, due to the choking off of economic growth, as indicated by the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group's index of job advertisements. These are very ominous warnings that we are heading towards a recession. I quote from an article by Christopher Jay in the Australian Financial Review of 5 March 1986. He said: The clouded cuckooland of economic optimism which has been dominating so much public commentary on the Australian economy has abruptly foundered on the gathering reality of a deteriorating balance of payments. After all the celebrations of increasing consumer spending, strong real growth rates and falling unemployment, the concealed corollaries have emerged into the light of day. The whole exercise has been based on continued borrowing from overseas, at levels which are unsustainable in the long run, and which are already imposing tighter and tighter clamps on the Government's freedom of manoeuvre. In other words, the so-called trilogy has imposed disciplines on the Government only insofar as domestic borrowings are concerned. Nothing has stopped the Government from borrowing up big and putting the country into hock overseas to pay for the party at home. It seems that the party may be over. Even the Prime Minister has realised that the world does not owe Australia a living. Our debt is more than $70 billion. When the Hawke Government came to power it was $36.4 billion; that is, half of what it is today. Our current account deficit for the year 1985-86 is likely to be approximately $13 billion. This will automatically add on to our overseas debt, which is already pre-empting one export dollar in every three for debt servicing. This is also despite a 20 per cent depreciation of the dollar in the past 12 months; a depreciation which the Treasurer and Prime Minister promised would make us more competitive. The Federal interest bill has risen from 7.7 per cent of total spending in 1983-84 to 8.9 per cent in 1984-85 and about 10 per cent this financial year. That is more than we spend on defence, health and education. As a share of gross domestic product, the net debt has risen from 6 per cent in 1980 to over 25 per cent in 1985. The hole that this Government has dug for us is a very deep one. The current situation cannot easily be turned around, for we need a massive increase in exports to get the current account right. It is only then that we will make inroads into the debt problem. In the meantime, most of our current account deficit has to be covered by new overseas borrowings. More importantly, the recent released figures show, contrary to what the Treasurer has been saying, that in the last three years borrowing by the Government has easily outstripped private borrowings overseas. Hence it is a problem created by government policy and it must be solved by government policy. Ross Gittins, a journalist not noted for his antipathy to this Government, has said: The economy (by mid year) will be heading inexorably towards recession and rising unemployment. If that happens, many things will start falling apart. The employers' claim that they can't afford the 3 per cent productivity-superannuation deal will be considerably more persuasive, the accord will be looking shaky and well-placed unions will be tempted to get in for an extra bite of the cherry before it disappears for the duration, the trilogy will be out the window, the Cabinet will be panicky and the loony left will be running in all directions. When journalists such as Ross Gittins say that things are bad, things are very bad. But we do not have to take his word for it. The Government itself has begun to let the cat out of the bag and to inform the public that all is not well, despite its own glossy rhetoric over the last 12 months. The Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Bernie Fraser, recently conceded that we are still yet to see the effects of the November credit squeeze. One can only imagine what this will do to interest rates and to economic growth. But Government spokesmen themselves are now admitting this. A Cabinet document called something like `1986-87 Budget Strategy', which strangely made its way into the national media recently, reveals the economy to be at a critical stage. The Treasurer is said to hold out little hope for further falls in unemployment in the next financial year due to a marked slowdown in economic growth to 3.5 per cent. But the Prime Minister himself, in his birthday speech, admitted: In a sense, the difficult economic issues we must now address are in fact the price we pay for the very success of our policies, and the strength of the growth that has been achieved in the economy. When translated from Hawkespeak, this simply means that we are now paying the price, through lower living standards, for the excesses of the last three years that have been brought about by the Government's own policies. These admissions by the Government, some intended, and others not, are meant to give the Government a soft landing. Whether or not the economy has a soft landing is entirely another question. The Government has not always been so frank with the Australian people. Despite warnings by the Opposition and by some other enlightened commentators, the Government has blustered on over the last few months. At best, it has been foolhardy and has believed its own rhetoric. At worst it has not been telling the truth to the electorate. The hyperbole of this Government knows no bounds when it comes to its own achievements, whether it be the accord-a disaster for Australia; Medicare-running totally out of control; Priority One-the biggest joke since the Tax Summit. On all these things, the Government is full of self-praise. On Budget night the Treasurer claimed: The Hawke Government stands before the people of Australia tonight proud of its record of economic success. We have turned the economy around from deep recession to a rate of growth which is one of the fastest in the Western world. He pointed to the Government's achievements in reducing inflation and arresting the growth in Budget deficits. What he did not mention was that our inflation rate is now more than twice that of our major trading partners, and as I mentioned earlier, four times that of Japan, and that domestic deficits have been allowed to stabilise only because of massive Government borrowings overseas. He spoke of the Government's achievements in reducing unemployment. Yet unemployment throughout the Hawke period has been higher than in all but five of the 86 full months of the Fraser Government. I repeat: Unemployment throughout the Hawke period has been higher than in all but five of the 86 full months of the Fraser Government. Senator Walsh —It was higher under Fraser than at any stage under the Whitlam Government. What does that mean? Senator PARER —I am pleased with the Minister's interjection because to a large extent I approve of what the Minister is trying to do to ease this crisis. But he does not seem to be having a lot of success. I read with great interest his recent paper on privatisation, a paper which I would like to have given myself. I hope he does not mind if I use it some day. We heard a lot about the J-curve last year as the solution to our moribund competitive position. Now the Government cannot make up its mind whether it is a J or an L. Mr Hawke still proclaims an improving competitive position. But if one asks Senator Button, things are not so rosy. According to the Treasurer, in 1985 `we have set our sails for growth'. In 1986 we appear to be running out of steam. I know I am to be followed in the debate by Senator Cook. I will be interested to hear what he has to say because he is on record as having said: We are a big spending government. We have to be to implement our reforms. How on earth can someone like Senator Walsh, who is trying to do something about the crisis in the economy, cope with that sort of attitude? Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.35) —Senator Parer should quote me correctly. I do not intend to inform him what was the correct quote, but it was not exactly what he said. Senator Parer —It was very close. Senator COOK —No, it was not close at all. This is the fourteenth or fifteenth time in the last three years I have participated in a debate on a matter of public importance concerning the economy. Increasingly I have come to the view that these debates not only have become turgid and disappointing in terms of real fire from the Opposition, but are also becoming a waste of time. All that the Opposition ever does is debate the economy by attacking the personality of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), be referring to his record with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, blaming the unions for what happened while Fraser was in power, referring to his record in government, and pretending to blame the Government, although that defies the imagination. So there is a personality dimension to the Opposition's economic debate. There is also a tendency in the economic debate to ignore the past. Of course, members of the Opposition would want to ignore the past. The past is not very pretty. They pretend that they come here with clean hands, able to debate with a clean slate. They cannot ignore the record of massive inflation, galloping unemploy- ment-- Senator Walsh —Howard's trilogy. Senator COOK —Yes, and a devastated industry base in Australia during their period in office. They debate the economy by confusing the statistics, but they do not present any analysis of the meaning of those statistics. They simply draw rhetorical points from them. They do not ever put forward an alternative that can be examined as a model for what could otherwise be the economic managerial direction of Australia. They come here without any plan of their own. Of course, towards the end of these debates they always give in to their intrinsic hatred of trade unions, ignoring the fact that on the latest figures 56 per cent of Australians are members of trade unions. However, members of the Liberal Party, ignoring numbers and trying to destroy their own standing in the community, continue to attack that group of Australians who have organised to protect their rights by joining trade unions. Finally, whenever they debate wages they see them only as a cost. They never see them in their two-dimensional and true aspect, as both a cost and a purchasing power in the hands of consumers able to create demand. They never see it in those terms. They recite their dismal and petty tale of economic argument, all of which is, I think, somewhat discouraging for anyone who wants to have a genuine discussion and debate about the Australian economy, because there are a number of things that require some analysis and consideration. Economic management concerns identifying what the problems are and structuring policies to deal with those problems. Today we have heard from Senator Parer about the photo in today's Australian of Keating and Kelty as if that were an economic argument. We heard today from Senator Watson how the manufacturing base in Australia has declined over the last 15 years, as if his Party were not in government and did not take any responsibility for that. But the performances of those two honourable senators was topped by the opening remarks of Senator Messner when he read the text of the matter of public importance, which is as follows: The need for the Government to change its policies in response to the emerging crisis in economic management. He then said that that is not what it is really about. He said that what the debate is really about is employment. No member of the Opposition-particularly a former Minister in the Fraser-Howard Government-has any right to talk about employment, as if that Government demonstrated any compassion for the unemployed. Let us start with what Senator Messner said. Let us deal with the question of unemployment. This is the third anniversary of Labor's election. It is indeed passing strange that Senator Messner should choose employment to be the theme of the alleged crisis in the Australian economy. When we came to power we promised the creation of half a million jobs. We have created near enough to 600,000 new jobs. We have overperformed on that policy. That is, of course, turning around the situation. There was negative job creation during the last months the coalition was in power. Eighty per cent or more of the jobs we have created are in the private sector. Australia still is regarded as leading the industrialised world in growth and job creation. We still are creating jobs at a rate four times faster than did the previous Government. So we would enjoy having some analysis made of what Senator Messner wants to make the basis of this debate. Senator Messner based the percentage of unemployment on the figures released today by the Bureau of Statistics. He said that there are still 8 per cent of Australians unemployed. Of course, on those figures there are still 8 per cent of Australian unemployed, which is slightly up, by 0.2 per cent, from September last year. We do not take any joy from that figure. We have always regarded the level of unemployment as being too high. The difference between us and the Opposition is that we have had a policy which has been bringing the level of unemployment down from 11 per cent, the level when the coalition was in office. In dealing with unemployment on the basis of today's reports the Opposition has ignored what what the Commonwealth Statistician has counselled. The Statistician said: Particular care should be taken in the interpretation of the seasonally adjusted series in this publication as the short-term movement-- and I emphasise his words-- cannot be assumed to indicate changes in trend. If one looks at the unemployment figures on a three-month trend basis one can see that, between the three months ending November 1985 and the three months ending February 1986, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell from 8 per cent to 7.9 per cent and the seasonally adjusted participation rate rose from 61.1 per cent to 61.5 per cent. The rise in the participation rate is important because it means that people who have not entered the active job market because of the strength of the economy and the possibility of getting employment are now emboldened to seek employment whereas in the past they were discouraged from doing so. The increase in the participation rate is a sign of a healthy labour market with persons wanting jobs being encouraged actively to seek work. The other significant point about the ABS figures is that if the participation rate had remained fixed at 6.1 per cent during the three months to February the recorded unemployment rate would have been 7.3 per cent, which would have been a real reduction in terms of the level of unemployment. So one cannot pretend to any rigour in economic analysis and in isolation quote one figure-that is the percentage figure of unemployment-and ignore entirely the increase in the participation rate because to do so is to create a false picture. That false picture was, unfortunately, the main weapon with which the Liberal Party proposed to attack the Government today. It has been defeated on the very centrepiece of its attack. As we know, the Australia and New Zealand Bank's job vacancy index rose for February. As we know, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that this year there will be a further growth in employment in Australia. As we know, with an increased participation rate we are still vastly better off in terms of employment in Australia because under the Liberals we had 11 per cent unemployment with record low participation rates. The truth is that we have economic settings which we will not be panicked into changing. We have economic settings which are causing the economy to improve step by step. However, there are occasions on which blips come across the screen and they have to be taken into account. But one does not move away from one's basic settings; one continues on the course that has been set. The truth is that in the last three years we have improved the economy significantly. When we embarked on that course the Opposition said that could not be done. Well, we have done it. Now it says: `You are not going to do it in the future'. Well, we say, as we said three years ago: `Just wait and watch us because you will see what will happen'. In the few minutes available to me I want to refer to some of the aspects of the matter of public importance itself. Of course, one expects that the major reason for this matter of public importance being brought on today is the current account figures that were released yesterday. Once again the Opposition has been deficient in citing bald figures without analysing what in fact the current account or the balance of payments figures show. The Treasurer said at a meeting of the Economic Planning Advisory Council on the 7th of this month that we expect that we will not be able to meet necessarily the forecasts in the August 1985 Budget for the current account and the balance of payments. He said that the results will be a bit weaker. There are two main reasons for this. Bald figures have been cited but no analysis has been engaged in. However, one cannot understand the significance of the figures unless one looks at them. Let us look at the two main reasons. Export volumes have been up. However, the fact is that export receipts have been lower because we are trading in commodities such as primary produce and minerals. We can increase the volume of those commodities but the prices abroad have gone down. That has had an impact on the balance of payments. The other key factor is the growth in gross domestic product within Australia which has increased more than expected because we have sucked in over the last months more imports than we predicted. While one is concerned about that and while one would have liked to have seen greater import replacement, if we look at the types of imports that have been sucked into the economy we find that in the main part they are significantly investment-type goods. These investment-type goods, which add to the deficit now, will add to our industrial base and therefore add to our productive capacity later. They will enable the J curve effect to take place. In fact, there will be a greater import replacement in the future because of the investment that is being made now in capital goods. We will be in a position to export more in the future. So those aspects of the current account should be considered by the Opposition. However, they were never mentioned. That analysis was never engaged in and an artificial and false position was presented. We are dealing as a government with a massive economic imbalance inherited from the previous Government. We have been grappling with that significant problem. There was an over-valuation of the Australian dollar under Fraser and Howard. There was a wages explosion in 1981 and 1982 under that administration. During that period the Howard-Fraser Administration flirted with free collective bargaining in the economy. Because of that, wages blew out, and that has damaged our international competitiveness, caused a fall in productivity, caused a fall in business investment and wrecked our manufacturing base. Now we have Senator Watson coming along and pretending that that did not happen in those terms. He argues that this Government is responsible for what has happened to our manufacturing base in the last three years when this Government in the last three years has been pursuing policies aimed at re-establishing our manufacturing base. We have had a wages policy in government which has led to a real drop in unit labour costs-a drop to the level of that of the late 1960s. We have had a wages policy in government which, in terms of shares of GDP going to profits and shares of GDP going to wages and salaries, has seen a return to the profit side of the ledger. We have now begun to see a beginning of private investment in the economy because of that. We have seen a period of industrial calm settle upon Australian industry because of the prices and wages accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This has enabled workers to predict job security and economic security-something that workers did not have in the law of the jungle during the Fraser years. As a result, workers sought to protect themselves. We now know that business investment is recovering. In terms of fiscal policy, we have closed the tax rorts that the Fraser-Howard Government tolerated, tax rorts which bled investment funds away from productive industry into tax shelters. We have reformed that. That enables an efficient allocation of resources-- Senator Watson —John Howard reformed it. Senator COOK —No, we have reformed it. That is enabling an efficient allocation of resources and investment to take place. We have the trilogy which, of course, enables the private sector to predict what the Government in general broad terms will be doing in the economy. It can be sure that it can operate in a stable macro-economic environment. We have done all of those things and we will continue to do them. I return to the point that when we embarked upon government three years ago and embarked upon the ACTU-ALP prices accord, the Opposition attacked us for this being a wrong method of approaching economic management in Australia. That method has produced magnificent results for this economy and we are not now going to be panicked into changing course. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(4.50) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This paper is the annual report for 1984-85 of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council and it is an indication of the complete lack of commitment to renewable resources in Australia. In fact, this report shows that NERDDC is really being used as a means of channelling public money to large private companies which should be tackling their own programs. This I think is probably understandable when we look at who was on the Council as at 30 June 1985. The Chairman was Mr J. E. Kolm, former Technical and Research Director of ICI Australia Ltd. Members included Mr B. R. Griffith, General Manager, Exploration, BHP Petroleum Pty Ltd; Mr A. H. Hams, former General Manager and Director of Research, Australian Coal Industry Research Laboratories Ltd; Dr R. A. Durie, Chief Scientist, R. W. Miller and Co. Pty Ltd; and so the list goes on. This is reflected when we look at the actual expenditures of NERDDC at page 20 in the list of grants approved in 1984-85. In the first place the total was a measly $13,938,606, a paltry sum compared with the importance of this operation. Let us see how it was distributed. Under the heading `Oil Shale and Tar Sands' we find that, for the new retorting process for Toolebuc oil shale, CSR Ltd gets $387,000. CSR gets another $80,000 for finding out what are the marketable transport fuels from Toolebuc shale oil. Under `Coal' we find that the State Electricity Commission of Victoria gets $2,110,800 for a solar dried slurred low-rank coal-pilot plant. W. M. McQueen and Co. Pty Ltd gets $951,000 for a deep seam-face automation-stage 3 continuous haulage and miner remote control system. Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd gets $382,000 for a program of rapid access longwall mining from open pits. The Utah Development Co. Ltd, not one of the smaller outfits, gets $321,000 for a feasibility study of thick seam, single pass, longwall mining in the Bowen Basin. These programs should be undertaken by the companies themselves. Why should the public purse pay for this? It is a means of milking the Treasury. When we add all this together, it turns out that coal, oil and gas get 73 per cent of the total NERDDC allocation for the year. Let us look at renewable resources-wind energy, for instance. It gets 2.5 per cent of the total allocation, or a total of $347,000, a paltry sum. Then we find that the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania gets $100,000 of that. The Commission is wedded to the concept of hydro-electric power and has taken every step possible to eliminate wind power in Tasmania, yet it gets $100,000, which it will no doubt squander, as it has squandered all the money it has received for wind power in the past. It will come up once again with the proposition that the wind does not blow in Tasmania and that wind power does not work. What a waste of money! We find that some worthwhile projects are being instituted. A 64-kilowatt wind generator with enhanced low wind output from Wind Technology Pty Ltd gets $90,000. That is fair enough. A variable speed fixed pitch 30-kilowatt wind turbine from Westwind Turbines gets $39,000. That is very good. But this country is falling far behind the rest of the world in its implementation of the new technologies simply because we have troglodytes such as those who sit on my right who say that wind power will not work and solar power will not work-it has never been proven, mumble mumble. They have never been to actually see these things working. They have never been out of their caves in Tasmania. Talk about troglodytes! There they sit, and they do not believe in new technology. They are still living firmly in the nineteenth century. These projects can work here. They can enhance Australia's energy situation. They must be implemented. We do not need to study renewable resources. We need to implement them or we shall remain in the dark ages in which we have resided for so long with these people on my right presiding over them. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.55) —I rise to commend the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council, with which I have had very close association. I rise to condemn what has just been said by Senator Sanders. As a troglodyte to his right, I want to say that I have travelled the world studying both wind power and solar power. I ought to have gone to Tasmania, but the fact is that there could not be more nonsense than is talked by him. Indeed, through NERDDC and through the department I was privileged to preside over, Australia did work in solar power and in solar arrays that led the world. If Senator Sanders were to go to any university or to Rottnest Island in Western Australia he would see examples of great experiments in wind power and solar power. But that should not divert me. The fact is that this Council's main work was conceived at a time when there was an energy crisis throughout the world because of the very high price of oil. One danger now is that, because oil has temporarily fallen in its price, there is a belief around the community-utterly wrong-that we do not need to look at energy conservation or energy research and that we can coast along on oil at a low price per barrel. That could not be more wrong. First of all, of course, oil and coal are both non-renewable resources; there will be in five to eight years time another world crisis in oil. Far more important than that is that Australia faces one problem that overrides all others. We in Australia are being costed out of world markets. We cannot employ people in manufacturing. Where there used to be 28 per cent employed in that sector now the figure is 16 per cent because we cannot compete with world imports, even with an additional barrier of 30 per cent resulting from the devalued dollar. We cannot do it. Our costs are too high. Yet in energy and many other resources we do very little to cut our costs. When I was privileged to be a member of the International Energy Agency and to represent Australia it was said and proven in other countries that there could be a conservation of 30 per cent in energy without a lowering of living standards. Both Japan and America proved this. This was not only fundamentally important simply to save energy; it also saved costs. The best way to save the need to build another power station is to save electricity. Then one does not need to build another power station. In other words, if Australia wants to get to the heart of its problems, that is, the costs of production, here is one situation in which we can apply our minds. Let me tell the Senate something that will get to the heart of this. In 1981 a survey was done of the predicted annual increase in the use of oil in Australia. It was decided that in Australia it would be about 0.5 per cent a year in the 1980s. That was roughly what was predicted in America. America today is running at 0.6 per cent. What is Australia doing? It is running at a fraction under 2 per cent per year. That is absolutely suicidal with regard to the conservation of our fossil fuels. We are in fact putting our heads in the sand, just as we are in exporting our oil in order to earn some balance of trade money. I rose simply to say that the work of NERDDC was never more important than it is now. Conserving energy, both in the case of fossil fuels and non-renewables is important because getting costs down is fundamental to solving the great issues in Australia. We must keep that target in mind no matter what we do. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.00) —I cannot let some of the things that Senator Sanders said go without making some comment. Before doing that and perhaps to give him time to get back to the chamber in case he wants to listen to what I have to say, I congratulate the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council on the work that it is doing. I think that Senator Sanders has not understood the whole basis of the work of this Council. Its aim is to try to encourage conservation in the use of energy. It is trying to stimulate programs of development in technologies that are now available. For Senator Sanders to say that certain companies or organisations should not be allowed to participate in these programs when they may be very large users of energy and experts in the energy field, as is the Hydro-Electric Commission in Tasmania, just shows how wrong is his attitude to energy. I am sure that Senator Sanders would like to see everyone in the world switch off all electric power and turn to wood burning. Where would he get the wood? He does not want trees to be cut down even though in his absence from here, I believe, he was selling wood burners on a Saturday in Salamanca Place in Hobart. It seems a bit strange to me that he is a man who does not like trees being chopped down but who sells wood burners to make profit for his own pocket. Senator Puplick —They pollute the atmosphere too. Senator TOWNLEY —I will get on to that in a moment. We would all like to see energy being generated from non-polluting sources. We note the trouble that Europe is having now with acid rain. The two prime causes of acid rain are energy from motor cars and from coal-burning power stations. The wind drifts mainly from England across to Europe and the pollution is causing quite a dangerous situation for Europe's trees and forests. I am pleased to say that of the 114 projects approved during the year 36 related to energy conservation. Is Senator Sanders saying that he does not want that to happen? Twenty-nine were related to renewable energy sources. For Senator Sanders to say that honourable senators on this side of the chamber have not bothered to investigate these kinds of things just shows that he has not bothered to investigate what we have looked at. In the United States of America I have visited the Solar 1 power plant. It is the largest solar plant. It occupies a very large area and involved a big capital investment. It generates about 10 megawatts. It is nowhere near the stage of being commercially feasible, but it is still being investigated. I am sure that other ways of generating power from solar sources will gradually be developed, but at the moment they do not exist. Another area in which I believe the Council should be encouraging investigation is nuclear energy. I notice that page 10 of the Council's annual report for 1985 mentions nuclear energy. It goes on to mention a very important area of Australian research in this field-the synroc development which is being carried on in Sydney. That will make disposal of waste products from atomic or nuclear-powered plants very much easier and safer to control. That problem has worried many people during the life of the nuclear-powered stations in the world. It does not particularly worry me because I believe that engineers can handle the problem. For Senator Sanders to come into this chamber and denigrate a report and the work the Council is doing in looking for conservation measures and in its research into renewable sources of energy purely because the research may not be done by people whom he likes is downright scandalous. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.06) —I rise to speak on the annual report of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council. I think a point has to be made, although I would not put it in the way that Senator Sanders did. Out of the $13.94m that comes from the energy research trust account of the Department of Resources and Energy and the 5c a tonne coal production levy allocated under the Coal Research Assistance Act 1977, which amounts to $1.89m-those figures add up to just over $16m-the projects which have been funded by NERDDC involve grants of $600,000 for heating and cooling using solar energy; $500,000 on photo-electrics, which involves obtaining energy from the sun; only $300,000 on wind energy; and only $200,000 on biomass, which is the use of rubbish and polluted materials to produce energy. These grants amount to less than $2m out of $16m; yet these are the areas on which we really ought to be concentrating in Australia. About 15 years ago we were leading the world in areas of solar energy research. Fortunately, we are still doing so in some areas. I commend the University of New South Wales which is involved in one of the NERDDC projects. This project has the highest conversion efficiency rate so far achieved for silicon photo-voltaic cells. I believe that that is a real breakthrough. However, we have fallen behind in the area of solar energy research and we are now something like twenty-sixth on the world scale in terms of development and handling of solar energy and renewable energy sources. I note also a few other holes in the NERDDC program. There does not appear to be an enormous amount of money being spent on looking at insulation and design of buildings, which are rated in the report as being only of `medium priority'. I believe that the United States of America managed to save an enormous amount of energy by research into insulating houses. What we have to do in Australia is to start looking at saving energy as a part of our program instead of just going helter skelter, using more and more energy. The next issue I want to raise is co-generation. On a small scale, we can produce electricity in domestic environments, for example, on a farm. Currently, if we produce more than we need, we have to have expensive battery and storage systems. That is the main reason why those types of small generation plants are not used. Is there a possibility of being able to feed back the power into the electrical system? This happens in California where firms keep their generators going in off peak time to feed the electricity from them back into the system and get paid by the electrical distribution companies for the electricity that they produce. These are areas at which we must look. I commend the report to the Senate. I believe that NERDDC is a worthwhile organisation, but its priorities should be looked at and some money should be spent in those extra areas that I have outlined. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I remind the Senate of some advice given to the Government by the Australian Manufacturing Council when it expressed the concern of its members that the so-called economic recovery might be short lived unless accompanied by an upturn in private investment. The Council resolved to advise on the need for the maintenance of incentive to private investment. High inflation and high interest rates are certainly no incentives. In fact they are real impediments to investment. Undoubtedly the Australian Manufacturing Council believes that a vigorous manufacturing sector is vital to the Australian economy and a positive industry policy is an integral element in achieving stronger economic growth and increased employment. While the Government claims that its specific policies are designed to maintain a manufacturing sector which is growth oriented, I believe that that is a complete falsity. Let us look at the situation today. We have high interest rates and high inflation. Our economy is now paying for our neglect of the manufacturing sector and our refusal to recognise the problems it has faced in the last few years. Unfortunately, the result of this neglect has been that many of our once thriving industries have been taken over, absorbed, wiped out or have simply become redundant. Some of the high costs that industries are facing are due to the devaluation effects of the dollar because the import component of their raw material costs is now so much higher. Manufacturers have high costs to face which include government taxes and charges. This Government bows down to the conservative unions which are concerned only with their status quo and to some big businesses which are concerned only with their interests and not with investment in the country's future. This situation will not improve while our industries have to cope with the continuing spiral of increasing wage costs, shorter working hours, a litany of labour on-costs, higher taxes and charges, over-generous workers compensation schemes and soon-to-come very much dearer superannuation schemes. I believe that Mr Keating must face the facts that the Government's economic policies are strangling our economy. They must be changed now. Tough decisions must be made, particularly on the wages front, if we are to cure this malaise which has beset the manufacturing sector. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.15) —I wish to speak briefly about a couple of points that arise from the annual report of the Australian Manufacturing Council. I believe that this is the first annual report of this Council which was established by the Hawke Government in 1984, replacing some of the other advisory councils and bodies that had been in existence to advise successive governments over the years prior to that. At the outset I wish to congratulate John Ralph, the Chairman of the Manufacturing Council, for the work he has done in the initial period. He was a great choice as Chairman of the Council and that choice has been fully vindicated by the work that he has done. I also congratulate the other members of the Council who have come from the tripartite fields-from industry, from the union movement and from government. I also congratulate the Executive of the Council, led by Mr Tom Hogg. Before I was reincarnated as a politician about 18 months ago, I had the pleasure of being fairly closely associated with the early months of the Australian Manufacturing Council as an adviser to one of the industry members and I am delighted to see the way in which the Council has developed. However, there are some aspects of the Council's report which cause me concern. It is no secret that we, on this side of politics, have been somewhat sceptical about the potential role of the Australian Manufacturing Council because there lie in it the very real seeds of a government body which smacks of two very worrying things. The first is the development of corporatism-the link between big government, big unions and big business. One of the defects of the Council is that it does not have on it adequate-in fact, I am not sure that it has any-representation from the small business sector. That is a matter of real concern for the Council. On the other hand, it has achieved the advantage of having some members of the trade union movement talking for the first time in their lives to members of the business community and some members of the business community who had never before talked to trade union members sitting around a table in a co-operative working sense. There is a great advantage in that. The lack of small business representation is, however, a problem. The second worrying aspect is the prospect that the Council will become more than just an advisory and consultative body and that it will lead to policy prescriptions on government which are in the interests of corporatism, as distinct from the wider interests of the community. In that context I note that the manufacturing sector is of vital importance to Australia as a whole as it has ramifications for the whole context of Australian life, but there are not representatives on the Council or the industry councils from that wider community of interest. In its report the Council talks about the need for improved competitiveness. This is mentioned on both page 29 and page 46 and I will concentrate on that aspect in the concluding moments of my speech. Competitiveness is really what we are all about as a country. It is what we should be all about if we are to have a resurgence of the manufacturing sector which we believe is vital to this country. We must do much more than we are doing at the moment to restore our productivity and competitiveness in the domestic and international scenes. The clash today between the Government's policies and the policies of some Labor back benchers, notably Dr Theophanous, is a very worrying development. It shows that the Australian Labor Party is split over its idea of the industry policies which should be followed by this Government and is indicative of the major problem that the manufacturing sector is facing in this country because of a continuing lack of sensible economic policies by the Government in the area of inflation and cost containment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Sir John Carrick I should warn him that he has only three minutes before the time for this debate expires. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.19) —I commend the work of the Australian Manufacturing Council. In the decades of the 1950s and 1960s when we had Liberal governments and full employment in Australia, manufacturing grew to provide some 28 per cent of employed persons in Australia with work and it was fundamental to full employment. Today that proportion has dropped to 16 per cent and it shows no signs of doing anything other than basically declining. Recently the Government took great credit for saying that it had created some 600,000 new jobs in the period of three years or more in which it has been in office. To put that into perspective one must remember what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in his policy speech. He said that even before we find one new job we must create more than 130,000 jobs a year just to take account of population growth. All that advertising we have at the moment is a nonsense. On the Prime Minister's own figures any new jobs that have been created amount to a handful of only 100,000-perhaps slightly more. The fundamental reason I rose is to say that in my judgment the argument of the Government in relation to the development of manufacturing is utterly spurious. The people of Australia cannot compete because imports are cheaper. The Government says: `We have given you the benefit of a devalued dollar; you have the extra protection of something like 30 per cent. Get behind that protection and undertake import replacement'. If we look at that the ridiculousness of the argument becomes perfectly clear. First of all the Government is asking people to borrow at record interest rates of 20 per cent or more. Secondly, however, the Government is saying to them that here is the protection but not telling them that that will be a transient protection. Indeed, if we are to succeed in Australia the value of our dollar must rise. If the value of the dollar rises the Government is removing protection. The answer is not the devalued dollar but the answer is, as Senator Short said, an increase in productivity and a decrease in costs. If we do that we can compete overseas; we can create jobs for our own people. There is no plan by the Government at all to create jobs. I want to say that hiding behind the devalued dollar is a confidence trick. It is wrong. Manufacturing industry will be destroyed if it tries to hide behind it. We all ought to be trying to get the world to value our dollar higher. The value of the dollar is low as a result of the judgment of the rest of the world that the Australian economy is bad. The world has judged us and said that our dollar is low. What we want to do is to give the world a better opinion of our dollar so that it values our dollar higher. Every time we do that we remove protection. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of Government Papers under sessional order has now expired. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I present the sixth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. The report presents the revised estimates for the Department of the Senate for 1985-86 which the Committee, in accordance with the resolution of its terms of appointment, has determined for inclusion in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1985-86. Consequent on the Committee's determinations the President will forward details of revised estimates to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) for inclusion in the Bill. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Senator Vigor: Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.24) —Australia's failure to invest in research and development is matched only by its failure to exploit the research and development in which we invest. We are a Third World country already through our failure to grasp the opportunities of new technology. One of the main reasons for this is the failure of government departments and statutory bodies to support Australian high technology manufacturers. How can our manufacturers market their products overseas if their products are not even endorsed by their own Government? We need a policy of affirmative action for Australian products. This report of the Australian Science and Technology Council underlines the need for Telecom Australia to promote Australian manufacturing and service industries in the field of telecommunications equipment. Telecommunications is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. The world export market for telecommunications is estimated to exceed $US100 billion per annum by the year 1992. Major sectors of our economy such as finance, commerce, trade, computing services and defence, are becoming increasingly dependent on telecommunications. Yet, in 1981-82 Australian firms imported more than 98 per cent of their technical know-how-75 per cent being payments to overseas companies related to local firms, particularly those in parent-subsidiary relationships. One can only guess at the amount of price padding that may be going on in this area and the amount of tax evasion which is probably going on through transfer pricing. That is yet another way in which we are losing money through not developing our own technology and having to depend on foreign technology transfer. Disturbingly, Australian electronics firms more than halved the proportion of their income spent on research and development in the seven years from 1976 to 1983 while overseas similar organisations are increasing their research and development to enhance their competitiveness. We are going down the drain. While most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries import some proportion of their telecommunication requirements, all except Australia export almost as much as or more than they import. I seek leave to incorporate a summary of the OECD nations' trade in telecommunication products for 1980. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Science and Technology Council Table B.1 OECD Nations-Trade in Telecommunications Products 1980 ($US million) Country Imports Exports Exports Imports (%) Share of Imports in Domestic Consumption (%) (1975) Share of Exports in Domestic Production (%) (1975) Australia... 246 40 16 14 (a) 3 (a) Austria... 255 100 39 40 30.8 Belgium/Luxembourg... 515 725 141 32.8 49.2 Canada... 760 691 91 17.2 15.2 Finland... 136 78 57 . . . . France... 781 1154 148 4.6 12.1 Germany... 1204 2222 185 3.5 13.7 Greece... 122 18 15 . . . . Italy... 593 596 101 8.9 9.3 Japan... 209 3772 1805 1.4 23.7 Netherlands... 742 1269 171 49.0 46.9 New Zealand... 34 6 18 . . . . Norway... 199 115 58 . . . . Portugal... 81 31 38 31.5 14.1 Spain... 282 115 58 . . . . Sweden... 233 993 426 12.1 83.4 Switzerland... 250 285 114 . . . . UK... 778 1240 159 8.5 13.9 USA... 3212 2655 83 1.7 3.6 Note: (a) From IAC report ``Telecommunications and Related Equipment and Parts'' AGPS, Canberra, 1984 Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. I suspect that Australia's relative position has in fact worsened since this report was produced. It is amazing that with Australia's isolation from world markets and the distances between its own local centres it is content to depend on imports when its finance, commerce, trade, defence and information services are totally vulnerable to the long communication lines. We have no suitable way of maintaining our communications equipment if we do not produce it locally. It is just suicidal. As well, Australia is missing out on opportunities to gain a valuable share in world and regional export markets in the telecommunications equipment and services area. It should be noted that the figures I incorporated are for telecommunications equipment only. The situation for components is even more serious as almost all components used to manufacture telecommunications equipment in Australia are imported. I implore the Government to do something about Austrade's proposal for improving export help in our own technological industry and also to require the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Aussat Pty Ltd and Telecom to buy Australian instead of importing technology. We have got the research capacity; we can do it. I implore all honourable senators to realise that this is one of the most important things we can do for the Australian economy. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.29) —Half a decade has passed since the Government of Malcolm Fraser established the Australian Institute of Sport. It is now an appropriate time to review the aims and objectives of the Institute. In fact, a complete review is required. In five years the Institute has changed and grown dramatically. There has been a remarkable growth in facilities, in the number of athletes attending the Institute and in the scope, variety and depth of programs which are offered by the Institute. The Institute has also commenced to decentralise. In fact, in Brisbane we have centres for squash and diving and in Perth a centre for hockey. The Australian Democrats recognise the need for a centre of elite sport in Australia. It must have greater justification, however, than just `giving young people the opportunity to compete with the world's best through the unlimited development of their competitive skills'. That is a wonderful aim. However, I believe that we have to look at the whole structure of the Australian community and let the excellence which comes from our Institute of Sport pervade the whole of our society. The Institute must become more than just a source of nationalistic pride, developing excellence for a few athletes. It must be more immediately relevant to all Australians, and some of the new advances and achievements of 1984-85 will assist in broadening that link. Research in the fields of sports science and sports medicine can benefit the whole community, because by looking at the very healthy athlete we can learn a lot about ordinary people in the community. The information facilities, library, and general assistance provided by coaches in the Institute will also be of benefit to all and not merely to the elite. However, problems have been identified at the Australian Institute of Sport. In November last year a newspaper report led to the Price Waterhouse internal audit review which identified a number of issues. The Institute needs better systems for keeping records. It also needs to make certain that it does not go over budget. The Price Waterhouse internal audit review identified serious problems with staff morale. On page 23 there is this remark: There is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction amongst staff and some are highly critical of the financial management of the Institute. Some of the criticism arises from the lack of understanding, but some is undoubtedly valid. There is concern that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in his parliamentary statement made no mention of the morale issue. The staff must remain dedicated for the Australian Institute of Sport to improve and maintain its high standards. It must not be allowed to remain dissatisfied or critical, otherwise standards will slip and it will lose the single-minded dedication necessary for success in international sport. Many countries spend an enormous amount on sport, particularly countries behind the Iron Curtain. We have to compete with them in sporting events and we put our national pride on the line. A spirit of dissatisfaction in our centre of sports training can only engender an atmosphere in which it is difficult to seek excellence. Mr John Brown in his parliamentary statement identified two positive steps, both overdue, that would improve the Institute's morale. The first is changing the Institute to a statutory authority better able to cope with a growth in different objectives, plus the increased responsibility which would come from a decentralised structure. The second is a review of the basic structure of the Institute, which should be conducted jointly with the Department of Finance. This review should aim to increase the efficiency of the larger institute. I am advised that those steps are being under taken. The joint review will build up the internal audit review and satisfy those who are disgruntled and feel dissatisfied. It is disappointing though that the opportunity provided to review properly the basis and objectives of the Institute during the restructuring is not being used. It is important that the Institute should be recognised for what it is-a real resource in Australia for the development of sports medicine and for sporting excellence. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.34) —There has been a lot of criticism recently of the level of Australian international sporting achievement. To a very large extent I think this criticism is unjustified. I believe, for instance, that swimmers such as Jon Sieben and athletes such as Darren Clarke are in no way lesser world champions than Dawn Fraser, Murray Rose, Herb Elliott or Marjorie Jackson. What has been occurring, I believe, has not been an absolute decline in the level of Australian sporting achievement but rather a very considerable increase in the level of resources devoted to the promotion of sport and to the achievement of international success in sport by a number of other countries. It is interesting to note that in the October-November 1984 edition of the ANZAAS Journal Search there was a paper by Graeme Caughley of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation entitled `Determinants of Olympic Performance', in which he indicated quite clearly that a comparison of the performance of the top 25 countries at the 1984 Olympics indicated that medal score was tied closely to a country's gross domestic product rather than to the particular institutional arrangements it put in place. The report of the Australian Institute of Sport gives us an opportunity to focus on a couple of issues. The first of these, in line with what I was just saying about the level of Australia's international performance, is that outstanding athletes of Australian origin usually have to make their mark on the international competitive stage outside Australia. One thinks in particular of the great current success of Phil Andersen as a cyclist. My attention was particularly focused upon this by an article in yesterday's Sydney Daily Telegraph in which the national cycling coach, Charlie Walsh, launched into a very bitter criticism of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr Brown, for failing to honour his promise to include cycling as one of the sports catered for by the Australian Institute of Sport. Senator Watson —Particularly in relation to Tasmania. Senator PUPLICK —As my colleague says, particularly in relation to Tasmania. There is no doubt that sport plays an important part in the life of this country, perhaps more in some respects than in the life of many comparable countries. I know, for instance, the enormous pride I had in going as a spectator to the last Olympic Games in Los Angeles and seeing Werner Birnbaum in particular performing in the gymnastics, one of the most internationally competitive sports one can imagine, and bringing great credit to his country and pride to myself and my wife. I have gone along to watch the Australian men's field hockey team-an outstanding performance. My only complaint about that was that I went to see the match against the United States in which we beat the United States, but the rotten Americans confiscated my flag on the way into the ground on the basis that there had been a punch-up between the Indian and Pakistani spectators the day before and they had some suspicion, I think, that the performance was about to be repeated. Nevertheless, there was great joy in watching us thrash the Americans. The Institute itself was established as an initiative of the Fraser Government and in particular an initiative of the then responsible Minister, Mr Ellicott. Indeed, it was yet another initiative, very typical of the initiatives taken by Mr Ellicott and by the Fraser Government in fields such as sport, the arts, recreation and environment protection. Many of the things for which this current Government seeks to claim as its own successes in fact are based entirely upon Fraser Government initiatives. The Institute certainly has been subject to a great deal of criticism, some of it, I think, not altogether justified. Despite the problems, Dr Cheffers has been attempting to grapple with many of the difficulties. I know, for instance, that an article which appeared in the National Times edition of 17 January criticised the Institute for its failure to help certain junior athletes and brought to attention the outstanding junior athlete Peter Mapstone. The Institute replied to that criticism, although I do not recall seeing its reply actually printed in the National Times. Therefore, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the Institute's reply to that article. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 21/1/86 To the Editor-The National Times From Tony Rice-Co-ordinating Coach Track and Field-AIS Letters to the Editor: Re Jeff Wells' article `CHAMPIONS NEED HELP TOO' 17.1.86 Dear Sir When is a critic too critical and when has a critic not done his homework? Jeff Wells, in writing on the problem faced by any talented junior athletes in this country, and in particular, Peter Mapstone, was not entirely accurate. Mr Wells made no attempt to contact the AIS to see if firstly we had heard of Peter and, secondly, to enquire if we were interested in helping him. If Mr Wells had done either of these things, he would have found `yes' the answer to both. I have been well aware of Peter Mapstone's emerging talent since he was 14, both through my position as NSW coaching director and more recently as co-ordinating coach at the AIS. I met Peter again, at the Australian schools cham- pionship in Perth during December where, after I had congratulated him on his fine performances at the meet, we discussed his progress and his future. Then, on January 3rd, I received a phone call from Mr Ray Durie, President of NSWAAA informing me that Peter (or more particularly his mother) had been enquiring about the possibility of AIS scholarships. The relevant information on scholarships was sent to Peter on that day. I should point out however, that AIS track and field residential scholarships are not awarded to high school students. It has been found that youngsters at this stage of their education are not able to cope with both the time required for school certificate and higher school certificate study as well as the high intensity training at the Institute. So, far from ignoring up and coming Australian talent, the State coaching directors and AIS will continue to monitor Peter Mapstone's and similarly talented juniors, progress. The resources available to sport in Australia are not unlimited. The support given by families such as the Mapstones to their talented youngsters will continue to play a vital part in developing Australian sporting excellence. Meanwhile, the Australian Institute of Sport will maintain its program of supporting and developing as many of Australia's post-school-age athletes as possible. Senator PUPLICK —The Institute has and continues to have the support of the Opposition parties. We believe that it does a particularly valuable and important job. We believe that there is a place in Australia for the promotion of centres of excellence in sport, just as there are centres of excellence in arts and in culture and in education generally. I believe that once the Institute has come to grips with the problems identified in the Price Waterhouse report and in some of its own internal reviews it will be able to get on with the significant job of assisting that part of the Australian community which focuses its non-professional activities on sport and assisting those who make a profession of sport. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Senator Sir John Carrick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.41) —The paper before the Senate is really an exchange of papers between the British and Australian governments in order to set up a technical assessment group arising out of the Maralinga Royal Commission. The assessment group has been agreed to without any prejudice at all and without any admission of liability by the British Government, and rightly so. The report of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia has done great harm to the whole concept of royal commissions. It is and must be an embarrassment to the present Federal Government, to the people of Australia and, indeed, to anyone who believes that a royal commission ought to report in objectivity and depth. It is, in fact, a report without merit. It is conceived in hate, in political bias and in anglophobia. It is written in a rhetoric which ought to disgust any reasonable person. It does nothing. The fact that we have to have a technical assessment group to find out what the problems are in Maralinga is the very condemnation of the Royal Commission itself, absolute condemnation of it. The Royal Commission could not find anything. It did not know the magnitude of the problem at all. It was long on rhetoric and short on facts. It was a royal commission that did not even try to test the wildlife on Maralinga, Emu or Monte Bello. It wanted to be able to say that there must be lethal radiation and yet it had wildlife, ground eating animals such as hares, rabbits, dingoes and all the reptiles on Maralinga and Emu and the whole of the turtle and reptilian ecology on Monte Bello. It rejected the chance to test the ground eating and ground breathing animals to see what particulate plutonium or radiation would do, just in case there was any doubt about it. I asked the relevant Minister repeatedly in this Parliament whether the Royal Commission was going to do so and whether the Government asked it to do so. How could anyone come down on any judgment on what was damaging by way of radioactivity without, in fact, testing it? But the Royal Commission did not test it at all. It had an epidemiological report which I had set up as Minister. By clear instruction-all honourable senators would have heard me say it to the people of Australia-we wanted to find out whether any person, in the 15,364 people who had been there, had claimed that he had been hurt in any way. We offered medical tests and the facilities of the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Tribunal. We asked these people to come forward. We located 8,018, sent out questionnaires and contacted them a number of times. We located 1,560 death certificates. No investigation has been carried out in so much depth. I said: `Find out whether anyone has been hurt at all and let us have it'. The study which was carried out by the Department of Health could not find any atypical circumstances at all. The result for the population that was working there was the same as the result for a control group outside. That is good for Australia. At least we tried; at least we tested on animals and we sought information from people. We cleaned up areas, whereas the Whitlam Government did nothing and said nothing during its time in office. What a terrible indictment it is that a Labor Government had the chance during the Whitlam Government's three years to hold an inquiry when people who took part in it were alive-when Sir Howard Beale, the responsible Minister, was alive, when Sir Robert Menzies was alive and when members such as Sir Leslie Martin and others were capable of taking part. The Whitlam Government did not do it then. The Labor Party waited until these people had died so that they could inveigh against their characters, so that there was no response at all. I know nothing more ugly than a pretence of judicial inquiry which inveighs against dead men, which puts its political hates and vituperations on paper and produces something that says nothing at all and now has to have a technical assessment group to find the nature of the radiation in Maralinga, Emu and Monte Bello. This was the purpose for which the Royal Commission was set up. I believe this report has done more damage to the concept of royal commissions than any other matter. I regret that very much. It is a shameful thing for Australia and, indeed, to our image abroad. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.45) —I want to speak briefly to the report of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia and the technical assessment group. As the previous speaker, Senator Sir John Carrick, has said, it has been rather an amazing series of events which has culminated not only in the report of the Royal Commission but also the statements made in the report and the attacks on the various individuals in Australia, who have little chance to stand up for themselves. There has been a wave of concern around Australia. A while ago there was a letter in the Australian dated Friday, 13 December 1985. I will name the writer later, but I believe I can do no better than read this letter to the Senate. I believe it clearly outlines the situation. The letter was headed `Too much venom, victimisation'. It stated: Sir-If the Australian Labor Party had genuinely sought to probe the facts of the British atomic tests on Australian soil, it should have done so at a time when the main public participants were still alive-the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, the responsible Minister, Sir Howard Beale, and the members of the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee. But in the relevant years 1973-75 the Whitlam Labor Government was totally inert on the subject. It made no probe. It initiated no health study of those servicemen and civilians who worked at the site. It took no active interest in their health or their possibly valid claims for compensation. It undertook no major clean-up of the test sites. These matters were left for the Fraser Government to do. The character and purposes of royal commissions are demeaned when assertions are made without the possibility of rebuttal and when political acerbity and anglophobia are substituted for objectivity. A stark insight into the subjective mental processes of the commission's chairman is revealed by this statement: `I used to see her (Mrs Thatcher, the British Prime Minister) on those cold winter nights looking at British television and formed such a loathing for her that it got out of control.'' What an amazing statement by a chairman of a commission. One can only agree with that statement he made, that it got out of control. What a dreadful thing. It is a complete disgrace. The letter continues: The report's venom and victimisation of the distinguished Australian scientist, Sir Ernest Titterton, are further examples of bias. Only Sir Ernest remains of the members of the Safety Committee so he, however articulate, is very vulnerable. The commission made no tests on the abundant animal life at the Monte Bellos, Emu or Maralinga to determine the existing effects of radiation. It could find no evidence that the health of those 15,364 Australians who worked at the site was affected. A thorough epidemiological study by the Fraser Government had already reached that conclusion. The commission was unable, in its absence of knowledge to make precise recommendations as to the nature of the future clean-up required. The Fraser Government, in a meticulous two-year investigation, had located 8018 surviving Australian participants and a further 1560 death certificates, representing 62 per cent of all. The medical records locations of individuals in relation to test sites and dosimeters (radiation detectors) of all participants were examined. All survivors located were offered a medical check-up and facilities of the Commonwealth Employment Compensation Commission. The matter was widely advertised throughout Australia with the aim of reaching every person involved. What use are recriminations 30 years after the events and when the `key' decision-making figures are dead? Why, then, the royal commission at this time, except for partisan political purposes? I have great pleasure in indicating that the writer of that letter was Senator Sir John Carrick, a senator here tonight. I, like very many others, am concerned. I have on notice within this Senate a series of questions relating to this particular incident and the nuclear blast. I ask the Government to take note of those questions on notice, because not only I, but all Australians, need the answers. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.50) —Clearly this paper gives rise to issues that ought to be debated at fuller length than can be done presently. The statements of Senator Sir John Carrick-a very honourable senator of this place-were made, perhaps understandably, in an emotional context. Against that it has to be remembered, firstly, that this report must be looked at in its entirety. Secondly, when criticising any report-although it is reasonable to extrapolate from that report passages which may indicate evidence for a particular line of argument or proposition-overall it is a matter of looking at the whole report to see what useful matter arises from it. An attack has been made on the Commissioner of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia. The Commissioner is a man who has served in this place and as a judicial officer in New South Wales. The criticism has been made in very robust terms by Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Kilgariff. On the other hand, a balance must be struck and I simply want to do that in these short moments. The fact is that proceedings have been taken by people arising out of alleged injuries that occurred as result of British atomic tests in Australia. It was proper that research into this issue be undertaken. Whether or not it should have been undertaken earlier is a matter for debate. Clearly, the earlier investigations are made, the better the results are likely to be. I simply rise to throw into the balance in favour of the Commissioner and in favour of the report the good that has come from it. The evidence has been attacked. Nevertheless, the evidence has been brought forward and the propositions have been put and recommendations have been made by the Commissioner. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 11 March, on motion by Senator Sheil: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed for 12 March, on motion by Senator Puplick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.53) —The 1984-85 report of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is, in my estimation, one of the most valuable reports to have come forward from any of the wildlife, conservation and environment authorities responsible to any Federal Minister. It is an excellent report and the Director of the Service, Professor Ovington, and his officers are to be highly commended on the very useful material, both in quality and amount, which is provided in the report. The report draws attention to a number of matters which are of great significance in the wildlife and conservation debate in Australia at the moment. For instance, it launches fairly boldly into the question of the kangaroo monitoring unit. I have great faith in the kangaroo population figures which are produced by the Parks and Wildlife Service and I am perfectly happy for them to be used as the basis for the establishment of quotas. I make it clear that I believe an effective management program which includes the use of culling and quotas is absolutely imperative, not only for the land use policies of Australia but also for the kangaroo population itself. Encouraging news is given of the discovery of species previously believed to be extinct, such as the Christmas Island shrew. Indeed, specific management programs, such as we have seen in the restoration of the position of the Norfolk Island wood hen, are of great significance. The report deals with the export of koalas. The report provided by Professor Ovington on his return from Japan, dealing with the death of two koalas in Japanese zoos-an excellent report which I have had the pleasure of reading with some considerable care-encourages me to believe that the steps since taken are such that the strictly controlled and limited export of koalas to zoos of international significance should be resumed. There is a great deal of work to be done in looking at the disease problems of koalas and in particular the current problem as a result of chalamydia psittaci. I believe it is worth putting on record that the donation of up to $200,000 by American Express International Inc. towards this research program is something which ought to be recognised. A number of matters raised in the report are of concern. In the Ashmore Reef National Park area there continues to be a degree of penetration by unauthorised Indonesian vessels and I believe that the Service is lacking in the resources it needs to have so it can effectively monitor and control activities in that national park area. The indication of the seizures made under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act is very important. I would have spent some time dealing with this matter, except that a Bill was introduced yesterday into the House of Representatives making amendments to that Act. Therefore, the Senate will shortly have the opportunity for a more prolonged debate on the operation of the legislation. It highlights once again the significance which attaches to the illegal trade in Australian flora and fauna and to the penetration of organised crime into the smuggling operations. When that legislation comes before us we will be able to deal with that in more detail. This report simply indicates that between May and December 1984 seizures of 365 items were made under the legislation and that the attempted export of Australian native birds is a matter of continuing concern. The report updates the situation on whaling. Again I pay tribute to Professor Ovington and his officers for the way in which, through the International Whaling Commission, they have had further success in limiting the future whaling activities of the Japanese and the Soviets. As I said, this is an excellent report. Some legislation will be forthcoming which will give us a chance to debate part of the Government's wildlife policies. On the matters I have raised, I believe that the report is indicative of the fact that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is discharging its responsibilities properly and adequately and to the great credit of all concerned. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.59) —I too, like my colleague Senator Puplick, commend the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service on its report and the role it is playing in our national parks. We could almost say that national parks in this nation are the sacred sites of the white man. If one were in any doubt about that, one would have had only to follow the news in the past few days. It is good that we have national parks, most of which are managed at the State level, and that people are taking greater notice of them and making greater use of them. It is also good that there is that necessary co-operation at both the Federal and State levels between the relevant Ministers for the management and utilisation of our various national parks. Page 8 of the report refers to the Kakadu National Park. My view is that that park should not be so much under the control of a Federal body but rather should be controlled on a co-operative basis-as is the case with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park-with the Northern Territory authorities having responsibility for the day to day management. On a brief visit to Kakadu National Park I talked with the rangers. They are using fire as an important part of their park management and operation. Quite significantly, they are trying to use it in the manner in which Aborigines used it for thousands of years. I think we are learning from the Aborigines something about husbanding our national resources, not only in Kakadu, of course, but across the nation. Fire was used by Aborigines ostensibly, I suppose, either to flush out game or to promote a green pick, as we would say, to encourage game. In doing so, albeit probably not knowingly, they were providing a very useful environmental management tool. I find it quite ironic that at Cooktown, for instance, one sees a sign which points to Grassy Hill. It was named Grassy Hill by Captain Cook when the Endeavour was brought in for repair after striking a reef. Captain Cook went up there every day to use his telescope to try to find a way through the reef for the Endeavour when it was refloated. Grassy Hill is no longer a grassy hill. There is a lot of stunted growth and rubbish, purely and simply because since the Aborigines have left the area husbanding by fire has not been carried out. One other matter I bring to the attention of the Senate is the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve. In 1974 a memorandum of understanding with Indonesia allowed Indonesian fishermen access to those islands for both fishing and the purpose of fresh water collection. Unfortunately, that memorandum of understanding has been breached quite significantly. The fishermen are not only coming ashore for the purpose of water collection, they are also taking sea birds, turtles and their eggs, cutting down vegetation for firewood, and using the islands for camping and the drying of fish and bird carcasses. Indeed, there is a photograph in the report of an Indonesian fisherman with an estimated 2,600 tern eggs. It has been established that the lesser frigate bird and the brown booby, which are two of the largest species on the reserve, have failed to breed successfully on the islands in recent years because of poaching and disturbance. It is also noted that two other birds have attempted to breed there and that process has also been upset by the fishermen visiting the islands. Significantly-there is also a photograph of this-in November 1984 Coastwatch aircraft reported approximately 50 rings inscribed in the sandy shallows 2.5 kilometres off-shore in the reserve. These proved to be marks left by turtles tethered by Indonesian fishermen who hoped to avoid detection. The Australian National Parks Wildlife Service has sent patrol boats to the area. Patrols by Coastwatch, the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force have continued to observe the fishermen in that area. I think much more serious notice must be taken by our authorities. Indeed, it should be brought to the notice of the Indonesian authorities and action should be taken by them. I commend the Service for its report. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.05) —I too would like to make a couple of remarks about the 1984-85 report of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. I wish to address my remarks to the kangaroo culling industry. I have accompanied Mr Tim Richmond and his officers on two trips to the Roma, Longreach and Hughenden areas. Mr Richmond and the officers who accompanied him on the trips have been patient and understanding when they have explained their duties and their scientific evidence to the people-the graziers, the kangaroo shooters and the farmers-in the western areas of Queensland. It is pretty hard to talk to some of these people about scientific matters. They see the kangaroos eating their crops and destroying their livelihoods. They cannot understand why they are unable to get export quotas when they are actually culling under a State law and leaving the carcasses there. Mr Richmond and his officers, on the trips on which I have accompanied them around Queensland, have taken a lot of trouble to explain their scientific research and methods. I think they should be congratulated by the Senate. Kangaroo culling will always be a very controversial issue. It is an issue that animal liberationists seem to be getting their teeth into at the moment. I would say there is not one grazier, not one farmer, not one person in Australia who wants to see the demise of the kangaroo population. Everyone would say that they want kangaroos, that they like them, and that they love to see them on their properties. But what the farmers and graziers are saying, particularly during droughts, is this: `Let us have a reasonable culling figure. Let us keep the kangaroos in reasonable check and let us make our living'. Of course, all sorts of red herrings are being dragged across the path of kangaroo culling. I put on record that harvesting or culling is carried out in Australia by the most humane method available at the moment. If emotional people come into the Senate and suggest that no kangaroos be culled, that kangaroos should be allowed to breed until they take over the properties, I believe some sort of limit will be imposed by the farmers and graziers. They will take matters into their own hands. I say to the people who do not support any form of kangaroo culling: Be very careful because in the end this will lead to a method of culling which is nowhere near as humane as the way in which they are controlled at the moment. I cannot think of a more humane way of culling kangaroos or keeping them in check than by shooting in the head. In an instant, in a half second, the kangaroo is down and out. Sheep, cattle and pigs are taken to abattoirs in a truck, put down a race and the whole process takes hours in an extremely unfriendly environment. I would like people to compare that with killing a beast in its natural environment in a split second. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.10) —I wish to speak very briefly on the 1984-85 annual report of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. This very involved and good report deals with many of the activities in which the ANPWS is engaged. I believe that some parts of the report are extremely good but I take exception to other parts. I think the Service is doing very good work in respect of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. I hope that three whaling nations-Japan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Norway-eventually come within the scope of the International Convention. I have considerable interest in Ashmore Reef. As we know, Indonesian fishermen have been going to the reef for centuries. I believe that at times they live on the Cartier and Ashmore Islands for a considerable period. I am not too sure whether Australia has a presence in the area. However, I believe the time has come, having in mind the importance of Cartier and Ashmore Islands in the present scope of things, situated where they are, for Australia to have a continuing presence in the area. I believe the Royal Australian Navy still continues to visit the area but in my opinion this is quite insufficient. Time does not permit me to speak in detail about Kakadu National Park and Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park in the Northern Territory. The question of whether these national parks should come under a Northern Territory authority or a Federal authority has been debated far and long and the debate will continue for quite a long time yet. The question, of course, is why should a Federal organisation such as the ANPWS be responsible for national parks in the Northern Territory when it is not responsible for national parks in other places. However, this matter goes much further than that. The ANPWS should be taking more notice of the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory and that Commission should be carrying out its proper role in terms of day to day management. This is a very controversial matter because the ANPWS does not see it that way. There are many aspects to this matter. I am disappointed, as are many people in the Northern Territory, that this matter cannot be resolved. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Director of the ANPWS have said various things. However, when one looks at the matter closely one finds that what they say in public really is not correct. It is most disappointing to see that the people of the Northern Territory are being treated differently from the people of the States. The Northern Territory Conservation Commission has considerable expertise which, I believe, can be measured against that of any other organisation of its kind in Australia or, indeed, overseas. The expertise that has been gathered by this organisation as a result of the work it has done in the past and the work it is doing now is such that it is quite capable of taking over and being responsible for these national parks. Yet that is not to be. I would hope that eventually, as time goes by, a Federal government-not this one, of course, which has clearly indicated, in line with its centralist view, that the national parks will not be handed over to the Northern Territory-will bring about such a change. The report refers to many matters. However, the following statement is made in respect of one small matter: Arrangements were made for the Mutitjulu community to make use of the buildings at the Red Sands and the Inland Motels on an interim basis until permanent facilities appropriate to the national park setting are constructed. As I understand it, the Mutitjulu did take over the Red Sands and Inland Motels. However, I have taken up one matter with government in respect of something which seemed to be completely wrong to me. The Mutitjulu community accepted the Inland Motel and all of its facilities and it was agreed that compensation should be paid to the owners, yet not one dollar has been paid in compensation for the takeover. Maybe it is a minor matter but I believe it is one that must be resolved. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Boswell: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(6.15) —I take this opportunity to comment on the 1984-85 annual report of the Australian Wheat Board and on the performance of the Board in what must be regarded as one of the toughest marketing periods that it has ever had. I believe that the Wheat Board has performed admirably in meeting the challenges of the current world wheat environment. It is competing with the European Economic Community as well as the highly subsidised markets of America. I note from the report that 1984-85 saw shipping records of almost 15 million tonnes in a world environment of a record 521 million tonnes production. I note also that long term agreements were negotiated successfully with Egypt, our biggest customer during the period, and Iraq and Abu Dhabi in market circumstances where, as I have already said, the trend was for prompt shipment arrangements. This result has been achieved in a very oversupplied world market. We have been able to retain our position as preferred supplier to China. We have moved again into Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Also, we made our first sales to Ethiopia and inroads into South America after a lapse of 13 years. This record highlights the aggressive and successful marketing approach adopted by the Board. I think it is important that its performance be highly commended. On the financial side, the Wheat Board is a significant borrower, having an offshore borrowing capacity to approximately $US2 billion. The Board's investment income for 1984-85 was $25.2m; so it plays a very significant role in Australian primary industry. It is therefore vital that the Board operate in a commercially viable and fully accountable manner. I am concerned that there should be continuing grower involvement in the operations of the Wheat Board. It is for the benefit of growers that the Board exists and the industry must and should be prepared to take a responsible part in its operations. The past year has seen some changes in operations. For example, we now have domestic trade arrangements for stockfeed wheat that can be purchased direct from growers. This is a sensible approach and one that I support. New arrangements with the State grain handling authorities for storage and handling have been signed into operation. This is a weak link in the chain of wheat production in this country. It is an area to which more attention needs to be paid. There is considerable grower resentment about the grain handling charges and freight charges. In my own State of New South Wales those charges have risen dramatically in the last year. They are not the direct responsibility of the Wheat Board but the Board has an obvious involvement and must play its part in improving this area. There is also a big difference between the price received by the Board and the price that gets through to the growers and this is causing some concern to people in the grain growing areas. It is something to which the Board must address itself. Like the rest of the farming community it also has to reduce its costs. It is good that the Board has now opened offices in London and New York. However, it must not neglect the domestic scene. The wheat growers of Australia have suffered a disastrous season with weather damaged crops and the Board's task in selling wheat on a world market that is already flooded-if I may use that term-with similar grain will not be easy. However, I am confident that the Board, with its renewed aggressive marketing approach, will again meet with the success that it achieved in the past year. The wheat industry is vital to the Australian economy and I commend this report to the Senate. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(6.20) —I too would like to comment briefly on the 1984-85 annual report of the Australian Wheat Board and to echo and endorse many of the comments of my colleague and friend Senator Brownhill. First of all, I think it is a very good report in terms of its production and the information that it contains. Of course, 1984-85 was a very good year for the wheat industry. At page 10 of the report some of the highlights of 1984-85 as far as the Board is concerned are set out. It is worth noting that highlights of the year included a new annual shipping record of almost 14.6 million tonnes of wheat, long term agreements renegotiated with Egypt, Iraq and Abu Dhabi, and the first sales to Pakistan since 1978-79. If one looks at some of the details one sees some questions that the report raises. For example, in the accounts for the year the figure for administrative expenses under the heading `Other', the second largest item in the administrative expenses accounts, almost doubled. That is a surprising figure. There appears to be no explanation of it. It is an increase of something like $3m, so it is a significant amount. It is also recorded that staff numbers increased during the year by 48. That is an increase of almost 15 per cent at a time when labour saving techniques were coming into the Wheat Board. That also is a matter for some questioning, I think. What I want to say mainly in these remarks is that great concern at present is being felt in most of the grain growing areas of Australia. Last week I spent two or three days in the main grain growing area of Victoria, the Wimmera and Mallee regions, where for the third time in four years the grain growing industry is experiencing a crisis which is now of unprecedented proportions. The problems facing the industry certainly in that part of Australia-and I think they are echoed in other parts of eastern Australia-are much more serious than in the catastrophic drought years of 1982 and 1983. There are very real risks of the industry collapsing in that part of Australia if significant measures are not taken to overcome the problems. The real problem is that the industry is caught in a vicious cost-price squeeze. Part of the problem, of course, arises from the easing world prices, although that effect has been diminished significantly by the devaluation of the dollar. The real problem arises because of the increase in costs that the industry is experiencing. To outline just some of the cost increases that have occurred in the rural sector in general over the last few years, interest rates increased between 1980 and 1984 by no less than 45 per cent, government taxes and charges have gone up by 38 per cent, and electricity costs are up by 29 per cent. The really big increase, the really big cost burden for the industry, is in freight and handling charges. It is salutary to read in a recent Economic Planning Advisory Council report that over the past six years transport costs per tonne for wheat in Australia have increased by no less than 52 per cent. Our two major competitor nations are Canada and the United States. In Canada the increase has been only 37 per cent and in the United States there has been a decrease in transport costs per tonne of wheat of 18 per cent. The cost competitive situation facing the Australian industry has progressively deteriorated over recent years. For that both Federal and State governments must bear a major part of the blame. There is an inflation squeeze in this country which is now twice the average of those of our major trading partners. It is four times the average of some of them, including Japan and West Germany. We have had a staggering increase in freight and handling charges. Fuel prices, despite the recent changes, have gone up staggeringly. There is throughout rural Australia a very grave feeling of concern that this Hawke Labor Government not only knows nothing about the real problems facing the rural sector but cares even less. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Sir John Carrick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.25) —This paper, the report by the Australian Electoral Commission on informal voting in the 1984 Senate election, is a very useful contribution to the understanding of informal voting. It is, of course, the first report that could be made under the new system, called the list system, whereby it was possible for an elector simply to place a one in the top square and therefore cast a whole list of preferences. Therefore, one can test both the desire of people to choose between the two systems and the effect upon preferences. The fact is that informal voting fell significantly throughout Australia. It fell to about 7 per cent or below in various States. It is interesting that Queensland seems to have more informed voters than other States, and I acknowledge the present occupant of the chair in that regard. A measurement of the rate of informal voting for the Senate is that it is about the same level as it was in the Scullin by-election a few months ago. The equation is that it is about the level of informal voting for a lower House Federal seat. That in itself means that there does not appear to be any reason to do anything drastic or legislative. There is good reason to inform the public about the list system, particularly so that any spill-over of error into the lower House is picked up. Generally speaking, I cannot comment on behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform of which I am a member and which will no doubt report in the future, but I want to comment in general on this whole concept of informal voting. There is a great misunderstanding about it in Australia. We keep repeating the falsity that we have compulsory voting. We are almost unique in the world in that only four or five countries have what is called compulsory voting. Almost all the democracies have voluntary voting. I believe that voluntary voting is a vital thing, but strangely enough what we have is a compulsion for people to go to the polling booth and get their names crossed off the roll and not to take the ballot paper out of the booth. They may eat it or put it in a rubbish bin; they do not have to vote. A considerable number of people obviously indicate that they do not want to vote. They do that by one of two means-either by getting a ballot paper and putting it in a bin or by casting an informal vote. There are people who have a conscientious objection to voting and it seems incredible that one would force people to do this. There is great confusion between the principle of the right to vote, the fundamental right of everyone to vote, and the compulsion to vote. They are two quite different things and ought to be understood as two quite different things. I believe that one of the dangers we have is one about which enough is never said. By and large, in elections for both the Senate and the lower House and in Federal and State elections the decision as to which party wins is the decision of only about 2 per cent. If we force to vote people who do not want to vote, who are apathetic or who are even angry about voting and who therefore will approach it with carelessness and with no judgment, we may bring about a situation in which the result is determined by the apathetic and those who do not want to vote. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Senator Kilgariff: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.00) —This evening we are debating the merits or otherwise of a private member's Bill-the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985-introduced by Senator Kilgariff to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Most of us will remember the day the Party to which the honourable senator belongs took pride in introducing the principal Bill into the Senate. This Bill when introduced was heralded, and rightly, as a major piece of legislation which would benefit Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. So it is rather curious and, I suggest, somewhat a waste of the time of the Senate that we are now spending time debating a Bill whose intent is to undermine that very progressive piece of legislation that was introduced recently. A number of provisions of Senator Kilgariff's Bill have been derived from the Government's preferred national land rights model which was issued in February last year. I refer, for example, to the proposals to prevent claims for crown land which has been set aside for public purposes such as stock routes and reserves, to prevent the conversion of pastoral leases held by Aborigines to inalienable freehold title, and to provide a mechanism for the Northern Territory Government to be able to access Aboriginal land for necessary public purposes. Although we do not quarrel in principle with such proposals, we have a number of very serious reservations about the form in which they have been put by Senator Kilgariff. Our Government will shortly be putting forward its own legislative proposals for dealing with these matters, and those proposals, in contrast with Senator Kilgariff's, will reflect the extensive consultations that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and his officers have had with all interested parties-the lands councils, the Northern Territory Government, pastoral and mining interests and many others. This legislation will be drafted with the full skills of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel on the basis of well considered policy positions. Surely, therefore, the sensible course for the Senate is to set this present Bill aside and await a properly researched and drafted piece of legislation that will represent the proper balancing of interests in these matters. One of the proposals in the Bill is to set a time limit on the lodgment of claims. Again, we have no quarrel with that in principle. The preferred model suggested a time of 10 years. Perhaps that is longer than is needed in the Territory. But the Bill before us proposes a cut off of 1 July 1986. So, were this Bill to become law, which, of course, it will not, the door would be slammed shut almost immediately. I think that simple fact in itself speaks volumes about the degree of sincerity of the Bill's supporters for the cause of Aboriginal land rights. Our Government has a well known commitment to amend the Northern Territory Act, but unlike Senator Kilgariff, it went about its commitment in an open and proper way. Let me quote the honourable senator from his own Press release of December last on this matter. He said: In preparing the Bill I have tried to balance the needs and aspirations of the community, but I have not yet solicited opinions from any lobby group or industry organisation. Quite frankly it is amazing that the honourable senator asks the Senate to agree to this Bill without having asked the various parties who are likely to be affected whether they agree or not. What is even more startling is the fact that we are now asked to consider what one man wants in respect of land rights in the Northern Territory I suggest that the honourable senator should have more respect for the members of the Senate than to ask us to agree to his own perception of the way to provide for our indigenous people in the Northern Territory. To demonstrate our Government's commitment to consultation, Mr Justice Toohey was invited to review the operations on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act seven years after its enactment. Mr Justice Toohey was appointed in September 1983 and his report provided the Government with a number of recommendations designed to improve the operations of the Act. The Government then invited comment on Mr Justice Toohey's review. There have been extensive consultations with interested parties, as I have already pointed out. Further in August 1984 Dr Jon Altman was appointed to undertake a review of the role, structure and functions of the Aboriginal benefit trust account. Aboriginal organisations were invited to participate in that review. As a result of that review, and a further round of consultations, this Government is now taking steps to improve the operations of the Aboriginal benefit trust account. Let me return, however, to the detailed proposals in Senator Kilgariff's Bill, and in particular those dealing with mining and exploration because they are probably the most sensitive and difficult aspects of land rights. If one listens to the mining industry, the only reason why the Northern Territory is not buzzing throughout with mining and exploration activity is the land rights Act. To put it mildly, that is an exaggeration. For many years there was a freeze on new exploration proposals. But at present the mining industry is in a world-wide depression, which inevitably impacts on mining and exploration activity in the Territory. Furthermore, Aboriginals have made it clear that they are not a group inevitably opposed to mining. None of this is to deny that the present operation of the Act in respect of mining and exploration can be improved. Our Government's preferred national land rights model put forward proposals for mining and exploration which, applied to the Northern Territory, would require a number of significant amendments to the Act. The Government had received strong representations from Aboriginal groups, church and community leaders, and the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory that the ability of Aboriginals to control mining on Aboriginal land is paramount to their cultural and spiritual survival. On this basis, we made the decision that the legislation should continue to respect the views of traditional Aboriginal landholders who have a fundamental objection to any exploration on their land; in other words, in our legislation, the basic veto right of Aboriginal land owners will be maintained. The amendments that our Government will be putting before Parliament will therefore include provisions for retaining the right to refuse an exploration proposal, while also ensuring that, where there is a willingness to negotiate, the processes of reaching decisions on arrangements for exploration and mining are not subject to unnecessary delay. The essence of the new mining consent provisions is that Aboriginal land owners would have the right to refuse, subject, as at present, to overriding national interest provisions, an exploration proposal. They will have to decide on a proposal within a limited time. If they refuse it, that will then be the end of the matter for a five-year period. If, however, they are prepared to let the exploration proposal proceed, there could be no later exercise of the veto. This provision will help ensure that the veto is not used as a bargaining device at the development stage but to protect those Aboriginal landowners who fear that exploration and any subsequent mining would interfere unduly with their enjoyment of their lands. If there is disagreement on terms and conditions of exploration or for a subsequent mining proposal, the matter will be referred to an arbitrator who will have power to determine it. As is the case under the Act at present, limitations will not be placed on the terms and conditions which may be agreed between the parties or determined by an arbitrator. I suggest that these proposals are a reasonable compromise. They will meet the fundamental concern of Aboriginals, while also removing much of the difficulty that the mining industry and the Northern Territory Government have with the present arrangements. Of course, the Bill before us-Senator Kilgariff's Bill-however, would deny Aboriginals the right to exercise some control over their land-a control that everyone with a real concern for Aboriginal well-being, from Mr Justice Woodward onwards, has recognised as vital. Under Senator Kilgariff's Bill the presumption is always in favour of one side-the miner. That is not a balancing of interests; that is bias. The Senate, therefore, should set this Bill aside, and await our Government's proposals. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.10) —We are discussing the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, a private member's Bill introduced by Senator Kilgariff. It concerns the current land rights Bill in the Northern Territory. This is an appropriate time to look at this issue, given the fact that the Commonwealth Government has made a range of announcements, some of which have just been rehearsed by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in her response to the Bill. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to honourable senators to hear that the Australian Democrats are opposed to Senator Kilgariff's Bill. We are also deeply concerned at the moves the Government has suggested in the Northern Territory. The basic principle that one must first consider is that which was enunciated by Mr Justice Woodward when he said: Of all the questions I have had to consider, that of mineral rights has probably caused me the most difficulty and concern. But he concluded: I believe that to deny Aborigines the right to prevent mining on their land is to deny the reality of their land rights. He reached this conclusion after setting out the mining industry's submission in some detail and he added: . . . because while accepting many points made, I am unable to accept the main result contended for. Likewise of course the most recent report which again sought to rehearse the connection between mining and land rights-that of the Seaman Aboriginal Land Inquiry in Western Australia-came to an identical conclusion: That there was in fact no other way of dealing with the issue other than providing the Aboriginal people with what Mr Seaman noted `the Aboriginal people have almost uniformly claimed-that it should be an offence to enter into their land without a permit'. Later he discussed how it was impossible to have any land rights without that veto power. Essentially that proposition rehearsed by Mr Justice Woodward depends on some prior positions being taken in this debate. Looking back over some of the judgments made in the highest court of this land, from which upon the recent proclamation of the Australia Bill there is no other avenue of review at the High Court level, it is interesting to note some of the remarks made by those eminent judges. For example, Mr Justice Deane of the High Court said this in a judgment: . . . two centuries on, the generally accepted view remains that the common law is ignorant of any communal native title or other legal claim of the Aboriginal clans or peoples, even to ancestral tribal lands on which they still live. If that view of the law is correct . . . the common law of this land has still not reached the stage of retreat from injustice which the laws of Illinois and Virginia had reached in 1823 when Marshall accepted that . . . the original inhabitants should be recognised as having a legal as well as just claim to retain the occupancy of their traditional lands. That is a very clear and forthright claim that we are confronted with in Australia, that our law is so deficient that it has not even got to the stage where American law was 150 years ago with regard to the original inhabitants. Another judge in discussion on this matter pointed out that there was: . . . a need for acceptable laws and policies to mitigate the effects of past barbarism. Again, a quote which goes to the heart of a lot of the racist comments that are made in Australia about this issue is this: The difference between land rights and apartheid is the difference between a home and a prison. Those quotes from eminent justices on this issue are prior positions that must be taken before one can follow Mr Justice Woodward down the track that he has suggested. Indeed, it is a situation that we are confronted with in terms of Senator Kilgariff's Bill in that it moves much further than the Australian Labor Party has done in recent weeks. However, I am not at all sure that the end result of Senator Kilgariff's Bill would not be almost identical to that of the Government's recent announcement. I wish to read into the record the position of the main Aboriginal group in the Northern Territory, the Federation of Land Councils, in terms of its concern about the current stance of the Government and the current debate, part of which is occasioned by Senator Kilgariff's Bill and part of which is occasioned by the Government's recent announcement. The Federation says: We are concerned that there is a move to weaken the Labor Party platform and in particular to make amendments to those sections dealing with the undertaking to grant land rights for Aboriginal people throughout Australia using the principles and recommendations of Justice Woodward; the undertaking to use Commonwealth constitutional and legal powers to ensure that the status achieved the objectives of granting land rights in accordance with the Woodward principles; the undertaking that Aboriginal and Islander people shall have the right to refuse mining and development upon their land and to impose conditions upon which any mining and other development may take place; It is this last point that a number of items in Senator Kilgariff's Bill would directly oppose. Yet, as we have seen, the Woodward principles make very clear that without that right we are not talking about land rights in any shape or form. The Federation continues: . . . the guarantee of mining royalties' equivalents to Aboriginal people for their use and to be administered by them. Aboriginal people, our organisations and representatives are appalled at the prospect of returning Aboriginal affairs to the disastrous situation that led up to the 1967 referendum. Up until then years of colonial and then State government policies had decimated and all but destroyed Aboriginal people. I think it is interesting that Senator Kilgariff has introduced into this chamber a Bill which deals with the Northern Territory because this chamber still has control over that land rights legislation. Indeed, the Commonwealth in the exercise of its powers should have that kind of control over land rights legislation throughout Australia because that was the import of the successful referendum carried in 1967-to provide the Commonwealth Government with those powers and subsequently with the responsibility. Yet this Government has decided, because it is not acceptable, that it should back away from its solid commitment in this area. I wish to quote from an article published in 1979 by Senator Chaney, the present Leader of the Opposition in this place. He was commenting directly on Aboriginal land rights. In that article he said: The concern about inequality in favour of Aboriginals is often used by those who are opposed to land rights and other Aboriginal programs. One would pay more heed to the argument if it were not so selective. Few of those who advance it are prominent in demanding equality in circumstances where Aboriginals are clearly in a position of extreme disadvantage. It is only when Government introduces some advantage for Aboriginals which is meant to overcome some of the disadvantages that there is a sudden concern for equal treatment. I would have to say that I am not impressed by the selective indignation. I think those statements by Senator Chaney in 1979 were very clear and correct. I hope he still stands by those statements today. I suggest that that leads one to the inevitable conclusion reached by every major inquiry in this area in Australia. That is, one confronts directly the moral problem. The moral problem is this: Possession of land anywhere in Australia either comes from prior ownership or successful acquisition in a voluntary manner. When we talk about having land rights as white Australians, if I may use that term, we talk about the right to keep our land, not to have it stolen from us, not to have it traded away from us. It is only by holding to that moral understanding of what grants us the right to our own property that we can understand the moral basis for the claims the Aboriginals have. The legal situation in Australia is quite different. When the flag was raised in 1788 and this country was claimed in the name of the King of England Aborigines as far away as Arnhem Land were transformed into subjects of the British Crown. Indeed, the legal fiction has to go even further. Since it says that this land was vacant, it is obvious that the only way the Aboriginal people could get here was by invading British territory. So the absurd legal situation is that the Aboriginal people of Australia invaded white Australia. We live with that legal position. We live with that to the present day. Is it any wonder that the Aboriginal people-those people who owned this land and who in many parts of Australia have always lived on that land; there are many parts of Australia in which that occurs-still do not have title to that land? In my own State we have the situation where the Premier has gone to some of the islands in the Torres Strait and given title to the people there. The effrontery of the exercise of giving land back to people who have never relinquished their land, who have lived on it for centuries, ought to strike anybody as obscene. Yet that is precisely the sort of thing that is going on in this country today. It is only if we recognise the morality of the claim that we can then confront the problem. I suggest that Senator Kilgariff's Bill and the rehearsal of the Government's position just made by Senator Ryan both fail to meet that central problem. When the Liberal-National Party Government in 1976 passed the land rights legislation to which Senator Kilgariff's Bill is an amendment, it proudly proclaimed its faith that what it was doing it was doing in terms of the morality of the issue and that it was setting right an historical wrong. Let us not believe that by that one action we could do that. The problem still exists. Until it is settled on an Australia-wide basis, quite frankly there is no way it will be settled. It cannot be confronted simply in the Northern Territory, it has to be confronted fairly and squarely by all the Australian people. It seems very odd that in moving to the bicentennial celebrations of white Australia we should now come to the point of denying so forcefully the aspirations of the original inhabitants of this land. As I said some time ago in a debate, it is not fair, it is not just, to say to the Aboriginal people of Australia: `Forget about it. It is in the past'. We do not say that about any other people who have suffered the same sort of holocaust the Aboriginal people have suffered. We do not say that to our soldiers who fought for this land in two world wars and in subsequent engagements. Why then do we say it to those Aboriginal people whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents have fought and died for their own land? I believe that that too is an obscene statement to make. I have met Aboriginal people-I am sure Senator Kilgariff has also in his close association with Aboriginal people-who have seen their own parents killed in this country. It is something that many white Australians refuse to accept about our history, but it is true. I challenge any honourable senator in this place to face one of those Aboriginal people who has seen his parents shot in what was euphemistically called a boong hunt, to face those Aboriginal people who have seen their parents butchered in that way, and say to them: `Forget about it'. If we had been in a similar situation-we could have been if the invasion of Australia had been successful in the last world war-I am quite sure that those of us who had parents fighting in that war would still be maintaining our right to this land. We would not simply be saying: `Fine, we will forget about it because it is something in the past'. I urge honourable senators at least to empathise with the original inhabitants of this land, to try to understand their anguish and their agony; at least to find it in their hearts to say that at some stage we must have the guts to do something about it, because ultimately the so-called Aboriginal problem of Australia is not an Aboriginal problem at all, it is a white problem. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.29) —I 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 of 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 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 is 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 adequately to 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 adequately to 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 in the ACT, (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. My notice of motion asks that the Senate draws attention to the Federal Government's maladministration of the Australian Capital Territory. It then condemns the Federal Government in 15 listed items of failure in regard to the administration of the Australian Capital Territory. I add that when I listed those 15 items I overlooked one, and I refer to the Government's failure to appoint an Ombudsman. The notice calls on the Federal Government to do certain things which may have some corrective possibilities. It is very interesting that shortly after I gave that notice of motion the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) responded by denying many of the particulars of the notice. Notwithstanding his denial I felt that my notice of motion was, in fact, verified by the Canberra Times of the day after I gave the notice of motion, because as I picked up the Canberra Times on that day I discovered on the front page the heading `Doctors close waiting lists' and `Nurses' pay ``in chaos'' '. Both related to the Australian Capital Territory. There were a number of other stories, including the failure to replace the Commonwealth Ombudsman. All of those stories, as I say, confirmed in my mind the notice of motion which I had given. One of the accusations which the Minister made in response to the notice was that I was proposing substantial increases in expenditure. May I say that, on the contrary, I do not propose any substantial increases in expenditure. What I am proposing is very well summarised in a letter written by Dr Frank Long to another doctor in the Australian Capital Territory in which he passes on some thoughts which might be given to me in relation to the health problems of the Australian Capital Territory. In that letter he said: There really is quite a lot of money going into health in the ACT, but it is being misdirected and misused. He then gave a number of examples where money is being taken away from hospitals, when it is in the hospitals, as he said, that the sick people are treated, and he gave examples of how it is being frittered away on a lot of trendy health initiatives. For example, there are three trained nurses in the Australian Capital Territory, working 68 hours a week, operating a salt advisory clinic, so that when people ring up they may be advised on how they can go on a low salt diet. Those three trained nurses are providing this service to the people of the Australian Capital Territory while people who are in dire need of major surgery are unable to get into the hospitals because of a shortage of nurses. That is why I say I am not proposing substantial increases in expenditure-I am complaining about the maladministration of the Australian Capital Territory. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the letter from Dr Long dated 7 March 1982. It is addressed to Dr V. M. Goldrick and attached to it is an unpublished article of his entitled `Can there be health with Medicare?'. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- 7th March, 1986. Dr Veronica M. Goldrick, 73 Wilkins Street, Mawson, ACT 2607 Dear Veronica, You asked me if I could set out some thoughts for you to pass on to Senator Austin Lewis and I will be pleased to do so. In the short time I cannot really carefully revise this document to make it as succinct and useful as I would wish but it will have to go to you as I indicate it. In summary one can say that the ACT Public Health system is run down, there has been a reduction in services, a loss of expert personnel and a demoralisation of the nursing services. The effects of this are already a little noticeable but obviously it will take about five years for the full disastrous effect to become obvious. There really is quite a lot of money going into health in the ACT but it is being misdirected and misused. The previous administration responded to political and pressure group coercion to take money away from the hospitals, where after all the sick people are treated, and fritter it away on a lot of `trendy' health initiatives. Examples of this would be the Health Centres. Senator Reid has already incorporated into Hansard in the last couple of years figures showing that the work output of the salaried general practitioner was so low as to be a laughing stock. The STD Clinic is burgeoning with a continual increase in staff and the Drug and Alcohol Dependant unit is doing the same. There is no doubt that these are significant problems in the community but it is typical of the state of Australia that money is being wasted in these ways on people who, in general, are unlikely to be cured and not available for the good, normal solid citizens who need to be treated so that they can carry on leading useful and productive lives. The push for wasteful initiatives has not altered as I noticed at the moment there is pressure for a Women's Health Centre and a Youth Centre. It is not necessary for me to stress what will be the main interest of the Women's Health Centre and it is ridiculous to suggest that youth who really have genuine illnesses will not go to see normal medical practitioners. The major Public Health menaces-tobacco, alcohol and obesity-can only be controlled by broad education by the media and individual or group counselling methods are not cost effective. The situation with the nurses is very unsatisfactory; there are wards where nurses are very busy but there are also nurses in the system doing jobs which are unnecessary. There are two trained nurses and a nursing aide operating the Outpatient clinics at Woden Valley Hospital and I doubt that that number of staff are necessary. I also understand that there are some trained nurses operating a Salt Advisory Clinic so that when people ring up they may tell them how they may go on a low salt diet. One would imagine that a printed form would be adequate for this purpose. I do not know the proportion but whenever I go to a ward now I find that there always seem to be some relieving and casual staff there. The solution to the nursing problem does require better pay but perhaps more important it requires that the career structure should be such that nurses who are in charge of wards are adequately rewarded. At the present moment the only way that a nurse can receive a greater pay and promotion is to give up caring for patients and to become a supervisor and it would be very much better if the good nurses could be kept in the wards and their pay could be raised appropriately. As an example of the current situation I was told that there would be only ten elective operations in the six theatres in the Royal Canberra Hospital either in the week I am dictating this letter or in the next week. Canberra depends upon having good doctors. The doctors, and especially the surgeons and anaesthetists, are frequently the meat in the sandwich between members of the Authority's staff engaged in disputation and the Authority itself. When the nurses go on strike it probably makes very little difference to the income of the other people working in the hospital but whoever is on strike the doctors cannot work. This has the effect of decreasing their interest in the hospital and causing them to look elsewhere in the hope that they can practise medicine as they would wish. In the long run it is also very serious if the surgeons do not have sufficient work to do to keep them in good practise. The way things are going all the people with the get-up-and-go will get up and go, leave the public hospitals and find some way to operate in private. I believe that this would be a major problem as the ideal arrangement is to have an efficient public hospital system catering for anyone who wishes to enter and offering the very best possible service. As regards the solutions the first is that the central organisation of the Health Authority is much too big. Since that is where the money comes in any needs of that organisation are attended to before the money goes anywhere. Although it is too late to change it now it is also a disaster that the two hospitals should have a single administration. It was suggested that this could be done to prevent competition but that could have been done by the overall manager of the Authority. Hospitals are very complex organisations which really do depend upon an esprit de corps and it will not be possible to achieve this under the recently introduced arrangements. Many of the people working in the Central Authority have had no contact with hospitals and no understanding of what is required. It is also a sad fact that many of them have a strongly anti-doctor attitude, probably because of their political views. If there should be any doubt about that I could make available to you a legal opinion from one of the Authority's lawyers. It demonstrates an extraordinary distrust and suspicion of the medical profession. Many of the positions in the Authority are Public Service positions and, of course, the Public Service was basically established to make decisions on policy matters. It never was, and never will be able to actually operate anything. One long range objective should be to get those who are running and working in the hospitals out of the Public Service. Each hospital should receive a set budget and be allowed to spend it as it wishes. It should also be free of the normal Public Service restrictions that all money has to be spent in one year so that the management can actually manage and, if appropriate, accumulate money for the purchase of equipment or other useful aims. The Histopathology Department at the Woden Valley Hospital has practically collapsed and I understand that Dr Tony Booth who has been operating the Nuclear Department in Woden Valley Hospital for at least ten years is now leaving to go into private practice. One way which could be used to keep good people in the Public Hospital system would be to have a system of leasing space and facilities to those people who would like to use them. I am sure that Dr Booth would probably have been prepared to stay in the hospital had some arrangement been made that he could lease the space and facilities and employ his own staff and run the operation as a private practice. If this were done it would make things easier for the Authority and I am sure give the doctors in the various units a much greater sense of responsibility. This is probably more than the Senator wishes to know and therefore I will leave it at that. I am enclosing a copy of an article which I submitted to the Canberra Times and which was not printed. Senator Lewis might also find that interesting. Yours sincerely, FRANK LONG CAN THERE BE HEALTH WITH MEDICARE by F. L. Long. Now that the strike of nurses in the Capital Territory Health Authority's system has been settled it is very important to consider the state of our health services and look beyond the immediate symptoms to try to identify the underlying disease. In this article it is intended to discuss the present situation, how it came about and what can be done to provide good health care for the Australian population. The first thing that must be stressed is that nurses are among the hardest working employed people in the country. Their level of pay is very much less than would be justified by the degree of responsibility which they bear, the heavy work, both physically and psychologically, which they do and the fact that they provide care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Nurses are wonderful because, despite these difficulties, they, in general, do their work with a cheerfulness and dedication which is now rare. Basic pay rates of nurses are less than in most clerical and secretarial positions and yet they carry a work load and responsibility which would have many employees in other occupations off on sick leave for ``stress'' within two weeks. The health system needs good nurses and some way must be found to show our appreciation of them and to adequately reward them. One of the difficulties is that, although many people have contact with their general practitioners, there is only a relatively small proportion of people who are in hospital for more than two or three days in any year and, often, in two or three decades. Most women have contact with hospital after confinement but are usually well at that time and require little actual nursing care. The effect of this is that from a political point of view the interests of the majority of voters are related to medical contacts outside hospital. This has allowed scarce financial resources to be diverted from where major illness is treated-the hospitals-to all types of ``health initiatives'' in the community which appeal to well-intentioned, enthusiastic but ignorant minorities but rarely do anything for health. Handling the major public health menaces-tobacco, alcohol and obesity-is only practical by broad education by the media and is not cost effective in the individual or group counselling situation. The previous Health Commission over the years responded to pressure group and political pressure by allowing its resources to be withdrawn from the hospitals and frittered away on a top-heavy bureaucratic structure and on projects of very much lower priority and utility. The average person in the community therefore does not realise that relatively few people die in the community, that all serious illnesses are treated in hospital and that hospitals rely absolutely on their nursing staff. Having pointed out how essential adequate appreciation and recompense of nurses is we have the problem of explaining how things have come to this pass. How could a group of highly dedicated, very responsible nurses, within two years of the initiation of Medicare, be marching in the streets of Canberra, accompanied by the acknowledged terrorists of the trade union movement while the helpless in the nursing homes could not be provided with proper care or meals. When the present Government came to power it put forward a universal medical insurance scheme-Medicare. It was said that the levy would fund the scheme. This has never happened and now I note that as the scheme becomes worse and worse suggestions are being made that the levy should be raised. Labor Party policy, which of its nature tends towards centralisation and control, has for many years been anxious to bring the medical profession under its control. There are many reasons for this: the egalitarian ethos, the dislike of ``tall poppies'' and the lack of understanding of the very high level of intelligence and hard work required to even graduate in Medicine, let alone achieve specialist qualifications. I have had sons who have graduated in Law, Economics and in Science and the level of difficulty of those courses could not in any way be compared with that of the medical course. Another strong element in the Labor Party is that the socialist principle is opposed to self-employed people. Large companies are already largely under control of the unions, the Government employs about 23% of the population, small business and farmers are disorganised and frequently struggling so that the only large group in the community which are reasonably coherent, articulate and independent are the professions. Of these, the medical profession is probably the largest and certainly the one with which the public has the most contact. Normally, people may only need a lawyer once or twice in their lives and many members of the population would never have professional contact with accountants. If the doctors can be brought under Government control it will be relatively easy to ``mop up'' the other professional groups and remove these independent obstructions to Labor Party control. Given these strong ideological motives and the fact that a large part of the population could be deceived into thinking that they can have medical care cheaply it is no wonder that the Labor Government was anxious to introduce Medicare. When one considers the matter it is obvious that the scheme must increase the cost of medical care in Australia. Firstly, because people have to pay a small part, or none, of the cost directly out of their pockets, since the Medicare levy has been paid anyhow, there is a considerable inclination to over-use the system. In fact, there is a football team in Sydney which Mr John Brown, Minister for Sport and Tourism, calls the Sydney Medicare Team. The organised medical profession opposed the introduction of Medicare saying that abuses were inevitable, the Government took no notice and when abuses arise those who warned against them are then castigated. Bulk billing was introduced both as an idea to save money and also to enable the doctor to adjust the noose gently around their own necks so that the Government could pull it tight at any convenient time. Where the patient has no direct interest in the bill there must be an enormous scope for dishonesty. One cannot help but feel that the Government considered that the purchase of a football team or two is probably a small price to pay for dangling this bait before the medical profession with the opportunity to denigrate it generally if abuses did occur and then to introduce further controls. Many medical consultations fall into the category of discretionary expenditure. Patients visit doctors for a great variety of reasons, many of which cannot be expected to improve their health. I think that this is perfectly appropriate as long as the person initiating the consultation is responsible for payment. However, with the type of scheme we now have all the taxpayers of the country have to pick up the tab for these discretionary consultations. The cost must rise because there is little or no direct expense involved for the person initiating the consultation. In addition to that whatever money is spent on health must have the very considerable added bureaucratic costs of operating the scheme. When Medicare came in it was said that it would operate more cheaply but it is known that Medibank Private used to cost considerably more to operate than the private funds and it would be hard to believe that Medicare, operating in a public service milieu could be a lean, efficient and inexpensive operation. Professor David Pennington was quoted recently as saying that Medicare was `a blank cheque.' He suggested the only way was to have a two tiered system with a basic `no frills' system available in the public hospitals and the less basic services available outside. This certainly will be the inevitable end of Medicare but it is most undesirable that nearly all the most innovative, enthusiastic and hard-working doctors and other health professionals will gradually be driven from public hospitals to the private institutions. The solution of the socialists to the suggestion of the two tiered system would be to abolish any private medicine and make sure that the entire health care of the nation was provided at the bottom level. Coercion of the doctors may work for a time to keep the system operating but coercion cannot produce good medicine any more than it can produce good literature, good music or an efficient economy. If the doctor's loyalty is, of necessity, displaced from the patient to his political and bureaucratic masters, it will be the patient who will suffer even more than the doctor. Good medicine cannot be provided by disillusioned, disgruntled and embittered doctors. The difficulty with our political system is that there is no time to allow evolution. Difficulties are noted and instead of them being allowed to correct themselves in a natural, evolutionary manner, some short time solution is imposed which generally ends in long term disaster. For 20 years, from about 1960, there was an under supply of doctors. This resulted in considerable expansion of medical schools and now we have reached the stage where, because of the very long lead times, there will be a considerable over-supply of doctors by 1995. If there was no interference the effect of this would be that life as a doctor would appear less attractive and the number of people going into Medicine would fall so that the problem could be corrected over the next 25 years. The foolishness of Government interference can be seen in the fact that the Medicare rebate of 85% acts as a floor under medical charges. There are certainly areas now, in the cities, where there is very considerable competition between doctors and were it not for this income support scheme initiated by Doctor Blewett PhD, medical charges might well fall below the 85% level in some areas. What have we got from Medicare? A Medicare levy, that is an extra tax on top of our already excessive taxes, strikes by nurses in at least Victoria, New South Wales and the A.C.T., confrontation with doctors and certainly no diminution in the industrial campaigns of the Hospital Employees Federation. It was supposed to provide health care for all and what do we find? The old and helpless in the nursing homes have to have volunteers bussed up from Sydney to care for them and the rest of the population could not get into the Health Authority's hospitals in Canberra unless they had a broken leg, a heart attack or some other major catastrophe. Medicare insists on doing everything for everyone and the result is that often it can do nothing for anyone. These problems must continue because the Government, despite its confiscatory taxation is heading for financial disaster. It is seen as an impersonal employer with control of the printing presses and everyone in the community knows that so much money is being wasted in other directions that they feel there must be room for them at the trough also. The market mechanism for deciding the value of most people's labour has been replaced by evaluation by bureaucrats, or Conciliation commissioners or Arbitration Court judges. How can anyone decide whether a nurse is worth one and one-half clerks or three-quarters of a plumber or two politicians. All rational decision making is removed and these matters are decided on an entirely arbitrary basis. The effect of this is that any change in the system has to come about by coercion and since the Government can always print more money there is not the normal safety valve that coercion can be self-destroying if it causes the bankruptcy of the employers. Having insisted on taking on the cost of health care and finding it cannot afford it the Government feels it has to reduce expenses. Every group in the system is entrenched and refuses to be disbanded or reduced in importance and the only future for the public hospital system is continuing confrontation. Do not be deceived into thinking things will get better. The problem is basic to the system and can only be changed by changing the system. The solution to these problems lies not in further tinkering with the system, further coercion of the doctors, preventing people from going to hospital so that nurses are not so busy or printing a few million extra dollars to add to our already disastrous deficit. The solution lies in a change of thinking. All Australians under 45 would have lived from the age of about 10 onwards in a gradually evolving welfare state. It is most difficult for most of the adults in our country to imagine any other kind of system. In about 1900 Australia had the fourth highest standard of living in the world and now it has the 19th. I notice that the idealists (the non-realists), especially those whose income is guaranteed from Government sources, frequently say that Australia is a rich country. There are not many countries below us on the standard of living ladder for whose social systems and population welfare we would have a high regard. In 80 years this country has been transformed from a nation of self-reliant pioneers to a nation of spongers where everyone considers that his fellow citizens owe him a living. We may be able to fool ourselves for some years to come but the rapidly sinking Australian dollar shows that we cannot fool the world in general. We must get back to being a self-reliant society. There is a great deal of misinformation and deliberate falsehood propagated for reasons that are difficult to understand. The mad and the bad seem to have preferential access to the media. $100,000,000 was wagered throughout Australia on just one horse race, the Melbourne Cup, and the amounts spent each year on gambling would be considerably more than the total cost of the welfare system, even over-inflated as it is by trendy and worthless ``health initiatives''. We do need some type of social security net for genuine cases but that number is very much smaller than those at present being covered. The percentage of the population entitled to cut-rate medical treatment has increased from 9.4% in 1970 to 23.1% in 1985 and these consume 35% of all medical services. With the exception of those in genuine need the remainder of the population must be free to make their own arrangements. Those who have no intention of ever paying the doctor or the hospital will probably not insure at all and for the remainder there should be a wide range of deregulated insurance services offering no-claim bonuses, reduced rates for those who wish to pay the first one hundred, three hundred or five hundred dollars themselves and all the variety of schemes which a free and unregulated insurance industry would provide. The total cost would almost certainly be less and people would have regained their freedom to make their own decisions. If the population was paying for what it wanted in health care there would be no need for the dead hand of Government to come down with restrictions on the type and numbers of hospital beds which can be provided, the number of new, painless and efficient diagnostic techniques and equipment which could be introduced and the opportunity to steal the health dollar would practically disappear. It is likely that this solution will be criticised as simplistic; most great advances in human progress are simple once they are understood. It is simple that the world is round, that matter and energy are interchangeable and that ``Love your neighbour'' could regulate human affairs. To return to the original question, there cannot be good health with Medicare for very long. Confrontation with the nurses bears out that the end result of the Welfare State is the War of All against All as every group has to resort to coercion of its fellow citizens to wrest what it believes to be its rights from the all encompassing, all paying Government. Senator LEWIS —I thank the Senate. I am not saying `spend more money'. What I am saying is that the scarce resources of funds are not being properly utilised. They are not being properly utilised for philosophical as well as for bureaucratic reasons. There are many other examples that I am aware of since I have taken over this shadow portfolio. For example, there is the duplication or provision of services which are already provided by non-government agencies. For example, another trendy and apparently popular idea was to establish a drug and alcohol dependency unit. That seems great and the people of the Australian Capital Territory might say: `Yes, that is a good idea'. But in the background that unit, we must remember, is being utilised and serviced at the cost of people missing out on major surgery. The truth is that the Salvation Army runs a Mancare facility in the Australian Capital Territory which is just as good as the drug and alcohol dependency unit and costs about one-quarter of the costs of the unit that has been established. There are in the Australian Capital Territory dental and medical clinics established at great expense and competing with private practitioners. There are private medical practitioners all over the Australian Capital Territory. To think that there are dental and medical clinics with paid medical officers servicing them is an absolute nonsense. After all, both are being paid out of one fund in the long run, the taxpayers' purse, and are set up in competition with one another. I made a speech in the Senate on 28 March last year in which I pointed out that on the average salaried doctors at these centres are seeing between 13 and 15 patients per day. I tabled a document which gave the number of patients the doctors were seeing at these clinics. It is in that speech and is available if anyone wants to look at it. On one occasion one doctor managed to see one patient. This sort of terribly expensive service is being provided in the Australian Capital Territory. If one works out the cost per treatment of these salaried doctors seeing between 13 and 15 patients per day and if one listens to Senator Grimes attacking the doctors in the community who want to get a little bit more for their services-he says they are the greedy ones-of course there is really no comparison. Other services which could be more economically run by non-government services are the nursing homes, aged people's accommodation. There is no reason why they have to be run by governments as they are private organisations that are prepared to look after our aged people, and they do it extraordinarily well. Other trendy alternative services provided to minority groups in the Australian Capital Territory at the expense of efficient essential services include the community housing expansion program which produced the Wyuna disaster. There was also the provision of funds for the Tilley Devines Cafe Gallery. On the other hand, let me make this perfectly clear in response to another accusation by the Minister: I am not proposing or suggesting the running down of the Australian Capital Territory economy. I am suggesting neither an increase nor a reduction in the funds being spent on the Australian Capital Territory. What my motion is doing is highlighting the maladministration which is evident in areas of health, including the hospital services such as the hospital laundry facilities in the Australian Capital Territory which are known to the people of the Australian Capital Territory as being absolutely disastrous. Those employees are always going out on strike and creating great chaos in the hospital services of the Australian Capital Territory. There are education problems in the Australian Capital Territory. It has bus service problems at present. There is the failure to repair and replace the bus services so that in the end the people of the Australian Capital Territory, apparently, will be handed over a service in which the buses are in a rundown condition. There is the failure to provide proper repair and replacement of the buses. There are also the fire services in the Australian Capital Territory and the disaster that that has been; the firemen have been repeatedly on strike; the refusal of the fire brigade in the Australian Capital Territory to accept the appointment of the new Commissioner. There are also the construction industry, housing, social welfare, garbage collection, road construction, planning, maintenance and indeed every aspect of life in the Australian Capital Territory. If you were not satisfied, Mr Acting Deputy President, with the page of the Canberra Times on the day after I gave the notice of motion, look at today's Canberra Times and you will see three stories about maladministration in the Australian Capital Territory. You will see the headings: `Diluted plan for self-rule'-I will come back to that in due course; `Many buses are remaining idle' and `113 more nurses needed, Sax says'. That kind of thing happens every day. Every day one picks up the Canberra Times it is full of stories indicating the maladministration of the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister, I might say, errs when he claims some credit for the current growth in the Australian Capital Territory economy. The current growth is, no doubt, due to the initiatives of the Fraser Government. I refer to the new Parliament House, the Australian Defence Force Academy, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation headquarters and the White Industries Ltd conference centre and I also refer to the wage pause. These items have led to the recovery in the economy in the ACT. This Government has done nothing except continue those projects. This economy has become very heated in the last 12 months or so as these buildings have come to fruition. It may very well be that the Government could have effected some economies in this area by perhaps slowing down the construction of the new Parliament House, but not on your life. It is quite clear that in 1988 Mr Hawke wants to be the Prime Minister who opens the new Parliament House. So he is not going to have it delayed until 1990-he may not be here in 1990-so the money is going to be found no matter what happens to the economy. Let me turn to some of the specifics of the motion. The first point states: condemns the Federal Government for: (i) its failure to consult the people of the ACT in its deliberations on the system of machinery of self-government of the ACT, whether by utilisation of members of the current ACT House of Assembly or by any other means. This is one of the matters I have been raising repeatedly. I said earlier I would come back to the article relating to self-government on the front page of today's Canberra Times. Some time last year, in a number of public speeches and in this House, I suggested that the people of the Australian Capital Territory were not being properly represented in any negotiations with the Government about self-government. I suggested that the existing House of Assembly be formed into committees and that those committees be given funds to enable them to employ expert consultants who could advise them as to the nature of the agreement that they should have with the Commonwealth Government over self-government. If the Government was not satisfied with the existing House of Assembly, it could have had an election for a new House of Assembly which would specifically have the responsibility of negotiating on behalf of the people of the Australian Capital Territory with the Federal Government to come to some agreement about self-government. This happened in the Northern Territory. When the Fraser Government was negotiating with the Northern Territory to provide self-government the people of the Northern Territory were represented. But who is representing the people of the Australian Capital Territory in the current negotiations? The Minister is negotiating with the bureaucracy and his own Cabinet. No one has the specific job of representing the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I do not claim to represent the people of the Australian Capital Territory in these negotiations even if the Minister were prepared to negotiate with them. When I made this criticism the Minister said `Well, Senator Lewis does not even know what is going on in his own Party', because I regularly confer with a member of the Liberal Party in the House of Assembly. I say to Mr Scholes quite frankly that whoever that Liberal member of the House of Assembly is he does not necessarily represent all of the people of the Australian Capital Territory either. There needs to be some elected body which represents the people of the Australian Capital Territory and which can protect the interests of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. When we look at the self-government proposals there seems to be a promise that the Australian Capital Territory will look after the finances for the first two years and then the finances will come up for review, whatever that might mean. In today's Canberra Times we learn that even the miserable proposals which Mr Scholes put forward on the previous occasion are to be deleted further. The Government is proposing, in typical fashion, that the powers of the Executive be increased to the detriment of the powers of the Parliament. Under this proposal the Executive in the future will apparently have the power to disallow laws of the new council of the Australian Capital Territory, but the Parliament will not have power to disallow laws of the Australian Capital Territory. That is the way governments always tend to act-to take away the powers of the Parliament wherever possible. It appears that instead of it being a plenary body the new council of the Australian Capital Territory is in fact just going to be some statutory authority created by the Federal Parliament. The House of Assembly has not been consulted in any way about these proposals. So much for Mr Scholes's claims about consultation with the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The second point I made was that the Senate condemns the Federal Government for: its repeated demonstrations that militant industrial action will succeed ahead of moderation thereby encouraging widespread militant industrial disputation in the Australian Capital Territory. There is no doubt that this Government has demonstrated to the people of the Australian Capital Territory that the way to get what one wants is to be militant. It is all very well summed up in an editorial in the Canberra Times on Monday 20 January this year. The editorial states: Living in a town dominated by the left of the trade unions and subject to the activities of the rent-a-crowd, rent-a-picket variety can be exasperating. One has to become inured to the demonstrations, the pickets, the squats, the posters, banners and graffiti that proclaim their superior moral outrage and social consciences. Many residents try hard to suppress revulsion at seeing the completion of a retirement village delayed, the public-hospital system reduced to pandemonium, sub-contractors beaten up, and the formation of industry cartels by union pressure. The fact that this situation is the result of the supine behaviour of elected representatives in the Federal Parliament, which is responsible for Canberra and in particular for its building and construction industry and its public hospital system, makes it even more difficult to keep the bile down. I think that that editorial sums up all of the problems that are created by this militant industrial disputation which this Government encourages in the Australian Capital Territory. I know it does not go out and say `This is the way we want you to act', but it responds in such a way that if a person is militant he achieves something; if he is not militant he does not achieve something. If that is not sufficient, let me quote the Minister's own admission reported in the Canberra Times of 1 February this year. He stated: There are, for instance, great difficulties in getting major projects committed in Canberra because we are perceived to have a very bad industrial record. Those are the Minister's own words. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a summary of industrial disputes in the Australian Capital Territory for the period 1985-86, running to some 3 1/2 pages. Leave granted. The document read as follows: A.C.T. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES-RUNNING SUMMARY BANS: Date Union Duration Brought forward from 1984: Hotel Canberra... TLC Months Aged persons units (Higgins)... .12.84-10.85 TLC Months Fire Services (Appointment of Commission)... FF Months, ended 9/85 1985: Cremations... 9.1.85 FEDFA Hospital Services... 29.1.85 HEF Nurses Non-nursing duty... 31.1.85 RANF Months to 11/85 Hospital... 5.2.85 RANF Hospital Linen... 8.2.85 HEF Radford College... 13.2.85 TLC Hospitals... 18.2.85 HEF Weeks Public service... 19.2.85 ACOA Weeks Concrete deliveries... 23.2.85 TWU Radford College... 25.2.85 TLC-Teachers Federation Months On-off Schools Ancillary Staff... 22.3.85 APSA Roche Bros... 1.4.85 TWU Theiss-Watkins... 23.4.85 TWU Weeks Theiss-Watkins... 4.5.85 TLC Dura-Lite (Picket Line)... 15.4.85 FFT & BLF Day John Holland Leighton... 22.5.85 TLC Day Westland Royal Canberra Hospital (Telephonists)... 25.5.85 HEF 4 days Pfeiffer... 26.5.85 TLC Day Costains Emu Ridge Concrete Constructions... 29.5.85 TLC 1 day Civil & Civic Ruddi Partners (Work Experience)... 6.6.85 TLC Social Workers... 3.7.85 POA 10 days Hospital Admissions... 11.7.85 RANF days Hospital-linen... 13.7.85 HEF Hospital-linen... 18.7.85 HEF weeks Beer deliveries... 18.7.85 TLC 2 days Concrete deliveries... 20.7.85 TWU (Stand down) Fire Stations... 25.7.85 FF months Garbage Collection... 1.8.85 FED & TLC days Food Handicapped Hostel... 7.8.85 TWU Pedeshenko/Trevi Formwork ... 9.9.85 BLF week Gougard. BLF Registration Action buses-Cancellation... 9.9.85 TWU Action buses-Cancellation... 12.9.85 TWU Action buses-Cancellation... 19.9.85 TWU Hospital-linen... 10.85 HEF 1 day Hospitals-Nurses... 12.11.85 RANF 2 weeks Fireman banned for anti-union stance... 1.12.85 FFU Month Electricity Connection... 13.12.85 ADS & TE 4 days Action buses-routes Oxley... 14.12.85 TWU weeks Action buses-change... 12.85 TWU 3 weeks Crane drivers (Building Sites)... 1.86 FEDA Current 14 UK Recruited Psychiatric Nurses Woden Valley Ward 12b... 4.2.86 RANF & HEF Current Ainslie Fire Station... 11.2.86 FF Indefinite Territories Public Service ban on Ministerial Correspondence... 14.2.86 POA Continuation Ainslie Village... 27.2.86 AWU Valuations ACT... 28.2.86 ASD & TE Crane drivers (White Convtn)... 04.03.86 FEDA/BLF 2 days Action Buses 25% reduction in overtime maintenance... 04.03.86 ASE/AMWU 6 DAYS STRIKES: Building Site (Demarcation)... 15.02.85 FEDA&BLF Teachers... 03.85 Teachers Federation 1 week Postal... 13.03.85 APTU Quarries... 13.04.85 TWU Quarries... 16.04.85 Weeks Teachers... 06.85 Teachers Federation On-off months Firemen... 24.07.85 FFU Days Building sites... 27.07.85 BLF Days Rubbish Tip... 31.07.85 FEDFA 1 day Belconnen Remand Centre... 08.85 HEF 3 weeks Cleaners (Dept of Defence)... 09.08.85 Misc Workers 2 weeks Postal Mail sorters... 18.10.85 APTU Postal (Mail sorters)... 18.10.85 APTU week Social Workers (Overtime)... 28.10.85 POA Ovals, Mowing... 12.11.85 FEDFA weeks Elective Surgery... 12.11.85 RANF weeks Teachers Narrabundah College... 15.11.85 Teachers Fed Crane Chasers... nk BLF weeks Electricity Staff ACTEA... 4.02.86 ETU, TWU, FEDA Current CPRR... 10.02.86 FLAIEU 1.5 days (13.03.86) STOPWORK: CPRR... 11.4.85 FLAIEU Queensland Electricity Workers (Support)... 18.04.85 TLC Gallagher Jailing... 24.06.85 HEF 1 day Parliament House Security... 9.07.85 Misc WU CPRR... 08.08.85 FLAIEU 24 hours Glaziers... 17.08.85 Furniture Traders Action Buses... 2.09.85 TWU Action Buses... 9.09.85 TWU Action Buses... 13.09.85 TWU CPRR... 30.10.85 FLAIEU Nurses ACT... 12.02.86 RANF CPRR... 12.02.86 FLAIEU Hospitals... 12.02.86 HEF Firemen... 13.02.86 FFU CPRR... 19.02.86 FLAIEU 24 hours CPRR... 21.02.86 FLAIEU Short stop works at 5 mins notice continues. Senator LEWIS —I thank the Senate. It is not surprising when one looks at that list that the budget for the new Parliament House now tops $809m-that is $178m over the original budget figure. The sweetheart deals indicated in that table are clear. I understand there are some sweetheart deals with subcontractors for additional overaward payments of up to $125 per week for working on the new Parliament House. As I have said, the militancy has paid off. I mentioned before that the firemen of the Australian Capital Territory have been on strike regularly. I just learned last week that not one fireman has been docked any pay for the period he has missed while he has been on strike. Just imagine that. These firemen have missed days, amounting to weeks, in industrial disputation and not one has lost $1 in pay as a result of it. I can see the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) smiling as he wonders what he is going to do about it. It is just unbelievable. Not 1c has been docked from their pay for all the days they have had off, so they have been encouraged to go on strike. There has certainly been no discouragement to go on strike. A builder in the Australian Capital Territory had been trying for some considerable time to get electricity installed on a site on which he was building. What did this builder do? He parked his car in front of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority building and put some signs on the front of the car. Guess what happened? That is right. His electricity commitment was fixed up that day. The only way to get anything done in the Australian Capital Territory is to be militant about it. That is why the Territory is the way it is at present. This is all happening under a Government which claims that it has some special relationship with the trade union movement. I refer to an administration which is so inept that Commissioner Caesar of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had something to say about the Department of Territories concerning the recent bus dispute. I hope Senator Button will listen to this because it is an absolute ripper. The Commissioner said: . . . the problem confronting the department `lies squarely at the feet of the department and at this stage I really fail to see how this commission can assist in solving the questions put to me'. He was surprised that a `mere overtime ban' could so quickly bring so many bus services to a halt. This indicated to him that the work had not been properly planned and an examination of the overtime spread showed that most of the work could be done during normal hours. He believed that trying to convince the Department of this during Commission discussions would be `like trying to shift mountains'. He said: The solution is in the hands of the department and those who work for them. If ever there was an indictment of this Government's administration of the Australian Capital Territory, it is there. My third point relates to health. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard letters from Dr V. M. Goldrick, Dr R. B. Goldrick, Dr Jenson Wong-See, Dr B. M. Andrea, Dr David McNicol and Dr Howard Peak. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- VERONICA M. GOLDRICK...73 Wilkins Street M.B., B.S. (Syd.) D.C.H. (London)...Mawson, A.C.T. 2607 PHONE 86 4464 Senator Austin Lewis, Parliament House, Canberra. A.C.T. 2600. Dear Senator Lewis, I enclose three letters for your information as discussed last week. It is our hope you can bring to light the appalling situation which exists in the State and initiate some action to overcome the problems. I have worked in Canberra since 1967. The A.C.T. had then a hospital system equal to any in Australia and as far as patient comfort was concerned, conditions were in fact, superior. The situation now is analogous to the N.S.W. Public Hospital System when I graduated in 1956. We have regressed 30 years in the last twelve months. As a general practitioner I do not have a great involvement in the hospitals. But I do have the drama and tragedy that occurs when I have an urgent admission be it a pneumonia, a bowel obstruction or a sick child. The drama that unfolds when one rings for a bed and is told ``This Is Bed Allocation-there are NO beds. You may send your patient home, or you may send him/her to Casualty or you could try another hospital'' . . . The frustration, anxieties and distress to the patient and relative need no amplification. In the last two weeks alone, I have had an 86 year old lady with a second deep vein calf thrombosis sit in Casualty for 7 hours (after I foolishly believed I had organized a bed) and a 76 year old lie vomiting for a week at home ``waiting for a bed''. There are many more tales to tell. The poor, the elderly and the chronically ill are suffering as never before in the history of the State. I represent no group, no political party and no specialty. I am a doctor who can no longer adequately safeguard the lives of her patients. Yours sincerely, VERONICA GOLDRICK M.B., B.S. (Syd.) D.C.H. (Lond.) R. B. GOLDRICK...John James Medical Centre, M.D., B.S.(Syd.), F.R.A.C.P....175 Strickland Crescent, Consultant Physician...Deakin, A.C.T. 2600 Telephone 81 5608 RBG: vn...7th March, 1986. Senator Austin Lewis, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Lewis, Re: Services at Royal Canberra and Woden Valley Hospitals Ever since the dispute between the nursing staff at Woden Valley and Royal Canberra Hospitals and the Capital Territory Health Commission in November 1985 over staffing levels, there has been increasing difficulty in admitting patients to Hospital. You will be aware of comments made by surgeons about the length of waiting lists for elective surgery. I am sure that you have also heard that lists are cancelled without notice because of lack of nursing staff in the Theatres. These decisions are made on a day by day basis. The result is that lists for elective surgery are growing longer and longer and have reached the point where a number of surgeons are refusing to book any more patients into hospital. Perhaps you are not aware that problems of admission affect other categories of patients. Indeed, virtually all categories are affected with the exception of obstetrics. Some idea of the situation can be obtained from the enclosed tables which detail the bed situations at Royal Canberra and Woden Valley Hospitals in 1985 versus 1986. Overall Royal Canberra Hospital has lost 59 beds. Categories being worst affected are gynaecology, adult medical and paediatrics. Woden Valley Hospital has lost a large number of surgical and orthopaedic beds. There has also been a reduction in beds available for mentally retarded and psychiatric patients. Even though the reductions are small, proportionally they are large. It is not difficult to imagine the effects of these closures on the people of Canberra, which is still a growing population, particularly with respect to the very young and the very old. It is these people, most of whom cannot afford private hospital insurance who are having to stay at home and be looked after under suboptimal conditions. The same applies to referrals from outside of Canberra. The Canberra hospitals have for many years serviced the South Coast, Yass and other neighbouring country towns and it is no longer possible to do so. Urgent medical and surgical cases are always admitted and there is no problem in this respect. On the other hand the nurses' claims to be overworked are not exaggerated, so that the quality of care in the hospital is not as good as it should be. One other problem that has not been voiced relates to the levels of pathology, paramedical and other support staff in the hospitals. With the reduction in beds, these services are no longer required to the same extent. On the other hand I believe that there have been no reductions in the number of these staff. The wastage of money must therefore be very large. Yours faithfully, R. B. GOLDRICK Prior to the Nurses strike in November/December last year. We had between 14 to 22 usually 16 Adult Beds per day. 8 Childrens Beds per day, 20 Day Cases per day. These beds were distributed between 11 Theatres per day. The Ear Nose and Throat Doctors operate on children and Day Cases. They usually had one adult bed per session. Gynaecologists have lots of Day Cases and one adult bed. Some major surgery can take 3 to 4 hours, one adult bed per session. Paediatric surgery sessions no adult beds. This meant some doctors mainly general surgeons could have 2 adult beds per session. This year the Workload Monitoring Committee meet weekly. The Committee comprises of Clinical or Assistant Clinical Superintendent, Deputy Director Nursing, Chairman Division Surgery, 3 members R.A.N. Union, the Surgical Booking Clerk attends to answer questions on waiting lists etc. They decide on the number of cases for admission for the following week, this is decided from the number of nurses available and according to the ACTPAC levels from the previous week. I enclose the numbers we have worked to. NUMBER OF ADMISSION FOR WEEKS Adults Children Day Cases 6.1.86... 34 12 100 13.1.86... 35 13 100 20.1.86... 40 25 100 27.1.86... 30 16 100 3.2.86... 36 18 100 10.2.86... 35 17 100 17.2.86... 35 14 100 24.2.86... 10 8 100 3.3.86... 10 0 100 10.3.86... 10 6 100 Very little elective Surgery has been operated on this year with exception to Day Cases. Most adult cases have been Semi-Urgent. Patients for the following week are notified by phone giving the patients 4 to 5 days notice prior to their admission. Prior to the strike bookings were made 3 weeks in advance and letters sent to patients advising of their admission. BEDS WODEN VALLEY HOSPITAL Wards Beds 6.6.1985 5.3.86 5A Oncology... 30 30 5B Medical... 28 28 Coronary Care... 7 7 Intensive Care... 6 6 4A Medical... 35 36 4B Surgical... 36 32 6A/B Obstetrics... 48 48 3B Was orthopaedics & general surgery: Now Day Care... 36 8 3A General Surgery... 36 36 10A Mentally Retarded... 20 12 10B Gastroenterology... 20 20 11A Geriatrics... 24 24 11B Rehabilitation... 32 32 12B Psychiatry... 26 20 Totals... 384 339 Overall loss=45 beds BEDS ROYAL CANBERRA HOSPITAL Wards Beds 8.11.1985 5.3.1986 Intensive Care... 16 16 Coronary Care... 10 10 Renal Unit... 6 6 Day Care... 20 20 2C Gynae-surgical... 16 . . 2D Urology-Surgical... 20 20 3A M Orthopaedic... 20 20 3B F Orthopaedic... 16 16 3C M:F Eye-plastic surgery... 16 16 3D M:F Surgical... 16 16 4A M:F Neurosurgery... 20 20 4B M:F Neurology... 16 16 4C M:F Medical... 16 16 4D M:F Medical... 16 16 5A M:F Medical... 16 . . 5B M:F Medical... 16 . . 6A/B M:F Medical... 22 22 6C/D M:F Surgical... 23 23 H Ward M:F... 19 19 Isolation... 16 16 Paediatrics P1 Medical... 11 16 Paediatrics P3 Surgical... 19 19 Paediatrics P4 Medical/Surgical... 16 . . Labour Ward... variable variable Ante Natal O1A... 19 19 Post Natal... 37 37 438 379 Overall loss=59 beds Dr. Jensen Wong-See F.R.A.C.O....Medical Centre, Ophthalmic Surgeon...Blamey Place, Campbell, A.C.T. 2601 Wong-See Pty Ltd....Postal Address: Incorporated in the A.C.T....P.O. Box 55, Telephone: (062) 47 6484...Campbell, A.C.T. 2601 7th March 1986 Senator Aubrey Lewis Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Lewis, The other day I was speaking to Dr. Veronica Goldrick about the sad state of affairs that our health care is in at present in the ACT, and in particular, the lack of available beds in the Hospital Commission hospitals. This situation has created great hardship to the patients involved, but unfortunately most of the general public is not aware of this unless they are personally connected or involved. Dr. Goldrick felt that it would be a good idea for me to write to you to give you a little information, simply as a small indicator, to reflect the big trouble that our community is in at present. I have practised medicine in Canberra since 1959, firstly as a General Practitioner, and in the past fourteen years as a Specialist Ophthalmologist. In the light of this experience, my opinion is that the bad hospital situation and the lack of proper available care and available beds from the Commission hospitals has never been worse. What is more, I cannot see matters improving under the present conditions. One supposes that it can only become worse, but indeed, it cannot become much worse, as it would seem that we are at the bottom of the barrel now. In the Royal Canberra Hospital, where I have done the major part of my work, the facilities for patient care has gradually diminished over the last ten years. Over the past eighteen months, at times it has become non-existent. In the early to mid 1970's, I performed a minimum of 20 elective cases monthly at the Royal Canberra Hospital. In 1985, my elective cases were 38% of that of 1984. So far in the first two months of 1986 I have had available facilities for eight routine elective surgical cases (three of these were fortunately assigned to me because of the absence of another eye surgeon) two additional admissions were treated on an emergency basis, a total of ten cases in two months. Over the past three weeks, the entire Royal Canberra Hospital has had ten beds available for elective surgery per week. None of these beds have been allocated to any one of the ten ophthalmologists for routine elective surgical cases. In other words, no routine elective eye surgery has been performed in the Royal Canberra Hospital over the past three weeks as far as I know. From the patients' point of view, elderly people who need urgent restoration of sight from conditions such as cataracts are waiting months on end, and now indefinitely, for their operations. Children with strabismus requiring surgical correction within two to three months if their sight is not to be damaged for the rest of their lives are now having to wait months and months before their admissions are available. In past years, patients have received their admissions within three to six weeks of booking. Now, I have patients who have been waiting since August, 1985, and there are other surgeons whose patients have been waiting for over twelve months. As matters stand at present, all those on the waiting list do not even know when their admission will be available. They cannot plan ahead; all they can do is wait in frustration. When sent for, they are given less than one weeks' notice, and many patients are unable to accept the time given and thus forfeit their admission. If you so wish, I feel sure that other medical practitioners in Canberra will supply you with additional and further evidence of the terrible situation the Health Care system is in at present, not only in Canberra, but all over Australia, and needless to tell you how bad things are in New South Wales. Something will have to happen and be done soon. We have all tried very hard in recent years and months to help correct the illness in our hospital system, so as to restore the proper health care for our community. However, matters worsen month by month, and one is overcome by the feeling of helplessness. The great fear is that this ``sickness'' in our health system may eventually infect all other segments of our society, if it has not already done so. Yours sincerely, JENSEN WONG-SEE B. M. Andrea Pty Ltd...Suite 31, Upper Level Brian M. Andrea...John James Medical Centre M.B., B.S. (Syd.) F.R.C.S., (ED.), F.R.A.C.S....175 Strickland Crescent Deakin, A.C.T. 2600 Surgery 82 3184 7th March, 1986. Senator Austin Lewis, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. Dear Senator Lewis, I understand that you would be interested to hear some facts about the crisis in the Public Hospitals of the Australian Capital Territory. Some simple facts illustrate what has and is continuing to happen. I write with regard to surgery in the Royal Canberra Hospital. Prior to the nurses strike in November, last year, there were between seventy (70) and one hundred and ten (110) adult beds available each five day week for major elective surgery cases. In January, this year, there were thirty-four (34) beds per week. In March, there are now only ten (10) beds available per week for cases other than acute emergencies. Emergencies are fairly frequent so the net results will soon be that many non urgent cases just won't get their hernias, etc., operated on at all unless they can afford to go to the John James Memorial Hospital. The admission clerks at the Royal Canberra Hospital spend much of their time trying to placate people who are pleading to know when (and if) their operations will be done. The situation is snowballing and it will be interesting to see what happens when sufficient people get to know the real truth. Nurses are largely controlling surgical admissions through their union and many of the dedicated nurses who are actually doing the work are becoming quite disillusioned and they are leaving the Royal Canberra Hospital in large numbers. I trust the Sax report will get to the root of the trouble with the nursing service before it collapses altogether in the Royal Canberra Hospital where the effect seems to be most felt, at present. The Royal Canberra Hospital is the main surgical hospital for Canberra and the future for people who need elective surgery seems very bleak indeed, unless people like you can help or there is some major public reaction. Yours sincerely, BRIAN M. ANDREA. BMA: jah David McNicol...42-44 Corinna Street, M.B., B.S., M.Sc., F.R.A.C.S....Phillip Orthopaedic Surgeon...P.O. Box 350 Woden, A.C.T. 2606 Phone (062) 82 4044 21st February, 1986 Ms. R. Kelly (MHR), 1st Floor, Bonner House, Woden, A.C.T. 2606 Dear Ms. Kelly, Further to my telephone conversation with you late last night (Thursday, 20th February, 1986) I am writing to confirm that- (1) The decision to cancel a patient from my operating list on the 28th of February, 1986 was a decision of the Royal Canberra Hospital and therefore ultimately the A.C.T. Health Authority. (2) The decision to cancel Adam Collins was made in consultation with the Clinical Medical Superintendent Dr. David Dumbrell and was not made in isolation by myself. I had in fact contacted the Clinical Superintendent to protest against any cancellations from that operating list. (3) Both children on that list were from uninsured families and as such were Medicare or Hospital Service Patients. I have not in the past made any distinction between the insured or uninsured in my surgical practice. (4) I am happy to put on the table for public scrutiny my contribution to the Public Hospital System and therefore the A.C.T. community over the last five or six years. I do not believe my contribution would differ significantly from that of my other medical colleagues. It would I believe compare with any contribution that you may have made to the welfare of this community. I am deeply concerned that you were prepared to go into the Parliament and name me without having first talked to me to ascertain the facts. If I had not contacted you, then you may well have made comments which were inaccurate and may well have impugned my professional reputation. I am conscious of the fact that I am the National Secretary of the Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons as well as being a Federal Councillor of the Australian Association of Surgeons. I also serve as a Council member on the Council of the Capital Territory Group of the Australian Medical Association. In these positions particularly those of a National status I am obliged to represent the views and interests of those procedural specialists in Australia who have elected me. I have been and will continue to be publicly critical of Government deficiencies in the health care area. I trust that in public debate you and your political colleagues will be able to make the distinction between my role as a national medical representative and as a local practicing surgeon. I would regard attempts to impugn my professional integrity and smear me personally as being a sign of intellectual barrenness and a lack of willingness by Government and Government instrumentalities to remain accountable to the Australian public. Yours faithfully, DAVID McNICOL Royal Canberra Hospital Acton, A.C.T. 2601 Telephone: 43 2111 Telegrams CAHOS Telex AA62509 Howard J. Peak, (Director)...Cardiology Unit M.B., B.S., F.R.A.C.P., F.A.C.C., D.D.U....Telephone: 43 2443 43 2164 Ian M. Jeffery M.B., B.S., M.R.C.P.(U.K.), F.R.A.C.P., D.D.U....4th March 1986 Mr J. Bissett, Chairman, ACT Health Authority P.O. Box 825 CANBERRA CITY Dear John, Further to my letter of 28th February 1986, the situation is becoming quite desperate at Canberra Hospital with regard to admissions. Because of closure of beds patients are having to stay longer in coronary care and patients arriving in casualty find that coronary care is filled in spite of having to overflow into the extra beds in the three single rooms on 1B, and yet the staff in the coronary care area are being blamed for utilising these rooms. I ask what on earth the alternatives are when there are patients in casualty who need to come into hospital with acute chest pain, and there are no beds in the wards for other patients to be moved out of, because they are sitting around in coronary care waiting to be moved up to the wards. I think it is about time that we decided that Canberra Hospital can no longer function in its present capabilities, and should close its doors to all admissions with an appropriate sign placed outside that this hospital can no longer function. It is stupid to beat about the bush and for patients to be used as meat in the sandwich. It is about time that the desperate situation at Canberra Hospital is made public, and we cease the pretense at being a major hospital. I fully realise that some people have feelings about the closure of Canberra Hospital, and centralisation at Woden, but clearly Canberra Hospital must continue as it is at the moment, but we cannot put patients into hospital. My surgical colleagues are under even more dire restrictions than physicians and clearly this cannot continue. c.c. Dr P. McCann...Yours sincerely, Sister J. Wellings...Howard J. Peak Mrs D. Coleman Dr P. Hughes Senator LEWIS —I thank the Senate. I am running out of time so I will leave it to my colleague Senator Reid to develop this point about the health care services in the Australian Capital Territory. These letters and the letter of Dr Long, which I incorporated earlier in my speech, confirm this statement in the letter of Dr V. M. Goldrick: We have regressed 30 years in the last twelve months. I could give the sort of detail that I have provided on those points about each of the other points listed in my notice of motion, but because I am running out of time I will pick up just some quick examples. The fourth point reads: 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 is given to community representations. A Bill has been languishing in the Parliament since May 1985, the purpose of which is `to modernise the structure of the Commission'-whatever that means; how one modernises a statutory authority I do not know-`and make it more accountable and responsible to the Government and to the ACT community'. That Bill has been languishing there since May last year. It largely ignores the report of the White Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission, which was tabled on 21 September 1983. The NCDC is not publicly seen as being responsive to the Australian Capital Territory community. This Government's actions in regard to it have been largely cosmetic and pandering to minority groups. On the question of housing loans, the maladministration of the Australian Capital Territory housing loans scheme resulted in the scheme running out of funds in the first month of the last financial year. Then there was the disgraceful passing of the buck by the then Minister for Territories, Mr Uren, on to his public servants. Wyuna Community Ltd-I do not have to say any more, other than to mention the name of that effort. The low cost housing and mobile homes problems have arisen in the Australian Capital Territory because of the failure of this Government to encourage private enterprise to provide low cost housing for rental and its failure to develop a site for mobile homes. On the question of car parking in Civic, there are letters to the editor every day about the problems of car parking in Civic. The problem of duplication is mentioned in the report of the Vinson Review of Australian Capital Territory Health and Welfare Services. That report reveals a lack of co-ordination between the Department of Health and the Department of Territories in the provision of social welfare services. As a consequence there is a substantial degree of overlapping in the provision of services. The Vinson report has now been buried. I have already mentioned the White report, which is languishing in the Parliament. On the question of the cost effectiveness, the Vinson report, although in my view not a very well written report, reveals the inefficiencies and duplications between departments and highlights the failure to examine alternatives on a cost-effective basis. I believe that Canberra has the talented and dedicated senior public servants it needs to provide the information and recommendations that would eliminate this waste and duplication, if the Minister and this Government would allow them to do so and would allow some private enterprise activities to move into the system. I acknowledge that one of the major problems in the Australian Capital Territory is that it is run by the Trades and Labour Council, the unions and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. Those organisations make most of the decisions in this town; not the Minister or the Government. Indeed, this Minister and this Government are unable to do anything in this town without first getting the approval of the union movement, as was clearly demonstrated in regard to Radford College on the northern side. I give the Senate the example of the cartel that has been established by the unions in the Australian Capital Territory which limits to 68 the number of concrete agitator trucks which are allowed to pour the massive amounts of concrete required in the Australian Capital Territory this year. That cartel is enabling drivers to gross in excess of $110,000 per annum each, at least. This Government is hopelessly unable to do any- thing at all about it. Another example is the lengthy picketing of a foreign embassy by the Trades and Labour Council, contrary to the Vienna Convention, and the related matter of the failure of this Government to remove illegally erected buildings from public land. Senator Button —Not true. Senator LEWIS —The Government has not yet removed those buildings from that public land. The Government did not do anything about it for six months. It threw the Aborigines off when they put up their tent city here, but it did not do anything about this matter because the buildings were established by the TLC, and they stayed there for six or eight months. This Government can do nothing about it. This Government simply responds to the pressures of the moment, and that alone is maladministration. The evidence of maladministration is overwhelming. It is clear that the Government simply wants to dump this mess into the laps of the people of the Australian Capital Territory with a miserable apology for self-government for them. I rest my case. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(8.58) —Senator Lewis's notice of motion lists some 15 items relating to the administration of the Australian Capital Territory by this Government and the problems faced by the community. As Senator Lewis has already indicated, there are other matters which were not included. The debate tonight could not do otherwise than deal specifically with the problems and crises that now exist in the health services in the Australian Capital Territory. It has now reached a crisis point and nobody can really ignore what is happening to the sick people of Canberra, those who need help and who are in a position where they are least able to help themselves or speak for themselves. On 12 February I asked a question about health services in the Australian Capital Territory. When I did so the Minister representing the Minister for Health (Senator Grimes) answered by indicating that really health services in the Australian Capital Territory were no worse than in the rest of Australia. Having looked a little further into that to see whether perhaps we were being unreasonable, I find that health services are bad in the rest of Australia, but to say that they are no worse here than in the rest of Australia really does not do anything for us at all. One reads of cases in New South Wales where relatives are being asked to assist with patients in hospital care because of a lack of nursing staff. There was a report recently of a hospital in Essendon in Victoria which, although it has been open for about four years, has not yet received a patient. One would have thought that that was a joke if it had not been found to be true. At the same time, of course, one learns that in Victoria there are about 25,000 people on waiting lists requiring surgery, and nationally this list is said to comprise over 50,000 people. The Government will try to explain that away at present by saying that people are now asked to put their names on lists so that numbers are known. It does not really matter whether one keeps waiting lists or whether one does not. The number of people in need of surgery are exactly the same. But what we know is that the numbers are growing and the service is shrinking. What has happened to our health system and where are we going? They are questions that must be answered. In Canberra, at the Woden Valley Hospital, the waiting list is now about 32 weeks and at Royal Canberra Hospital it is 12 weeks. There are 2,300 people awaiting surgery. I want honourable senators to think about the frustration of the families of those people as they await surgery and are constantly delayed. Over the last two years there have been constant delays. Surgery lists have been cancelled and people have been told that they will be admitted to hospital next week. They make all the necessary arrangements with their families and their employers. In many instances, of course, they arrange for a relative to come to Canberra to look after the family while they are in hospital and then they are told at the very last minute that the surgery has been put off. They are not even told, of course, that it has been put off to a particular time. It is just cancelled and they wait and wait. People suffer frustration and anguish. It is said, of course, that emergency surgery goes ahead, but that is few and far between. The fact is that there are 2,300 people awaiting surgery at present. I guess none of them would think it was elective surgery that can wait indefinitely. They want to get on with living their lives and organise themselves so that they know what is happening. A young man came to see me recently who was to have been admitted to hospital for what was about the tenth in a series of operations which he had required from the time he was about 10 years old. He attended the hospital on 12 November when he was told he was to be admitted, but that was in the midst of the nurses strike. He got there at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and sat there until 4.30, waiting to be admitted. At 4.30 he was informed that the nurses were going on strike, the operation could not proceed and he could not be admitted to the hospital. Even at that time he had been waiting to be admitted for some weeks. It was an operation on his head. I am sure honourable senators can imagine at least a little how he must have felt on hearing that news. As it was, he was suffering from headaches and discomfort. Finally, I am glad to say, he was able to have the operation on 4 February. But he should not have had to face that situation. It will be interesting to look at the operating time of the theatres in the two Canberra hospitals over the last six or eight months. Frequently less than the full numbers of theatres are operating. Mostly the theatres are not all operating and on two occasions, I believe, only one theatre was available, and that for emergency cases only. I am dealing, of course, specifically with the impact on patients and those who are sick. But one could make the observation in passing that if the theatres are not operating, the surgeons and anaesthetists are suffering as well and that is a significant aspect in regard to employment, especially as there is an agreement between the doctors and the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority that the doctors will have access to theatres. I suggest that the Health Authority is not adhering to that part of the agreement. But we did have a nurses strike for two weeks last November. The Government then, I suppose, decided that there must be something wrong and they asked Dr Sax to inquire into the matter. It is worth reviewing some of the things that Dr Sax said as a result of his inquiry. Those who had family in hospital know what the problems are. The nurses know what the problems are. But it was necessary for a report to be provided. We hope that the Government will now appreciate what the problems are and will act upon them. Dr Sax stated in his report: Nurses were tense, edgy, and rushing around. He called then for more nurses. In today's paper we see that he has again referred to the need for 113 nurses. The report stated: Efficient admission and discharge policies are essential for the smooth operation of modern hospitals. The implementation of such policies and of work load monitoring procedures is strongly recommended. The proportion of registered nurses on each ward should be progressively raised. An adequate pool of permanent relieving staff would reduce the necessity to deplete the small groups of core staff by redeployment. There is a serious lack of morale and job satisfaction, and high levels of stress among ACT nurses. Resignation rates, sick leave and absenteeism increase as staff morale falls. Failure to resolve the root causes of dissatisfaction will have serious implications for health care delivery in the ACT. Evidence taken from both nursing and medical personnel indicates inadequate levels of skilled nursing staff to match work loads. Meanwhile, it would be reasonable to anticipate that increasing demands will be made on existing services, and that a start should be made on the expansion of the qualified nursing workforce by adding 20 registered nurses each month for three months. They are just some of the comments made by Dr Sax in his report. The sorts of things that led him to this conclusion also need to be looked at. He stated: Both hospitals are said by resident medical officers to have insufficient nurses in real numbers and in terms of skill mix to the extent that even basic nursing observations were being omitted. There are insufficient trained staff to handle more than one complicated delivery with foetal distress at any one time. The obstetricians at this hospital are concerned about litigation arising out of unsafe care due to inadequate numbers of nurses. There has been an increase in nosocomial infection because of a lack of experienced staff on the wards. There is no time for proper communication between nurses and patients and relatives; nurses even get resentful when they are asked questions. That is because of the pressure they are under in the wards. In regard to another area he stated: Mothers with breast feeding problems are getting little help. Babies for whom hourly feeds have been ordered may be fed two or three-hourly. That is the state of our hospital system. It is not because the hospitals are overcrowded. There are spare beds in both of the hospitals. In fact, the occupancy rate has dropped over the last 12 months. The problem is not restricted only to that area. Several weeks ago I raised in the Senate the delays in the Coroners Court and the distress that this was causing the surviving relatives of the deceased who were awaiting coronial inquiries. I suggested that the Minister should see whether the courts were under pressure and not able to cope or whether the delays were in the area of the police investigation, because we have had problems with police staffing. The answer was that the problem arose in the health area, in getting pathology reports from the Woden Valley Hospital. It is very apparent that the pathology section of the Woden Valley Hospital has not had adequate staff to do the work that it is required to do for the living-for the patients who are in the hospitals, and for this work in the coronial area. I guess that in this area one puts off what has to be done. That does not help those, of course, who are bereaved and who are awaiting the coroner's report. There have been reports of the oncology unit not operating as it should because of a lack of staff. People who are suffering from cancer and need the services of that unit find it distressing to be delayed or to have to wait for their treatment during periods when the unit is closed. I think they suffer enough stress knowing that they need treatment for cancer without feeling that they have to wait for reasons that are totally unjustified. I want to refer to some of the things that have occurred. Senator Lewis has had incorporated in Hansard a letter from a doctor which states: In the last two weeks alone I have had an 86 year old lady with a second deep vein calf thrombosis sit in Casualty for 7 hours (after I foolishly believed that I had organised a bed) and a 76 year old lie vomiting for a week at home `waiting for a bed'. There are many more tales to tell. She goes on to say: The poor, the elderly and the chronically ill are suffering as never before in the history of the State. I have another letter which was written by the daughter of an elderly woman to the Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. The daughter refers to her mother who had collapsed at home on 18 January 1986 and was taken to the Royal Canberra Hospital. The letter outlines the story of what went on that day at the hospital. The letter states that the mother had collapsed several times before arriving at the hospital. She was told at the hospital that she would have to wait for a trolley. When the daughter arrived at the hospital at about 7 p.m. the mother was told to stand up to have her blood pressure taken. Apparently the doctor suggested that if she was able to stand up he could discharge her. The story about what happened to this elderly woman during that evening goes on and on. The letter states: Finally, after seven hours of persecution my Mother was admitted. The letter goes on to ask some questions. It is not satisfactory but it is pleasing to note that the Health Authority did take the complaint seriously. A letter dated 27 February 1986 from the Chairman of the Authority, Mr Bissett, to the daughter of the woman concerned admits that there problems at the hospital. He says, in part: The facts and the events you have complained about do not reflect well on the Authority and they certainly do not represent an acceptable standard of patient care that the community is entitled to expect from what is and should be an excellent public hospital system in the ACT. He goes on later to say: I have been advised that the level of nursing staff available on the evening concerned was a factor in the delay in admitting your Mother to the ward. To his credit, Mr Bissett has in fact disclosed what did occur. That was of little benefit, of course, to the patient who was suffering at the time. There is another report of a woman who was concerned that her 89-year-old father was not being fed properly during the nurses' strike. She said that the nurses who were on duty were doing their very best to look after patients and she had no criticism of them. But this elderly man was not able to look after himself and she was concerned for his welfare. There was a report on the front page of the Canberra Times of 20 February 1986 about a little six-year-old, Adam Collins. The report states: Adam Collins lies bent backwards and in motionless sleep on the lounge room floor. The report also stated: Adam's tortured muscles have strained further and further back-`he is bent backwards like a banana'-and, about three months ago, his hip pulled out of its socket. He needs an operation to fix the hip and free the muscles.' `He is in constant pain . . . It is so bad that he has fits.' The fact is that Adam was to have gone into hospital the next day but the surgery was cancelled. They tried to explain this away by suggesting that it was his doctor who made the decision as to whether he would receive the operation or not. In a sense, I suppose, that might almost be said to be the case. But this is not so when we understand that the doctor had had his surgery time cut dramatically. The doctor was left in the invidious position of making a decision as to whom he would operate on. In consultation with other doctors, the decision was made that there was another patient, in even greater need than Adam, who should have surgery. I am sure that if one read about the case of Adam Collins one would agree that his position was also urgent and it was not the doctor's fault that surgery was deferred. It was the hospital system that precluded that little boy from having his operation at the time that he needed it. There are other letters. I have one from the Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority apologising to a woman whose mother had died in hospital after she wrote and complained about the problem. He agreed again that what had happened was not an acceptable standard of health care. Mr Acting Deputy President, I am sorry to have to tell you that I could go on all night telling you stories of what has occurred to sick people in this city, people who have had their lives disrupted by not being able to get treatment when they needed it. It is quite clear that more nurses are needed in our hospitals and a great deal of investigation is needed to be carried out to see that the hospitals provide the service that people expect of them. We are not asking for anything new; we just want a return to the standards that we have had in the past. I also want to refer to the problem of the frail aged in our community and the nursing home situation. I have spoken of this matter before in the Senate but the problem has not gone away. I think that the first time I raised the question of the needs of the frail aged about 120 people who had been classified as being in need of a nursing home bed did not have that facility. The number is now about 186. I heard on the radio this week that there were to be another 60 nursing home beds in Canberra-40 at Mirinjani and 20 at Kankinya. However, I have seen no Press release to substantiate this. At this stage I can only say that I hope it is correct that approval has been given for those extra beds. Of course, that is not of great consolation at present for those 180 people who are in need right now. I would remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it does not seem to include the nursing home bed at Morling Lodge that has been empty now for a very long time. I would like to remind the Senate of the story about that nursing home bed. When Morling Lodge was extended, for some reason or other the building contained one more bed than had been approved when it was completed. At first the department apparently said that the bed could be occupied. Then it was discovered that the bed should not have been there and the nursing home was told to get the patient out. Of course, the nursing home had to wait for someone to die before that could occur. That bed has remained empty and that is something that I find beyond belief. I hope that that bed will be occupied as well. One might think that one bed might not make all that much difference but it certainly would to the person who would have the opportunity to use it. There are now close to 200 people assessed and waiting for nursing home beds. These are people whose families no doubt look after them as best they can. However, those families do not have the skills necessary to care properly for people who have reached the stage of being frail aged and not able to look after themselves. There are problems with the patient-staff ratio in nursing homes and there is difficulty in recruiting staff into the geriatric care areas. The formula for staffing in the hospitals in Canberra does not really seem to help. The hospitals have a six-week roster of nurses who circulate between hospitals and nursing homes. Some nurses prefer geriatric nursing and would like to be permanently on the nursing home roster but are not allowed to be. Again, that seems to me to be an administrative arrangement which falls short of providing the sort of care that would be best for those in nursing homes. There is no place in Canberra where anyone who has been in hospital can go to convalesce. As a consequence, some patients go home much earlier than they ought to after they have had surgery or have been in hospital. In some instances people stay on in hospital much longer than they would have to if they were able to go to a place to convalesce where the nursing care that is required is much less than it is while they are in hospital. If we had some place for people to convalesce this would mean that more beds would be available in hospitals to be used by some of the 2,300 people who are awaiting them. The same thing applies to respite care. Many people being cared for at home by their families ought to be able to go somewhere for a couple of weeks every now and again so that the family can have holidays or go away, but that sort of care is not available in Canberra. If it becomes a real crisis the only place for them is hospital, again taking up resources which need not be used for that person. Frequently old people are not sick; they may need a great deal of care and support but it is not necessarily specialised nursing care. In this area it is also useful to go back to the Sax report, which states: Great difficulty has been experienced in matching staff levels to workloads in accordance with the agreed formula. As a result, admissions have not been taken for prolonged periods. Even when resident numbers drop to match available staff levels and admissions are taken again, situations not infrequently arise when the nursing staff level available drops a few days later and dissatisfaction among the nurses on duty quickly reappears. The refusal of admissions is not a satisfactory way of balancing workloads and available staff. Basic causes of the staffing problem should be addressed. By refusing admissions, not only are severely disabled persons and their carers made to suffer, but increased strain is imposed on community nursing services, and long-stay patients accumulate in the hospitals. During the course of the inquiry there were between 36 and 40 chronically disabled nursing home patients who had been occupying hospital beds for long periods. For them, hospital care is inappropriate, and for the hospital, they are occupying accommodation that could be put to more appropriate use. Dr Sax, I think, knows exactly what is wrong with the system and what needs to be done to correct it. I certainly understand the difficulties faced by staff in our hospitals and nursing homes. Some flexibility needs to be brought into the system and we need to remember that we are dealing with aged people who, though not necessarily sick, are definitely in need of care. Dr Sax referred to the problems with the recruitment of staff in the geriatric area-I too have referred to them-and went on to suggest some possible solutions. I hope that the Government is examining these closely because they warrant examination. Amongst the solutions suggested are: The establishment of basic programs in the care of those with chronic disease and disability; a change in the orientation of the nursing homes towards their inclusion in a broad program involving day care and community care as well as institutional services; a change in community attitudes towards nurses' work, which they would welcome; the provision of child care facilities for use at least by those on morning and evening shifts; an assurance of adequate and regular relief staff, if necessary by the establishment of an independent relief pool for the nursing homes; and sufficient assurance that nurses be able to take the study leave to which they may be entitled. He also suggested the sale of nursing homes to run them differently. There is, of course, in Canberra the problem of the formula under which the number of nursing home beds are made available. I have referred to that in the Senate previously and to the need for that formula to be reviewed. It seems to me quite absurd to suggest that those who are in receipt of the domiciliary nursing care benefit should have an impact on the number in frail aged beds. I recommend to the Government that the formula be reviewed. The problem is the same in the area of mental health. We have a new ordinance. Patients from the Australian Capital Territory can no longer go to Kenmore. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The time for General Business has expired. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debated adjourned. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debated adjourned. Senator AULICH(Tasmania) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That the following amendment be made to the Resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, viz.: Paragraph (12), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: `(12) That the Committee report by 30 April 1986.'. (2) That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by Message requesting its concurrence in the Resolution. Consideration resumed. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Durack has moved an amendment to clause 16. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F.Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C.Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Missen, A. J.Carrick, Sir John Puplick. C. J. G.Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Short, J. R.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W.Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Mason. C. V. J.Colston, M. A. Morris, J.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K.Evans, Gareth Siddons, J. R.Georges, G. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. Chaney, F. M. Grimes, D. J.Parer, W. R. Foreman, D. J.Teague, B. C. Coleman, R. N.Townley, M. Button, J. N. (Senator Robertson did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Peter Rae) Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That clause 16 stand as printed. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.34) —Earlier today in the discussion on clause 16 I made the point that members of all parties had received submissions in relation to section 46 of the principal Act and the concern expressed by organisations such as the Law Council of Australia in its media Press release of 11 February 1986 that proposed new section 46 (7) should make it clear that predatory purpose-- Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: We have just voted on a motion to delete proposed new section 46 (7) and now we are embarking on another debate in relation to it. The CHAIRMAN —The question before the Chair is: That clause 16 stand as printed. The Committee has voted to reject the deletion of clause 16 (b), but it is in order for the Committee to discuss clause 16 as a whole. Senator SHORT —I am foreshadowing an amendment to add words at the conclusion of clause 16 (b). Senator Gareth Evans —I seek clarification. I take it that it is not in order for Senator Short, in pursuing whatever course he now proposes, to canvass matters relating to the content of proposed new section 46 (7) since we have just voted expressly on that issue. To do so would be to make nonsense of the proceedings. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Durack's amendment that clause 16 (b) be left out was defeated. It is now perfectly in order to move amendments to clause 16 (b) but not to move that it be left out entirely. Senator SHORT —I propose to move an amendment to existing clause 16 (b). It is along the lines I foreshadowed in our earlier discussion today, when I pointed out that all parties had received submissions from a wide range of community groups concerned about the wording of proposed new section 46 (7) to the effect that the Act should make it clear that predatory purpose can be inferred only from conduct inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conclusion. The Minister in his response to the point I made earlier today said-this is not literal-that he acknowledged the point I was making and did not disagree with it but that he did not think it was necessary to go further in terms of the actual wording of the clause. I shall move an amendment to the clause as drafted to add to clause 16 (b), in other words, proposed new section 46 (7), additional words. I therefore move: Page 7, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 46 (7), at end of sub-section add: `, provided that that purpose may only be inferred from conduct inconsistent with reasonable alternative conclusions.' The CHAIRMAN —Order! I will make the situation quite clear: The Committee has voted to retain the words in existing clause 16 (b), proposed new sub-clause (7). It is in order to propose additions to that clause but it would not be in order to propose to delete any words. Senator SHORT —I have proposed an addition to the existing words. I am not suggesting any deletion or amendment of the existing words. I have moved this motion on behalf of the Opposition, fortified by the clear statement Senator Gareth Evans gave me on behalf of the Government earlier today in response to a specific request from me that nothing in the proposed new section is intended to affect normal, vigorous competition and that it is intended to protect competition, not individual competitors. It follows logically from acceptance of that proposition and from Senator Gareth Evans's acknowledgement of the point about predatory purpose to which I earlier referred, that it would be acceptable to add the words I have proposed because they do nothing other than to make legislatively clear the clarification and assurance Senator Gareth Evans gave me earlier today. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.40) —I would appreciate a copy of that text in front of me as soon as possible, but from what I have understood from Senator Short's description of his amendment, I find it unacceptable to the Government because it takes the whole process a step further in the restrictions that it now imposes than is the case under the existing common law rules. The common law allows a court to draw inferences from an objective conduct as distinct from drawing inferences or conclusions only from direct evidence of subjective intent. I repeat that the common law allows inferences to be drawn from objective evidence of conduct. Senator Short's amendment would say that the only circumstance in which inferences can be drawn from objective conduct is when that objective conduct is in turn susceptible of only one possible interpretation. To emphasise the contrast again, in common law the court can say this: `The evidence is susceptible of this interpretation, there is a counter claim that is not so susceptible. Weighing and balancing the competing arguments, the force of the evidence and the demeanour of the witnesses and so on, we find on the balance of probabilities that there was a particular predatory intent and that the evidence is sufficient on balance to persuade us that there was that intent. We are prepared on balance to infer that from the objective conduct in question'. Senator Short is seeking to remove the existing capacity of a court to make that sort of finding on balance and to say that the only circumstance in which a court can make a finding in the absence of direct evidence as to direct intent is where the objective evidence is susceptible of only one possible interpretation. I am sorry that that is a fairly complicated response; it is a complicated technical point that we are discussing. However, I think if Senator Short thinks about it he will see that that is so. As I said earlier on, of course I acknowledge that section 46, as is the Act as a whole, is about preserving vigorous competition. I think I also acknowledged earlier that as a practical matter I did not see that a court would be likely to find against a defendant unless the evidence was pretty strongly biased towards a finding of predatory intent and that the objective circumstances were such that the force of that evidence was pretty overwhelming. I did say that. However, Senator Short is trying to take that one step further and actually deny the capacity of a court to perform a balancing act in these circumstances, which it is entitled to do as a matter of common law. Senator Short has-no doubt with the best will in the world-taken that one step further than could possibly be accepted if one wanted to preserve some meaning, content and vitality for section 46, as I think we all do, as a protector of small business. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.44) —In response to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), I think that his interpretation of what I am attempting to do is wrong. With respect, I say that he is placing too narrow an interpretation on it. I am not attempting to remove any scope for on-balance judgments. The amendment simply says that if one is to have an inferential situation involving section 46 (7) which the Government is proposing in relation to predatory purpose, that inferential situation can apply only in relation to conduct which is inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conclusion. In other words, if this amendment were not accepted, the conclusion would surely have to be that a predatory purpose can be inferred from a range of reasons other than `reasonable conclusion of an other than predatory nature'. As the Minister said earlier today, that is not the Government's purpose. I do not think I am adding or detracting anything from my understanding of the Minister's earlier comments of what the Government is about in this clause. I am simply trying to make it clear because at the moment there is that difference of interpretation and scope for lack of clarity and confusion in what this clause and its intent are really all about. Amendment negatived. Clause 16 agreed to. Proposed new clause 16a. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(9.48) —I move: (1) Page 7, after clause 16, add the following new clause: `16A. The Principal Act is amended by adding after section 46 the following section: ``Unconscionable conduct ``46A. A corporation that is in a position substantially to control a market for goods or services shall not engage in unconscionable conduct in its dealings with its suppliers, agents or distributors.''.'. I said earlier today when we were originally debating section 46 of the principal Act that we believed that it had quite a significant role to play inasmuch as it extended protection to small businesses and other consumers in a number of ways. The Opposition parties do not seem to accept that fact, but our main concern with it is that it simply does not go far enough. Senator Durack said earlier that he thought the problem with section 46 and the amendment in clause 16 of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 are a classic example of why the whole Bill should have been sent off to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I can only ask, as I think I asked at an earlier stage, what the Opposition parties believe the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee could determine in the couple of months that it would have that reference that the people who came up with the Green Paper could not determine in two years of inquiry. The Green Paper has this to say about section 46, its application and hence its extension through the amendment that we are putting forward: The existing monopolization provision (section 46) relates to corporations in a position substantially to control a market. In the Green Paper the word `control' is underlined and for good reason. The paper continues: Such corporations shall not take advantage of that power for the purpose of eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor, preventing the entry of a person into the market they control or deterring or preventing persons from engaging in competitive conduct. A little later in that particular section it goes on to say: It is also widely accepted that there are many corporations with a substantial degree of market power-but which could not be said to be in `substantial control' of the market-which engage in conduct falling into one or more of the three categories in paragraphs 46 (1) (a) to (c). It finishes by saying: Accordingly this Clause would amend the section to cover predatory conduct by a corporation which has a substantial degree of market power. Again, those last words are underlined. The statement continued: This was an amendment proposed by the Trade Practices Consultative Committee in 1979 and it should be emphasised, as it was by the TPCC, that the amended section would not catch legitimate competitive behaviour. Some paragraphs later it went on: There have been difficulties arising from the term `purpose' in existing section 46. It has introduced a highly subjective element into the operation of the provision. This difficulty is especially the case where it is necessary to prove the mental state of a corporation. The nature of this difficulty has been highlighted by the recent decision in TPC v. Tubemakers of Australia and others. It finishes up by making the point a little later: The words `or that has or is likely to have the effect' would be added to sub-section 46 (1) to give litigants an alternative method of establishing a contravention by proving the effect or likely effect of the corporation's conduct rather than having to establish a predatory purpose. One of the concerns that was expressed to us was that in the form that the amendments to section 46 take in the Bill before us tonight not enough attention has been paid to other areas beyond the very narrow ones that have been specified. An example of this is contained in the letter we received from a group representing the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association-the petrol distributors and agents group-which says in part: According to the explanatory memorandum (p. 20) the meaning of unconscionable conduct is well established by judicial interpretation. However, sub-clauses 5 and 6 in this section make it clear that the unconscionable conduct provision is to apply only to dealings relating to a consumer and not dealings relating to businesses even where one business is well-placed to impose `unconscionable' terms on the other. APADA says that unconscionable conduct should apply to all dealings and not just dealings with a consumer. For example, it cited an instance where a petroleum distributor had been asked by his supplier to take on additional areas of responsibility but at the same time accept a cut in his commission for his whole area. That supplier did not wish to proceed with the arrangement but knew that his commission would be cut if he did not accept. So, to maintain income, he was obliged to agree to the proposal. Had he failed to accept, the supplier would legally have replaced him with another distributor prepared to agree to those terms, draconian as they may have been. Indeed, while this may on the surface appear to be some sort of competitive conduct in the area of price wars and so on between petrol companies, what in effect is happening is that the company is applying some unfair restrictions on the manner in which the dealer, in this case the distributor, can conduct his business. In doing so we would argue that he is engaging in some fairly unconscionable conduct in that regard. If, as Senator Short said earlier, the Liberal Party is in fact a proponent of the viability of small businesses I would suggest that it give serious thought to supporting this amendment. Earlier today Senator Short launched into one of those diatribes that we have become accustomed to from him from time to time attacking various other senators-- Senator Short —Only when strongly provoked. Senator HAINES —I seem to have that effect on Senator Short on an almost daily basis. I assure Senator Short that it is not at all deliberate. Senator Short —That makes it even worse. Senator HAINES —I ask Senator Short to wait until I start to try deliberately to provoke him. Notwithstanding whether he believed he was being provoked by me the fact remained that he did launch into a fairly vehement attack on what he saw as our rejection of the needs and interests of small business. I point out, however, that Senator Short's concerns, the issues that in fact he raised during that diatribe, related more specifically, and certainly more effectively, to large rather than small businesses. If he wants to look at conduct in this chamber directed specifically at assisting small businesses he ought to consider the sorts of proposals that have been before this chamber with regard to things such as the 10 per cent sales tax on wine-which was supported in this place by all Liberal and National Party senators; by the changes to the superannuation tax laws, in the course of which debate Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle described as frivolous an amendment attempting to put a ceiling on the amount below which the superannuation tax laws would not be affected, hence helping a great many small businesses; primary industry levies generally across the board and divorcement in service station ownership. I would suggest that perhaps if Senator Short-- Senator Chipp —He is against small business. He is a joke. Senator HAINES —I suggest that Senator Chipp is distracting Senator Short from listening to my diatribe. Senator Short can listen to Senator Chipp's diatribe later. Senator Short —I am listening to you. Senator HAINES —I wish that Senator Short were more ears than mouth on occasions. Maybe Senator Short will get his score up a little if he supports an amendment which is intended to extend the scope of section 46 so that all dealings, including this sort and additional similar examples-for example, those involving supermarket chains and the smaller supermarket outlets which can be severely disadvantaged by pricing as a result of the practices of the larger wholesale distributors-are included. I ask Senator Short to get his score up by supporting the extension of the effect and effectiveness of section 46, which is our amendment. It will in fact extend effectiveness to pick up the sort of ordinary small business people who we all in this place from time to time express concern for. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.57) — The amendment moved by Senator Haines is not supported by the Government for a number of reasons. Let me articulate them. Firstly, such a provision would create enormous commercial uncertainty. There is simply no guidance as to the boundaries of the concept of unconscionable conduct that she is proposing, particularly in relation to commercial dealings. For example, could a corporation cease dealing with a distributor who was inefficient or a bad credit risk? This is one reason why section 52A is limited, at least initially, to consumer transactions. Secondly, the provision is in no way tied to competition and accordingly is a quite inappropriate provision inserted here in the context of the competition provisions of Part IV. Thirdly, the provision duplicates in an unspecific way what new section 46 covers in a specific and more certain way. It is likely that most unconscionable conduct related in any way to competition would in fact be caught by the proposed strengthened section 46 which we have just adopted. Again, it is the case that the courts may be reluctant to embrace the unconscionable conduct concept in the context of commercial dealings because that context is based on significant disparity, bargaining power and knowledge which are more difficult to demonstrate in dealings between businesses. Another point to make is that a possible consequence of that reluctance is that the court may narrowly interpret the threshold of substantial market power which is used in both provisions, accordingly rendering the attempted strengthening of new section 46 ineffective. A further point is that there is no evidence that such an extension is necessary particularly in light of the proposed substantial strengthening again of section 46. The amended section 46 will enable small business and the Trade Practices Commission to take action against anti-competitive conduct directed against agents, suppliers or distributors. Finally, the point I make is that in some respects section 46 goes further than the proposed section 46A of Senator Haines by not requiring significant disparity in bargaining power or knowledge to be established. In addition, by explicitly setting out the elements of a contravention and providing evidentiary assistance in section 46 (7) to prove those elements section 46 would in most cases be easier to prove. For that whole variety of reasons we urge the chamber to reject Senator Haines's amendment. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.00) —The Opposition does not support this amendment by the Australian Democrats. It is introducing a whole new and extremely vague concept into the trade practices legislation. There is some basis for the Government's proposal-although the Opposition does not like it either-to introduce a test of unconscionable conduct in relation to contracts made between the buyer and seller. With this amendment there will be the introduction of this concept of unconscionable conduct between a corporation and various other people such as suppliers, agents and distributors. It will give a much wider extension of this notion of unconscionable conduct. It will be a whole new ball game for the courts to interpret. It will introduce uncertainties into business transactions, a great many of which will be increasingly burdened by this legislation, as the Opposition has been at pains to point out on a number of occasions. This particular proposal will only add to those burdens and will add to them in a vague and most uncertain fashion. For those reasons, we will oppose the Democrats' proposal. Question put: That the proposed new clause be inserted in the Bill. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K. Haines, J. Siddons, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Jessop D. S. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Baume, Michael Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Knowles, S. C. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis A. W. R. Black, J. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Boswell, R. L. D. McKiernan, J. P. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Missen, A. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, Robert Cooney, B. Reid, M. E. (Teller) Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. Durack, P. D. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R. Evans, GarethTate, M. C. Georges, G. Townley, M. Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E. Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretWatson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.10) —Fresh from that fairly resounding defeat at the hands of an assortment of people who from time to time express cast iron guarantees about their concern and good intentions for small business, I move on-- Senator Gareth Evans —To another resounding defeat. Senator HAINES —Probably to another resounding defeat, but one which the honourable senator is going to look considerably more embarrassed about pushing. I move: (2) Page 7, after new clause 16, insert the following new clause: ``16a. Section 49 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting sub-section (1) and substituting the following sub-section: `(1) A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, discriminate between purchasers or proposed purchasers of goods of like grade and quality in relation to- (a) the prices charged or to be charged for the goods; (b) any discounts, allowances, rebates or credits given or allowed or to be given or allowed in relation to the supply of the goods; (c) the provision or proposed provision of services in respect of the goods; or (d) the making of payments for services provided or to be provided in respect of the goods, if the discrimination is of such magnitude or is of such a recurring or systematic character that it has or is likely to have the effect of lessening competition in a market for goods, being a market in which the corporation supplies, or those purchasers or proposed purchasers supply, goods.'; (b) by omitting from paragraph (2) (a) `to the purchasers; or' and substituting `or are to be supplied to the purchasers or proposed purchasers;'; (c) by inserting after paragraph (2) (b) the following word and paragraph: `; or (c) the purchasers or proposed purchasers who do not or would not receive the benefit of the discrimination are or would be able to purchase goods of like grade and quality from a competitor of the supplier on terms in relation to the matters to which the discrimination relates no less favourable than the terms in relation to those matters available to the purchasers or proposed purchasers who receive or would receive the benefit of the discrimination.'; and (d) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: `(6) In this section, `proposed purchaser', in relation to goods, means a person who has entered into negotiations with respect to the purchase of the goods.'.''. The Green Paper on the Trade Practices Act entitled `Proposals for change', gave considerable attention to section 49 and expressed some considerable concern about the problems of small business in its attempt to compete on reasonably equal terms with larger corporations while not adversely affecting competition. In its report it quoted some statements from the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia Ltd. which in its 1979 submission to the Trade Practices Consultative Committee stated: The discrimination may be of such magnitude in, for instance, a country town, that it seriously jeopardises the existence of a small trader. However, when the discrimination is related to the market place as a whole it becomes insignificant. We must not lose sight of the fact that while across the wide spectrum of the whole market-place the disappearance of an individual small business may appear insignificant, it is not to the people concerned, nor is it to the general concept of competitiveness in the market-place and the need for that competitiveness in the market-place if not only is the small business sector to survive but also if the consumer is to get a decent deal, so to speak, out of the goods and services that are provided. Late last year that same Council approached us on the matter having discovered that the Bill amending the Trade Practices Act, as proposed by the Government, did not, in fact, pick up the long and detailed amendment proposed in the Green Paper. It said to us that we, like a number of other political parties in this place, have indicated that we are in favour of providing adequate protection for small business from unfair competition through amendment of the Trade Practices Act. The Council went on to point out what we did, indeed, already know, namely: . . . the Government has proposed a range of amendments most of which we- that is COSBOA- agree with . . . It conceded that the amendment of section 46 may be of some assistance to small business in some special circumstances. I would have liked Senator Short to be here, but I am sure that with his usual vigilance he will read Hansard tomorrow and discover that no less an organisation than COSBOA believed that, while section 46 went some way down the track to providing assistance to small business in some cases, it certainly did not go as far as it would have liked or groups such as the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association would have liked, and which, in fact, would have been picked up by our amendment notwithstanding the uncharitable comments that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) had to make about it. The Council went on to make the following point: . . . the fundamental need for protection of small business is a strengthening of section 49, Price Discrimination- Notwithstanding that, as I have already indicated, section 46 does provide some additional assistance to small business and would have provided more if reason had prevailed in this chamber, which it rarely does. Nonetheless, additional changes needed to be made to section 49, specifically because it affects price discrimination. The Council stated: . . . this is an area which on prima facie evidence is widely exploited by large interests to vary the market situation at the expense of small firms, which are in practice unable to make use of section 49, despite its underlying intent. There has been only one successful case under 49 in the history of the Act and that had special features. The fact that there have been no others indicates just how unusable the present legislation is. It is unfortunate if there is a piece of legislation which purports to protect small business in some area and the lack of successful court cases under it indicates that in fact it is not as useful as it was apparently intended to be. The letter continues: Amendments as proposed in the Government's Green Paper would have gone at least some way towards correcting the current bias in favour of big business but as you may be aware the Government reneged on its 1983 election commitment to strengthen section 49 in the face of the anticipated pressure from big interests and in the Bill now before Parliament have left 49 unchanged. That is the nub of the matter. When it comes to a disagreement between big business in this country and small business, not only does the Australian Labor Government renege on its promises and, indeed, renege on what was a well argued case for amendment to section 49 in the Green Paper, a recommendation that followed some two years of inquiry into the matter, but so do the Opposition parties which, when it comes to the crunch, will take the side of big business against small business every time. I will just read again the paragraph from the letter that is pertinent to this matter. It states: . . . the fundamental need for protection of small business is a strengthening of section 49, Price Discrimination, as this is an area which on prima facie evidence is widely exploited by large interests to vary the market situation at the expense of small firms. It is a case of whoever is biggest wins. While as the Council stated in its submission to the Trade Practices Commission it may be only a small trader in a country town, it nevertheless will have a significant economic effect not only on that trader but also on the market-place in a much wider manner. The amendment we have moved, which is currently before the Chair, is an amendment lifted directly from the Green Paper. If Senator Gareth Evans can get to his feet in a minute and with any conscience at all look me or any other person in the eye in this place and come up with a substantial, believable and credible argument for why the Government will not accept this amendment, I will unhesitatingly withdraw some of the uncharitable comments I have made in the past about the honourable senator's sincerity or lack of sincerity. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.19) —I agree that the argument in favour of section 49 as expressed in the Green Paper of 1984 was a pretty good argument. I was responsible for circulating it in that form, as Senator Haines points out, but as with so many things in this world one learns from experience and from counter argument and from consultation and discussion and by reading submissions that come in. I have been persuaded, along with the rest of my colleagues in the Government, that I was wrong. Senator Chipp —In other words, you got rolled in Cabinet. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, that is not true. Let the record be clear on this. The argument at the end of the day was that section 49 of the Trade Practices Act was almost beyond redemption as an effective working clause on the concept of price discrimination. However much one twisted and stretched the various concepts that made up section 49 and however attractive an exercise it seemed to try to protect small businesses in particular, for which section 49 was originally written, the section was just destined not to work effectively. To the extent it worked effectively, it was likely to have unintended consequences, such as being a deterrence to competition, encouraging price rigidity by suppliers and having a possible backlash effect on at least one category of small businesses, namely, small business manufacturers and suppliers who would have been at risk of actions brought under this. I assure Senator Haines that the conclusion to which I came, after discussions with one of her favourite lobbies-although there is a large cast of them these days-the Law Council of Australia, was that small business interests could be better protected by stiffening up and making more effective proposed section 46. That is exactly what we have done, with co-operation, understanding and thoughtfulness on the part of the Australian Democrats, who understood exactly what we are about in proposed section 46 in the way the Opposition did not. I thank them for the understanding and good sense with which they approached that clause. The view we have reached is that the strengthening of proposed section 46 will better serve those small businesses which are the victims of anti-competitive price discrimination by suppliers possessing substantial market power or by large acquirers who induce price discrimination. The amendment to proposed section 46, as we know, also will provide evidentiary support in proving that a firm has taken advantage of its power for a particular purpose. We know what proposed section 46 is about. We can see now how it can and will operate. The Government and I genuinely believe that is the best way through this, rather than trying to fix up section 49, which regrettably is a labour of Hercules which is unlikely to be brought home successfully. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.22) —I am quite aware that the Law Council of Australia takes a different attitude than we do to section 49 of the Trade Practices Act, as does the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. I am aware that the Law Council's comments on the Green Paper indicated that section 49 should be repealed because it believed, as the Minister so correctly said, that proposed section 46 as amended would do the job properly. However, the Law Council of Australia does not represent a wide cross-section of small business people in the community. In fact, it frequently goes to pains to point out that it does not necessarily even represent the views of lawyers in the community. Because the Law Council of Australia-a group for which I have the greatest respect-argues that proposed section 46 helps small business, that is no justification for wiping any suggestion that perhaps small business could be aided in some other way. I would have thought that the people to talk to would have been the very people who are subject to some of the measures in the market-place. Those people are represented much more accurately by a group such as COSBOA, rather than by a group such as the Law Council of Australia, however well intended and learned it may be, and I acknowledge that in the main it is both of those things. If an organisation which represents small business says `Yes, we can see that proposed section 46 goes some way to providing protection to small businesses, but does not go as far as we want it to, we need extra support in section 49', I think it should be listened to. When that is backed up by a significant argument in something like the Green Paper, I am sorry, Minister, I cannot accept that. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you know what the Council of Small Business advised the Government on this issue? Senator HAINES —No, it does not normally send me copies of its letters to you. Senator Gareth Evans —It advised us in favour of proposed section 46 and could not make up its mind on section 49. Senator HAINES —That sounds rather like the Government, in that case. We have made up our minds on this issue. We believe that we are in agreement with the Council's letter to us, which says that as far as it is concerned proposed section 46 goes some way down the track and section 49, if amended in the way suggested by the Green Paper, would go an additional distance down the track and would protect small businesses as they need to be protected increasingly in the market-place from the increasingly predatory behaviour of big business. Question put: That the proposed new clause be inserted in the Bill. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K. Haines, J. Siddons, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McIntosh, G. D. Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Missen, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Morris, J. Childs, B. K. Puplick, C. J. G. Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R. Devlin, R. Tate, M. C. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Elstob, R. C. Townley, M. Evans, Gareth Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —Order! The question is: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.33) —Honourable senators will recall that today Senator Susan Ryan, in her capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, answered a question relating to the six Indonesians who have arrived at Melville Island off the coast of the Northern Territory-in fact, just a stone's throw from Darwin. In responding to the question from my colleague Senator Teague, I do not believe that Senator Ryan directly answered the question as to whether the Indonesians were detected by coastal surveillance authorities prior to landing at Melville Island. But from the fact that Senator Ryan made no reference to the detection of these people by coastal surveillance, I suspect that they got through unannounced. I do not make this comment as any criticism of the officers involved in coastal surveillance in the north, for they are fettered. As I have said time and time again, the conditions and limitations under which they are presently operating mean that they have little real hope of detecting intruders into Australian waters or airspace. I do not wish to labour the point this evening, but I feel that it must be said that so long as a group of people can turn up on Australian soil undetected we will not be safe from the dangers of drug runners, the introduction of exotic diseases and the smuggling of flora and fauna into and out of Australia. These Indonesians, who are seeking refugee status, came to our shores in a simple single-masted fishing boat. They managed to avoid detection by coast surveillance. Imagine how easy it must be for drug runners who have the advantage of more sophisticated and reliable vessels to avoid detection. Yesterday's Northern Territory News editorial made this point. It stated: A broken down Indonesian prau can land undetected on Melville Island and disembark six Indonesian refugees who are free to roam at will for two days until discovered by chance. As I said before, Melville Island is probably only 15 to 20 minutes flying time from Darwin. In fact, it was not so long ago that there were some trawlers hiding behind Melville Island. The editorial continued: What else is needed to convince the Federal Government of the defencelessness of the north? Former MHR and Defence Minister Sir Jim Killen once said that Australia could not defend Bondi Beach with a troop of boy scouts on a hot Sunday afternoon. That statement just about sums up this country's approach to defence which is based upon the possibility that some unspecified enemy could one day attack the south eastern seaboard where most Australians live. The Northern Territory News quite rightly described that approach as `nonsense'. It continued: The attack, in one way or the other, if it comes at all will be on the undefended and sparsely populated north. And there is nothing there except a badly undermanned Norforce whose task is one of reconnaissance and not of defence anyway, and a few sightless gunboats. We are told that the rapid deployment force would be flown north in case of trouble, but the RDF is a joke. It consists of a couple of infantry battalions and some logistics. It does not have credible artillery support, surface to air missiles or any capacity for sustained action. It is good enough for a hard day's mortar barrage and little else. The RDF is all Australia has, in fact. On paper the Australian Army is made up of nine battalions and supporting arms. In reality the country would be flat out fielding four battalions, not enough to dislodge a determined force of paratroopers at Humpty Doo. Humpty Doo is a security place just outside Darwin. The editorial continued: The new Tindal RAAF base indicates a shift in Australia's defence priorities, but without ground troops to protect it against sabotage or an air drop it could become a costly liability. None of this is new, certainly not to the top brass in the Defence Department who have long been aware of the north's pathetic vulnerability. The Northern Territory News asked: `So why are they not taking remedial action?' The editorial stated that the answer-one that I have so often come up with in this place-was this: The Federal Government has put the knife into defence spending. The idea is that when funds are short the armed forces are expendable but the Arts Council, Commission for the Future, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and umpteen other useless bodies- perhaps they have some use, but I would say that defence has a priority- are not. The Northern Territory News editorial concluded: Australia is a rich vast continent on the periphery of Asia, one of the most turbulent and unstable regions in the world. It will not remain free and sovereign unless Australians show more readiness to defend it. In conclusion, I can only say that I fully concur with the views expressed in this editorial. Again I urge the Federal Government to get its priorities straight. The defence of Australia seems to be the last of its concerns. Yet this Labor Government ran on a slogan of putting Australia first. It is about time that it honoured that commitment. Northern surveillance is sick, flying time has been cut and our coastal surveillance is so depleted that time and time again we are embarrassed by simple craft or drug runners coming up to and through our front door. I have no doubt that we have the right calibre of personnel to do the job. All they require, of course, are the tools to do the job. I wish to raise another matter tonight, a rather sad one. I raise a matter with which many honourable senators will undoubtedly be familiar-that is, the problems and delays which occur in relation to requests by constituents for assistance with immigration matters. I, along with many others, have come to expect that immigration matters will often be drawn out. Sometimes no doubt the delays are caused by the persons seeking entry-through actions such as incorrectly completing applications, et cetera and the necessity for investigations to be conducted within a reasonable time period. However, I believe there are occasions when the delays are not the fault of the person seeking to enter Australia and responsibility rests at the feet of the people dealing with the case. There is a tendency, as I say, to take delays for granted and once the matter is resolved to forget about it. But a case which came to my attention in Darwin recently has demonstrated, I believe, the sorry circumstances which can result from these delays and, perhaps, the poor handling of people-little people-by authority. This case concerned a Mr Allan Nayda, who a number of months ago commenced the process of applying for his sister-in-law, Miss Marlee Thukrua, to come to Australia from Thailand. He obtained papers from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for migrant entry under the family reunion category and sent them to Miss Thukrua. According to Mr Nayda, she went on three occasions to the embassy in Bangkok to lodge the completed papers, but was told on each occasion that they could not be accepted. Finally, the papers were accepted on her fourth attempt. When Mr Nayda was told that the processing of migrant entry would take anything up to six months he then decided to have her apply for a visitors visa. He did this because he was anxious to get her out to Australia as his wife Mala, Miss Thukrua's sister, had been critically ill with heart trouble since December 1984. Mala suffered myocardial infarction-that is, a heart attack-followed by a stroke which left her with dense paralysis down the whole left side of her body. She then suffered a debilitating bowel disease for 7 months, resulting in her becoming exceedingly frail, weak and malnourished. Further illness since December 1985 caused further gross deterioration, profound depression and loss of will to live. Mala had a strong wish to see her sister to keep her company in hospital. It was thought by her family and her doctor that her sister's company might give her more interest in life and help her to recover. Allan Nayda telephoned the migration officer in Bangkok a number of times trying to get the matter resolved. He was requested to send a return air fare, which he arranged through Qantas Airways Ltd. When Marlee went to collect the ticket she was told by Qantas that she could not have it without a visa. Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, on the other hand, said that no visa would be issued without the ticket being presented. Allan Nayda was then told that Marlee would not be able to emigrate but that a visitor's visa would be considered if he signed a guarantee that she would return to Thailand at the end of six months. He said that he would do this in order to expedite her travel to Australia because by then the situation was getting very urgent. During another call to Bangkok to ascertain progress, Allan Hayda, apparently in the heat of the moment, insinuated that the delay was being caused by local staff and that language problems were being caused by interpreters. The migration officer got most upset about these claims and indicated that a cable would be sent to the Darwin office explaining the whole situation but that he would be taking no further action in the case. Mr Nayda, not unnaturally, was concerned about this turn of events and my Darwin office made inquiries regarding the contents of the cable and ascertained the following information. Bangkok claimed that they had interviewed Marlee on 3 March; that her first visit was on 20 February to lodge a visitor's visa application; and that her second visit, on 25 February, was to collect a visa. The embassy claimed that she had never applied for migrant entry and had no wish to do so. The embassy claimed that she indicated that she was coming out to cook, clean and help in the house and that payment for this work would be up to Mr Nayda, the brother-in-law. The embassy said that it could not issue a visa because she was coming to work and that they could not consider migrant entry because she did not wish to emigrate. Allan Nayda denies all of this and says that it results from a misunderstanding caused by language difficulties and that the interpreter was putting words into her mouth. He described Marlee as a simple country girl who could not easily understand. My Darwin office arranged for Mr Nayda to discuss the matter again with Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to try to press for a visitor's visa. He was advised to be totally conciliatory and to indicate that he said things in the heat of the moment because of the stress caused by his frustrations in getting the matter resolved and the stress he was under as a result of his wife's illness. My office also advised him that he should stress that Marlee was coming out only as company for his wife and to aid her recovery. This seemed to work as Immigration and Ethnic Affairs then took the line of supporting the case. With the added support of a letter from Mrs Nayda's doctor indicating how serious was her illness, Darwin Immigration and Ethnic Affairs cabled Bangkok and requested a visitor's visa be issued as soon as possible. Yesterday I was advised that Marlee is to arrive next Tuesday. Sadly, her sister, Mrs Nayda, died on Tuesday night. As I indicated at the outset, delays are regarded as par for the course where immigration matters are concerned. There are some reasons at times for this. While some are readily accepted and understood, others are a little bit more difficult to take. It is my feeling that this is one of those cases where a little bit more willingness to listen to both Mr Nayda and Marlee Thukrua could have seen the matter resolved much earlier, with the result that Mala might have been able to see her sister before she died. Perhaps she may not even have died. While I recognised that the officers of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are dealing with many complex problems, I believe that is all the more reason why every effort should be made to understand what the Department's clients are requesting. It seems here that, because of the language barrier, inordinate delays and misunderstandings allowed this situation to develop unnecessarily. I believe that before officers of any government department dismiss the approaches and requests of people who do not speak English fluently they should give a bit of thought to the potential trauma and injustice which may result. This case is a perfect example of the action or inaction of sometimes insensitive processing and handling, resulting not only in trauma but also in tragedy for one family. I regret that I was unable to help Mala-a little person, an Australian migrant-who died unhappily when perhaps sympathetic treatment may have been a possible remedy. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.45) —I rise tonight to discuss a real problem which is affecting many of the people who are applying for migrant arrangements with Australia. In particular I intend to speak on the Tamil members of our community and Tamils who seek to leave Sri Lanka to come to this country. I wish to show that there have been fine words by our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and by members of the Government but they have not been matched by the actions which have been taken, particularly by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). I also wish to show that Tamils in Sri Lanka and Tamils in Australia who are being threatened with deportation to Sri Lanka are in grave danger because of the failure of the Government to honour its clear understanding of the position in Sri Lanka. Many statements were made by the Foreign Minister and others last year and earlier recognising the tremendous communal problem in Sri Lanka-the tremendous hatreds that have been developed, the deaths, violence, torture and so forth. I wish to quote a statement that was made by Mr Hayden before he went to Sri Lanka. It was important that he should go to that country. In fact, the statement that he made almost caused the cancellation of his trip. On 12 June 1985 Mr Hayden is quoted as saying: There is almost civil war in Sri Lanka between Sinhalese and Tamils. We have a large Sinhalese and Tamil population in Australia and we are concerned about any expressed views on human rights in Sri Lanka. He went to Sri Lanka and expressed similar views. I think his trip was useful. He did not achieve ultimate results but I think it was very important that he made the trip at the time. In effect, what I am saying is that what we have done in Australia so far as migration and the people who are here are concerned does not bear out the Government's fine words. I went to Sri Lanka a short time after Mr Hayden in my capacity as the Deputy Chairman of the Sri Lankan Emergency Committee. My report of the very crucial situation that existed is on the record and has been presented to the Parliament. I brought back to this country suggestions which were brought to my attention by the United States Department of State and others that I felt would have been practical and helpful in trying to resolve that dispute. Unfortunately, from that time one has noticed a declining amount of interest on the part of the Australian Government. It took a month for me to receive an indication that the suggestions that I had brought back informally from the State Department needed to be put in writing, that then the Government would consider them but that it did not like them very much. As I have said, we have had the difficulty that the Government has not stood by the promises that it has made. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard firstly a letter I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 2 September 1985 in my capacity as Chairman of the parliamentary group of Amnesty International and, secondly, the reply written on his behalf by the Hon. Lionel Bowen, then Acting Prime Minister, on 18 October 1985. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA-THE SENATE Office of Senator Alan Missen Senator for Victoria Commonwealth Parliament Offices 400 Flinders Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000 Telephone: 62 2521 2nd September 1985 The Hon. R. J. Hawke, AC, MP Prime Minister Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Prime Minister Re: Position in Sri Lanka Approximately ten days ago I had delivered to you, and all Members of the Federal Parliament, the report which the Amnesty Group has presented relating to work done during the recess. In particular it included a report of mine on my mission to Sri Lanka. Regrettably, it was some 3 1/2 weeks before we heard from the Foreign Minister and he has now indicated a lack of enthusiasm for the various suggestions made by officers in the State Department who asked me to refer them informally to him. Apparently he is not prepared to discuss these matters until they are formally brought to his attention by the USA. My particular reason in writing is that all the information I am receiving indicates that the position is getting worse and worse in Sri Lanka and that ultimately countries of the Commonwealth will no doubt be asked to pick up the bill for a very considerable amount of destruction of lives and property in that sad country. I would hope that at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting there will be a very definite effort made to bring the competing parties to generally negotiate for a settlement. It seems that neither the Tamil nor the Government forces at the moment are prepared to disclose their hand and it could lead to a breakdown of the cease-fire, with worse consequences to follow. I would hope that you will be well briefed on the subject before the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and that Australia will play an active role in trying to promote a settlement so that these various groups can live together in harmony on one island. I will be very happy to discuss this matter with you at any time. Yours sincerely, Alan Missen Senator for Victoria Chairman Parliamentary Group Amnesty International Acting Prime Minister Canberra Senator A. Missen Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Missen Thank you for your letter of 2 September 1985 to the Prime Minister concerning the situation in Sri Lanka. As you may be aware, the Government has on numerous occasions made known to the Government of Sri Lanka its concern over the continuing communal violence in that country and has actively encouraged the Sri Lankan Government to seek a political compromise acceptable to all parties in the dispute. Mr Hayden, during his visit in May, held discussions with President Jayewardene, representatives of the Sri Lanka Tamil communities and the Buddhist clergy on the issue. You will be aware of India's role, particularly since June, in bringing the Sri Lankan Government and Tamil representatives to the negotiating table in an effort to find a political solution to the inter-communal problem. The Government fully supports India's present efforts and welcomes indications that some positive developments may eventuate from these discussions. The Commonwealth as a whole has not been active on the Sri Lanka problem because the Sri Lankans regard it as being a domestic issue and there have been no indications that either Sri Lanka or India would be prepared to accept a Commonwealth role. Australia would of course be willing to assist in any appropriate way should India or Sri Lanka seek our (or Commonwealth) assistance to help resolve the conflict. Yours sincerely, Lionel Bowen Senator MISSEN —In effect I was suggesting, among other things, that the Government, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting which was shortly to be held, take action to improve the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, as indicated in the reply, this was not done. Although the Government expressed its continued interest in the problem of Sri Lanka, unfortunately that opportunity was not taken up. This was demonstrated further to me in the answer to a question I asked on 11 November 1985 and which Senator Button answered on behalf of the Prime Minister. I was asking, in effect, whether the situation in Sri Lanka had been raised by Australia or any other nation at CHOGM and what resolutions had come from it. I received a detailed answer from Senator Button in which he said that the President of Sri Lanka had raised the subject of troubles in the north and east of Sri Lanka and apparently reaffirmed his belief in the democratic principle and great ideals of non-violence and that at CHOGM the Sri Lankan Prime Minister raised privately with our Prime Minister remarks by our Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) comparing the situation in Sri Lanka with that in South Africa. He went on to say: The Prime Minister dissociated the Australian Government from that position adopted by the Leader of the Opposition. At CHOGM all we had was not a raising by us of the real problem but a disassociation by the Prime Minister from remarks of the Leader of the Opposition which clearly were rightly made. I had asked whether any proposals had been made at the meeting for resolution of this escalating unrest. Senator Button in his answer to me went on to say: I am advised that the answer to that question is no. He further said: The answer that I have been provided with is that Australia remains deeply concerned by the continuation of the communal conflicts in Sri Lanka and has actively encouraged the Sri Lankan Government to seek a political compromise. But at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting the Prime Minister and other leaders did not raise this question. Following that chance to raise in an informal way with those leaders of government this problem which worried most of the countries of the Commonwealth, it was disappointing that nothing was done. On 5 December of last year I asked a question of Senator Button, again on behalf of the Prime Minister. In light of this failure, I asked: Firstly, what is the present position of the Australian Government's policy in respect to Sri Lanka, and has it altered its policy and procedure in regard to the admission and protection of Tamil refugees? Secondly, why is the Government now advising many Tamils who were granted refuge in Australia in the years since 1983 to return to Sri Lanka or they will be deported? Thirdly, does the Government consider that it is now safe for them to return to Sri Lanka and, if so, on what grounds was this judgment made? I based that question on specific facts given to me by the Tamil organisations, people who have been in Australia for some time. They were being told that they should go back. In fact the Defence of Refugee Status Committee was even questioning them and saying: `There is no real proof that you as a person may be injured or attacked and therefore we cannot treat you as a class'. That is an absurdity to anyone who knows the position in Sri Lanka and who knows the Tamils in that country are in grave danger at present and were at that time. Senator Button, in his reply, gave an answer which has been used and relied upon by the Tamil community in this country and by people who are seeking to stay here. I regard it as of the greatest seriousness that this undertaking given by Senator Button on behalf of the Prime Minister is not being observed at present. He indicated that the Government remained concerned about the communal problems and then he went on to make this important statement: Following the disturbances, arrangements were made to expedite consideration of Sri Lankan migrant entry cases to Australia and to approve for entry under the special humanitarian program those who were adversely affected by the disturbances-mainly Tamil people. More than 730 persons have been given special visas under the special humanitarian program. Then, very importantly, he added this statement: In addition, temporary entrants to Australia who had fears about returning to Sri Lanka have been permitted to extend their entry permits and they will not be threatened by deportation. That is a very important undertaking. Of course, one would expect it to be observed. It was given by Senator Button on behalf of the Prime Minister. I regret that the intimidation and the attempts to get people out of this country now do not stand four square with that undertaking. There are indeed reasons why people may fear to go back. There are reasons why some 200 members of the Tamil community in Australia came here yesterday. They are concerned with the threat to people-people who will be returned. As I will show, the general result is that those people may be imprisoned and tortured if they go back. Let me give some of the reasons why that fear is quite valid. The Civil Rights Movement of Sri Lanka is a very fine organisation which tries to deal with civil rights matters between the races and since 1971 has been dealing with the cases of people who are ill-treated, put in detention for long periods, tortured and suffer death in custody. These things have gone on and are becoming worse. In a report dated 1 January of this year the Civil Rights Movement of Sri Lanka said: It is in this context that CRM once again voices its concern about a series of arrests of leftists in the South who are being held either under the emergency regulations or the Prevention of Terrorism Act allegedly for `terrorist activities' and for complicity with armed separatists in the North. These persons are being held in various police stations, often under acutely uncomfortable physical conditions and in general, CRM understands, without the right of access to family or lawyers. CRM is aware of at least one instance where the family was not even informed of the prisoner's whereabouts. It went on to say that the number was over 100 already and that these are well known people who were engaged in political life. That is one piece of evidence. Further evidence is the statement which Amnesty International, after investigation of this matter, made in a Press release on 30 December 1985. Amnesty had already released a full report of its investigations of the Sir Lankan situation in the years before. In its Press statement Amnesty International said: Amnesty International today, 30 December 1985, announced that it had called on the Sri Lankan Government to act urgently to stop torture by government forces. It went on to give details of that and then said: Amnesty International amassed and checked the evidence of torture in Sri Lanka in line with its usual practice using sworn affidavits, interviewing torture victims, and examining evidence from a range of sources. medical experts experienced in examining torture victims found evidence consistent with torture allegations in three Sri Lankan witnesses they examined outside the country. Amnesty keeps pressing this fact, which of course the Government denies. The latest information is in a report called Emergency Sri Lanka which I received only today. As Deputy Chairman of the Emergency Committee on Sri Lanka of International Alert, I am pleased that we now have a record which tells us of the worsening situation in that country. The Chairman of that Committee, Dame Judith Hart, was recently in Sri Lanka and India. I quote from the International Alert report: In a press briefing in Geneva on her return from her mission, Dame Judith announced that she had advised President Jayawardene and members of his cabinet of the intention of the International Emergency Committee to advocate the cessation of government aid to Sri Lanka pending a political settlement acceptable to the peoples of Sri Lanka. It would be recommended that a fund be established to assist in the implementation of a peaceful, political solution and the rehabilitation of the economy and the well-being of the Sri Lankan peoples. This report, which I urge honourable senators to read, contains remarks which show that in recent times there has been a colossal destruction of civilian life in the community. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Mannar, Thomas Soundaranayagam, is quoted at page 29 of our report as saying: Sri Lankan forces are conducting a harsh and remorseless campaign among the island's Tamil minority. By means of random murder, indiscriminate trigger-happy soldier keep the Tamils in the north in a state of constant fear. With the vanishing of reason, the fight against Tamil separatist terrorists now has the shrill tones of naked ethnic struggle. The predominantly Sinhalese army seems to have a free hand as it cracks down on the civilian population in the overwhelming Tamil northern province. Likewise, the Civil Rights Movement of Sri Lanka is quoted as saying in its report: Mass arrests of Tamil youth are being carried out. Detainees in the custody of the state have been killed. Some members of the security forces have carried out massive reprisals against the civilian population and, in the course of their operations, have killed many people and caused much damage to private property, burning and destroying homes and farms. I suggest those are reasons why Tamils in this country-some caught here because they were out of their country at the time and others who have come here by one means or another, and who are unable to go back and, as Senator Button has said, will not be forced to go back-are worried about this situation. Indeed, the figures shown to me and the material given to me by the Tamil organisations show that some 376 people have been killed since November alone. Some 6,000 have been killed altogether in the last few years. If one feels that there is some doubt about the situation there is no doubt about it in the eyes of the Department of Foreign Affairs in this country because in the Age of Wednesday, 26 February 1986, the following article headed `Sri Lanka warning' appeared: The Department of Foreign Affairs has advised people going to Sri Lanka to avoid the northern and eastern regions for safety reasons. One should say that those who are Tamils should avoid those areas for more than safety reasons alone. I wrote to Mr Hayden on 17 February this year and suggested that we take up this matter with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights of which we are a member to show that our actions are as strong as our previous words. I do not know whether we have already done so. These events are not accidental. It can be seen that they are the result of a deliberate policy on the part of the Sri Lankan Government. I want to quote from an interview with President Jayewardene that appeared in India Today of 15 December of last year in which he indicated the arrogance of his Government and its determination to use military means to achieve the desired result. With regard to Rajiv Gandhi, who has taken a very important interest in this matter, Mr Jayewardene was asked the following question: Is Rajiv more inclined towards your point of view. Mr Jayewardene gave the following answer: There is only one point of view and that is the Sri Lankan's. It is universal. There is no question of the Tamils having a point of view at all. Later in the interview, Mr Jayewardene went on to say-his statement is a most significant statement because he thought that such an allegation was made by extremists only-that the cease-fire which was arranged last year was for the purpose of enabling the Sri Lankan Government to arm. He was asked the following question: Is it true that the cease-fire is only an attempt to buy time by both your government and the militants. President Jayewardene answered: Yes. We were not ready earlier. Now we are acquiring arms and getting our soldiers trained. We are getting ready for decisive military action if nothing comes out of the negotiations. We will mobilise world opinion and convince others that it is not a racial or ethnic problem but a terrorist problem. Already there is a strong feeling that we should stop all these talks and strike again. To show the extent to which the Sri Lankan Government is planning further destruction of that country, I quote the following question: Are you preparing yourself for the worst? Mr Jayewardene replied: I am not fully prepared to tackle Jaffna. I want to finish first with the other provinces. It is not difficult to handle Jaffna. We can cut off food and supplies to the peninsula and flush out the terrorists in a month's time. But will India support our action? I have shown that the staffing of towns, the use of new supplies of arms from the Russians, the Israelis and other sources and the periods of discussion have been used to strengthen the Government's position. Democracy in Sri Lanka does not exist in any real sense. I refer to recent speeches made by the Indians to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. On 5 March 1986, Dr G. S. Dhillon, leader of the Indian delegation, had this to say about the current situation: The Commission on Human Rights is meeting at a time when the condition of minorities in Sri Lanka has become very precarious. The Commission has in its deliberations in the past shown its concern for the minorities in Sri Lanka. The very serious escalation in violence in the Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka, however, poses a challenge now to all those in this Commission who are concerned about the human rights. It is a shame Australia was not saying this. He went on: There is very clear evidence now emanating that violence directed against the Tamil minorities is indiscriminate and makes no distinction between those engaged in conflict and innocent civilians . . . For us, and for all the friends of Sri Lanka, these are developments that we view with justified disquiet and unease. We ought to recognise that that is the fact. The democracy of Sri Lanka has been described in the following terms, terms which are a fair and accurate description of what people who go back there will expect to face: The reluctance to hold general elections, the banning of the opposition press, the continued reliance on extraordinary powers unknown to a free democracy, arbitrary detention without access to lawyers or relations, torture of detainees on a systematic basis, the intimidation of the judiciary by the executive, disenfranchisement of the opposition, an executive President who holds undated letters of resignation from members of the legislature, an elected President who publicly declares his lack of care for the lives or opinion of a section of his electorate, and the continued subjugation of the Tamil people by a permanent Sinhala majority, within the confines of an unitary constitutional frame, constitute the reality of `democracy', Sri Lankan style. Is this the type of conditions to which we would send these people back? If the Government wants any evidence that people who may be sent back from Australia would suffer, I have a list, which I will only run through, of people who have been sent back by various countries. I refer to a telex received from the Tamil Information Centre in London, dated 3 March 1986. In 1982 the West German Government deported 93 Tamil youths after negotiations and assurances by the Sri Lankan Government that they would not be arrested, but when these youths arrived on a special flight chartered by the West German Government they were all taken into custody. This was reported by the Press and by the people and by members of the foreign Press and Amnesty International who accompanied the 93 Tamil youths on their trip. In November 1984, 30 Tamil youths were deported from Italy suspected of drug involvement. They have disappeared. The Sri Lankan Government does not know where they are but thinks that they might have turned up in Inida. In December 1984 four Tamil youths deported from Italy were arrested on their arrival at the airport. No news of them is available. Several others are said to have gone on various planes but they have not reached their families and homes. Their fates are unknown. On 5 October 1985 a statement by Mr Lalith Atholathmudali, the Security Minister, was reported in a Tamil newspaper, Virakesari, as follows: Tamil refugees deported from Switzerland will be arrested if necessary. There are many other cases where this has happened. What is the situation here in Australia? It is important to realise that these people face considerable danger. Some have been arrested in Melbourne, despite statements by Senator Button. Two youths, Thilagarajah and Gnana-Sivam, are in custody despite Senator Button's statement of 5 December. They are in custody, and have been for many months. They were arrested on 5 December. In February 1986 another visitor, Miss Shan-Mugam, based on Senator Button's statement, asked for her stay to be extended as she was afraid to return to Jaffna as the situation was acute. That request was refused by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister's letter stated that she had said that she would return in her visa application, and that was held against her. Many of the people who are here have been getting letters like the one which went to Mr S. Vettivel, dated 24 January 1986. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS 24 January 1986 Mr S Vettivel 3 Plunket Street HEIDELBERG VIC 3081 Dear Mr Vettivel I refer to your application for an extension of stay in Australia as a visitor. When you applied for your visa at the Australian High Commission at Colombo you signed a declaration that, among other things, you would leave Australia at or before the end of your authorized visit period. The issue of a visitor visa constitutes acceptance that this declaration is made in good faith and will be honoured. There is provision for the grant of an extension of stay but only where special or changed circumstances exist. Your application has been carefully considered but in the absence of circumstances which would warrant an exception to normal visitor policy, I must inform you that it has not been approved. I must also inform you that you do not have the right of appeal to the Immigration Review Panel, which is an independent review body that reports to the Minister. Consequently you are expected to leave Australia by the date of expiry of your current temporary entry permit, that is 25 February 1986. Yours sincerely NINA NIKOLIC-KURZ for Regional Director Senator MISSEN —In this letter it is said that his visa has expired and that he is expected to leave by the date of expiry of his current temporary entry permit-25 February 1986. Many people are in that position and the Department is trying to get them out. Perhaps it will not deport them; perhaps it is just trying to bluff them into going back to their country, which would be an utter disaster for them. Mr Lewis Kent, a Labor member of the House of Representatives, who has taken a very considerable interest in this matter, wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on 10 January giving the names of four important people who have been active in Tamil organisations and who, if they go back to Sri Lanka, will be disastrously treated. The Sri Lankan Government knows of their involvement and, as he said in his letter to the Minister: It is obvious from the above that the four would be subject to political persecution in addition to racial persecution that faces all Tamils in Ceylon. In addition to that I have a letter from Hannah Downie, who is well known in Western Australia for her work in Amnesty International. She says: The issues Amnesty International is particularly concerned with are: 1. Erratic treatment of would-be refugees or change of status applicants who are Tamils. Some have been served with deportation notices (even if these have subsequently been lifted after protest or legal appeals), despite requests by UNHCR and Amnesty International not to refoule Tamils at this time. 2. Long detention periods for those whose papers are irregular, for example two men recently released from Perth Immigration Detention Centre had been in detention 107 days and their situation is still not clear; a further five have been detained in Sydney since November. I have considerable information about the further five in Sydney and I just wish to say this: These are people who came out of their country when the worst riots took place. They came here and within a day they had through Amnesty International told the Government that they were here and that they were seeking refugee status. They said that they dare not go back to Sri Lanka because their names were known to the Sri Lankan Government. These four women and one man have been held in custody since October last year and the Tamil community of this country has given guarantees that they will look after the five if they are released from custody and if they can work while their various appeals are being heard. But they are still being kept there in gaol and to make things even worse they are being billed for very substantial sums because the Government claims that it is costing so much money to keep them in detention. One man has been given a bill for 42 days at $37 a day-a total of $1,554 for the `pleasure' of being kept in detention by this Government. I must say that the Government's attitude, which is exemplified by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who will not see me-I have tried to see him for some months but he will not agree to a meeting-is one of complete hypocrisy. This attitude is completely inconsistent with the declarations that the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister have made in the past. The Government is trying to get these people out of this country by a form of intimidation. I believe it is thought that if we detain them long enough something will change in Sri Lanka. It is clear that nothing will happen in Sri Lanka; I fear that the position there is getting worse. The Sri Lankan Government is mad and does not realise that it is destroying that country in this way. I believe that we in this country should take a strong stand to show that our actions measure up to our words. They have not done so. I expect an answer from the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is at the table tonight. I do not know whether she knows about the matter, but both the Ministers who are concerned have been informed about it and should have provided some answers. I believe this is a disgrace which is besmirching Australia's name. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.14) —The Australian people must be wondering what on earth is happening in Tasmania in that area called Farmhouse Creek. Let me tell honourable senators about it. Farmhouse Creek is a small area in the State Forest and it is designated as a timber production area. It is within the concession of Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd and is 7 1/2 kilometres from the wilderness area, from the South West National Park which I am sure, Mr President, you will have heard of on many occasions in relation to the Franklin dam. The conservationists glibly talk about wilderness areas, national park areas and National Estate areas in one voice as though they were all the same thing. They are very far from the same thing. Today Dr Bob Brown said that the Commonwealth has undoubted power to stop the destruction of the forests south of Farmhouse Creek and in our other heritage areas. Dr Bob Brown, a member of parliament in Tasmania, is talking about Farmhouse Creek as though it were a heritage area. I can assure honourable senators that it is not a heritage area. Today the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, got quite angry about exactly the same thing. I quote a news report which states: Farmhouse Creek in Tasmania was neither a highly sensitive wilderness area nor ranked for World Heritage listing. He told parliament that many statements from conservation groups about the region were not factual. These included claims that it was World Heritage ranked, that it was a wilderness area and that it was a rainforest region. The National Estate value of Farmhouse Creek was based on old growth forest habitat. Mr Kerin pointed out very strongly that Dr Brown was not speaking factually, to put it very politely. The World Heritage area and national parks are very different from the National Estate. They are true wilderness areas and are fully protected. The National Estate is quite different. Anyone can nominate an area for the National Estate. Indeed I can nominate your land, Mr President. Whether it would stick is a totally different matter. But once the decision is made to put it on the National Estate Register the only influence the Commonwealth has is under section 30 of the Act which gives power to the Commonwealth Minister to refuse to issue export licences for materials that have come from that area. The Commonwealth has the power to stop any exports, not domestic products, from National Estate areas. Moreover, there is considerable indirect pressure on any company or any individual whose private property has been put on the National Estate Register because once it is listed the conservationists certainly apply pressure, particularly in such areas as I have mentioned, for it to be included as a wilderness area. We have to bear in mind that 31 per cent of my State is already listed, or has been nominated, for the National Estate. That is nearly a third of my State. How would honourable members like one third of New South Wales to be nominated for the National Estate? It is really quite ridiculous. As I have said, there is a very big difference. According to the report of the Wilderness Society entitled `Wilderness Assessment Management' when all the State forests outside the national parks are logged 4,234 square kilometres of wilderness will still remain in Tasmania. However, that is not enough for the Society; it wants 9,148 square kilometres which is 80 per cent more wilderness than we have at present. These are the Society's figures and are very conservative because they exclude the buffer zones that are around all the wilderness areas. If we let it have its way jobs will certainly be in jeopardy because one in seven Tasmanians who are working have jobs which are tied up with the timber industry. The areas in dispute are mature eucalypt forests. If they are not harvested now they will be lost forever because they are coming to the end of their life. Other trees will take over and the whole forest will change character. Anyone who argues with that just does not know what forestry is all about. The need for top quality logs by sawmillers is paramount in order for them to keep their business viable. They must have access to top quality logs as well as to lower quality logs. They must have top quality logs in sufficient numbers, otherwise the balance of their industry is completely destroyed. Is it any wonder, bearing in mind what I have already said, that tempers are running high when so much of Tasmania has already been set aside for wilderness. I believe the forestry workers have been very restrained. When Dr Bob Brown moved in and lay under the wheels of the excavators he was indeed removed for his own safety. He was pulled out from under the wheels of the excavators, I believe, and tossed in the bushes. He was not hurt. We have a tremendous amount of machinery lying idle down there. For the last week we have had all this heavy machinery lying idle at a cost of $4,500 a day. I ask honourable senators how they would feel if their livelihood were wrapped up in that sort of high cost machinery. It is for that reason that the forestry workers have taken the law into their own hands and moved the conservationists-gently-from under the wheels of their machinery. We had a journalist from the Australian newspaper, Bruce Montgomery, in our area reporting on the situation. As he said, he did not see any punches thrown, although accusations were made later. I am quite sure that all honourable senators would know that if there were any punches thrown journalists would not miss them. They would see them. So I claim that the forestry workers acted in a very restrained manner in the situation. It is for this reason that the State Government has now declared the area out of bounds. Today 31 arrests have been made. We again have the situation we in Tasmania call `rent-a-cono'. We have the rent-a-conservationists down in that park, being arrested and taken to gaol. If they do not promise not to return to the Farmhouse Creek area they will spend some time locked up. Senator Collard —While they are down there they are leaving the Daintree alone. Senator WALTERS —That may be very comfortable for Senator Collard but I would rather they went to Queensland. It has got to the stage where it is not funny. We have men wanting to go about their daily work. We have men with a lot of money in the form of overdrafts tied up in heavy machinery who are not able to use it and not able to work. A whole week has gone by without any work because of these conservationists who, with all the best will in the world, as they see it, believe they have the right to overcome the wishes of the majority of Tasmanians. I say that with great authority because it is only a couple of months ago that the Tasmanian Liberal Government was re-elected with a five per cent increase. The people of Tasmania have spoken very clearly about the way they want to have their forests managed. Yet this small group of, I believe, irresponsible people are down there trying to take the law into their own hands. I am absolutely appalled that this is going on once again. I know that Mr Kerin is concerned. He has already come out today and said that he is very concerned that the conservationists are taking that action. He has said that under his agreement with Mr Gray the bridge across Farmhouse Creek is to be built and that the road is to go through. As he pointed out, that was all allowed for under the agreement. I sincerely hope that the conservationists accept the fact that an agreement has been made between the Commonwealth and the State. Much and all as they may not like it, an agreement has been reached. They are behaving illegally and they must withdraw from that area. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.25) —Tonight I raise a matter which related to the propriety with which I believe honourable senators should behave towards each other even within the parliamentary system. I have some comments to make with respect to some remarks that have been made by Senator Haines. I have informed Senator Haines, through her office, that I intend to do so this evening to give her the opportunity of attending to listen to my remarks. Should she wish to reply to them that opportunity will obviously be available to her. It is possible that she is in her office at the moment listening to the radio and, in the near future, she will come into the Senate. It is equally possible that she has gone home. I can say only that time will tell what is the case. The matter I raise is one of grave concern not only for me as a senator but particularly for me as a senator for South Australia because the remarks that I make obviously relate to another South Australian senator, namely, Senator Haines. I raise this matter this evening apropos of it being raised with me by two of my coalition colleagues. One is Alexander Downer, the honourable member for Mayo-a seat in South Australia-and the other is Peter McGauran, the honourable member for Gippsland. Both of these gentlemen did radio interviews at separate times with Senator Haines on the same subject matter, namely, the package of Bills that are loosely referred to as the human rights Bills. Each of these gentlemen raised with me their concern about remarks made by Senator Haines. I think I can fairly represent their views by saying that they believe that she grossly misrepresented the Opposition's view on the radio. The first interview undertaken with Senator Haines was by Mr Downer. Mr Downer was making some comments with respect to the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and as reported to me, Senator Haines made remarks to the effect that she could not understand why Mr Downer would be making these comments given that the Opposition had allowed the legislation to pass the night before almost without a whimper. Mr Downer, coming from that other place, and this being a radio interview early in the morning, felt somewhat caught out. He could not instantly check up on what had happened the night before and so he let the remark pass but he insisted that he had adequately and appropriately represented the Opposition's view. As I understand it there was no backdown by Senator Haines with respect to the view that she put forward. As luck would have it for the Opposition, Mr Downer pursued this matter and came across Mr MacGauran who was doing an interview with Senator Haines later in the day. Of course, by this time the opportunity had been made available to check exactly what had happened the night before. The same allegation was raised that the Opposition had allowed this legislation to pass without a whimper. I have with me two letters from these gentlemen which are addressed to me. I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard to save the time of reading them to the chamber. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- 13 March 1986 Senator Amanda Vanstone, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Amanda, I am writing to you concerning an incident which occurred during a radio debate between me and Senator Janine Haines which is of very real concern to me. During the debate there was some discussion about the role of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and I spelt out the Opposition's concerns about this body. Senator Haines responded that my protestations were empty because of the night of 11 March the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Bill had been passed by the Senate and the Opposition had not voted against the Bill. I have subsequently discovered that this statement was totally false. The Bill has not been passed by the Senate. I should be grateful if you could raise this incident in the Senate as it is a cause of great concern to me that a Senator should make such grossly dishonest statements. I am sure you will recognise the irony of this falsehood coming from the Deputy Leader of a Party which claims its role is to ``keep the bastards honest''. Yours sincerely, Alexander Downer Member for Mayo 13 March 1986 Senator Amanda Vanstone, Senator for South Australia Room 481 Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Vanstone, You have asked me to confirm in writing my recollection of a particular aspect of a radio debate on the Bill of Rights with Senator Janine Haines, conducted by Radio 3UL Warragul at 11.15 a.m. on Wednesday 12 March 1986. The interviewer, Mr Ron Burke, addressed his first question to Senator Haines. He asked her what was her response to the objections raised to the increased powers given to the Human Rights Commission. During the course of her reply Senator Haines stated that the legislation establishing the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission had been passed by the Senate the previous night and had not been opposed by the Opposition. She then made a comment about how serious the Opposition could be in its concern in regard to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission when it did not speak or vote against it in the Senate. When Mr Burke asked me why the Opposition did not oppose the legislation, I replied that the legislation has not been passed by the Senate and that it was in committee stage with the committee reporting progress the previous night. Further more the Opposition had voted against the legislation at the Second Reading stage and would vote against it at the Third Reading stage. Yours sincerely, PETER McGauran Member for Gippsland Senator VANSTONE —I thank the Senate. My complaints are simply these: Given that that is the case-I have no reason to suspect that it is not the case-Senator Haines has either knowingly or, in complete and utter ignorance, grossly misrepresented the position of the Opposition. I remind honourable senators that, on 19 February, this package of Bills was put to the vote on the second reading. While Senator Haines voted with the ayes the Opposition voted with the noes. I would have thought that anyone making a comment about the Opposition's view would have borne that in mind. I would have thought that someone making that sort of comment would have referred to the contribution that the Opposition made in the Committee stage, but I am informed that that is not the case. Naturally, when a matter such as this is raised, the first thing that we do-it is the first thing that I do and I assume it is the first thing that a number of other people do-is to ask why. Why would someone do this sort of thing? We are not talking of a new senator caught unawares by a snap radio interview; these were planned interviews. We are not talking about a senator who has made an off the cuff remark and who was not familiar with the passage of the Bills. Senator Haines has involved herself quite solidly with the passage of these Bills. We are not talking about someone who does not have access to Hansard to check what was said. So we ask why. The first thing we might ask is: `Was this deliberate?' We have to say: `Surely not, given that the Australian Democrats have as their slogan ``Let's keep the bastards honest'' '. We surely could not instantly come to the conclusion that this was deliberately done. So we move on to another option and ask: `Was it lack of care?'. We would have to say the same thing again: `Surely not, given the Democrats' purported regard for the parliamentary process and given their purported regard for things being done properly, honestly, openly and above board'. We would have to say that Senator Haines could not walk into a radio interview, so ill-prepared as to grossly misrepresent the Opposition's point of view. So the next question we come to is: `If it was not out of deliberate motive and it was not a lack of care, was it out of ignorance?' We would have to say the same thing again: `Surely not. Surely an experienced senator, a deputy leader of her own Party, does not make comments on national radio in ignorance of what has happened the night before'. So I cannot offer the answer as to why this has happened, but I raise the matter and indicate that I am not happy that it has happened, that any senator would do this, least of all a senator for South Australia and least of all one from a party which purports to be the party that will keep the rest of us honest. The facts are that the Opposition voted against the second reading of this Bill, that the Bills are being dealt with as a whole in the Committee stage. To say that we let the Bill pass without a whimper is a gross misrepresentation of our position. It is true that on 11 March at the end of the Committee stage of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill, no division was called. But you, Mr President, and I, and everyone else know that to say, from that, that the Opposition let it pass without a whimper is to grossly misrepresent the situation. Lest it be thought that I am being unfair to Senator Haines let me say that I am aware of the fact that she has privately apologised, but it is my view that for such an indiscretion, deliberate, in ignorance or otherwise, a private apology for such a public misrepresentation on two separate radio stations is simply not adequate. I believe Senator Haines should do the right thing. She should acknowledge her error. I will call it that for want of a better description because, as I said, I cannot decide what the motive is, I cannot choose the appropriate word but I think she should acknowledge her error publicly through the Senate and through a Press statement. I would think that that would be the honest thing to do for a deputy leader of a party that purports to be here to keep the rest of us honest. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(11.33) —A number of matters were raised on the adjournment debate tonight. Senator Kilgariff raised his concerns about the information I gave at Question Time on the six Indonesians who have come into Australia. I gave Senator Kilgariff all the information that was available to me at the time and I will refer his further concerns to the appropriate Minister. Similarly, Senator Missen raised a number of matters concerning immigration and foreign affairs; concerns which I will refer to the appropriate Ministers. Senator Missen —Is that all you have to say? Senator RYAN —Yes, that is all I have to say. I think the honourable senator raised some very detailed matters and I am not in possession of material by which I could give an adequate response. Senator Walters expressed her views about what is happening on an environmental issue in her State of Tasmania. Senator Vanstone, of course, has raised matters which are directed to the Australian Democrats, and it is for them to respond. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.34 p.m.