Thursday, 20 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 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 Chaney (from 16 citizens) and Reid (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: We, citizens of Australia, have gathered in Adelaide on this Thursday 6 March 1986 to ask the Senate to uphold the freedoms we already enjoy and not to limit them by a vaguely-worded, so-called Bill of Rights, which gives unprecedented power to an unelected Human Rights Commission and overrides the sovereignty of the Australian States. We ask you to reject completely the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vanstone (from 72 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 whom do not practice 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 right 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 power 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 administered 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 Vanstone (from 12 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 Archer (from 42 citizens) and Sir John Carrick (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing Policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 16 citizens) and Puplick (from 51 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 and all cognate Bills. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 241 citizens). Petitions received. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate seek an urgent inquiry into homelessness on the Torres Strait Islands, particularly the priorities of the Queensland State Government in spending millions of dollars to house public servants, but failing to allocate funds to overcome homelessness amongst Torres Strait Islanders themselves. 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 Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill, which seeks to amend the Air Navigation Act 1920, is twofold. Firstly, it will enable Australia to ratify the Protocol signed in Montreal on 10 May 1984 amending the Convention on International Civil Aviation. This Convention is known as the Chicago Convention. Secondly, it will give effect in Australian law to the provisions of that Protocol. The origins of this Bill can be traced to the tragic event that took place on the first day of September 1983, when Soviet military aircraft intercepted and shot down a Korean Air Lines Boeing 747 aircraft with the loss of all 269 persons on board. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) convened an extraordinary assembly in May 1984 in Montreal to discuss measures that could be taken to prevent a recurrence of such an incident. Australia played an active role at this meeting, where unanimous agreement was reached by the 107 countries participating to amend the Chicago Convention through the inclusion of a new article, known as Article 3 bis. Article 3 bis represents a significant step by the international community to ensure greater safety in international aviation by requiring states to refrain from using weapons against civil aircraft flying in their air space. In return, states are required to ensure that civil aircraft under their jurisdiction operate flights over foreign countries for legitimate aviation purposes only, as envisaged in the Chicago Convention. To implement the first part of this obligation, the Government is taking the necessary administrative action to ensure that weapons are not used against foreign civil aircraft operating in Australian airspace. Notice of Motion The second part of Australia's obligation, which is to prevent aircraft under Australian jurisdiction from operating overseas in any manner that is not in accordance with legitimate civil aviation requirements, must be implemented by legislation. The Bill incorporates this requirement. The Bill also contains provision to enable Australia to ratify Article 3 bis and to have it included as a schedule to the Act. This is consistent with the practice that has been adopted in the past regarding ratification of amendments to the Convention. The proposed amendment to the Air Navigation Act which will give effect to Australia's above-mentioned obligation will apply to Australian registered aircraft, or foreign registered aircraft operated by an operator whose principal place of business or permanent residence is in Australian territory, which fly over the territory of another country. If an aircraft is flying without the authority of that country or is being used for a purpose inconsistent with the aims of the Convention, then it must comply with an order to land or with any other instruction that is given. The Bill also reflects the requirement of Article 3 bis for Australia to take appropriate measures to prohibit the deliberate use of its aircraft in these circumstances. The pilot in command of an aircraft who breaches the above requirements may be prosecuted under this legislation and if found guilty, would be subject to the penalties prescribed. These penalties are maximum penalties, and are consistent with those applying to breaches of the Air Navigation Act generally. However, the pilot may decline to obey a direction if he believes that compliance with that direction would endanger the safety of the aircraft and persons on board. There may be other parties involved in the offences, such as the operator, and action against these ancillary offenders could be taken under the provisions of the Crimes Act. It is important to recognise that there is nothing in the proposed legislation which derogates from obligations which any other law, including the law of a foreign country, might impose. An Australian aircraft, for example, which is flying over the territory of a foreign country is required to obey a direction legally given by the aeronautical authorities of the country concerned, just as a foreign aircraft flying over our territory is required to obey a lawful direction given by us. Australia has undertaken to prosecute offenders in the specific circumstances laid down by Article 3 bis. If a pilot refuses to obey a direction to land given by an overseas country it could be difficult for that country to prosecute the pilot, once the pilot is outside its jurisdiction. However, the Bill does stipulate that a person convicted of an offence by a foreign country cannot be convicted in Australia for the same offence under this legislation. Because of the importance the Government attaches to this issue, the Bill provides for the legislation to become effective by proclamation prior to the entry into force of Article 3 bis. The Government wishes this legislation, which will enhance the safety of civil aviation, to come into effect as soon as possible. The Protocol itself will come into force when one hundred and two counties have ratified it, which is approximately two-thirds of ICAO's membership. Before the legislation is proclaimed, the Government will ensure that the aviation publications issued for the use of pilots clearly explain these new requirements in the case of interception of Australian controlled aircraft operating overseas. The proposed amendments will have no financial impact on Government expenditure. The Government, the Opposition, Pilots' Associations and indeed the Australian people generally, have denounced the use of force against civilian aircraft. It is fitting, therefore, that every endeavour be made to promote the safety of international civil aviation. The passage of this Bill and the ratification of Article 3 bis will be a tangible demonstration to the international community of our strong and continuing commitment to this objective. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the order of General Business for consideration this day pursuant to sessional order be as follows: (a) consideration of Orders of the Day relating to Government Papers; (b) General Business, Notice of Motion No. 160, standing in the name of Senator Archer relating to home ownership; and (c) General Business, Notice of Motion No. 117, standing in the name of Senator Michael Baume relating to the current account deficit. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That Business of the Senate, Order of the Day No. 1 [Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Nos 111a and 100a-Motions for disallowance], be postponed till 12 sitting days hence. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.06) —I would seek some guidance from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) as to whether this has been done by arrangement. It is certainly not my understanding that the Opposition would want this stood over for 12 sitting days. I would like to know why the matter has been postponed for 12 sitting days. It was our wish to deal with it yesterday. The matter was adjourned by arrangement following, in fact, intervention by Senator Chipp. I acknowledge and thank him for that intervention because the Government had decided to seek an adjournment before there was any substantial debate on the motions. However, it seems to me that for the Government to postpone it for 12 sitting days is to leave thoroughly objectionable orders on the books. It puts the Government under very little pressure to carry out the negotiations and to produce a more acceptable proposition, as it apparently claims it is going to do. I need to remind the Senate that the orders referred to relieve the Government of its responsibility to provide meat inspectors under various circumstances. I remind the Senate that in litigation the court found that at present the Government is obliged to provide meat inspectors and cannot cave in, in the rather craven way it did, in respect of the failure to provide meat inspectors at the Mudginberri abattoir. It is certainly not satisfactory to the Opposition to see this matter simply lying about for 12 sitting days, which is three sitting weeks, which takes us through until May or June. In fact, I will move an amendment to the motion which has been moved by the Minister substituting for 12 sitting days the proposition that it should be an order of the day for the next day of sitting, which is several weeks away. The matter can be raised then at the Whips meeting where it can be sorted out. I do not wish to delay the Senate because I know there is legislation we would like to deal with. I move: Leave out all words after `be', insert `an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting'. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.08) —The Government will not accept that amendment. The reason that the motion to postpone the consideration of that item for 12 days has been moved is, as I think was indicated by some Government speakers yesterday, to allow time for consultations to take place with the industry. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.09) —I indicate that the Australian Democrats support the amendment moved by Senator Chaney. The reason for the delay given to us was that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) wished to consult. It is clear that the particular order, when it comes before the Senate, will be disallowed. The Minister, in discussions with me, said that he wanted a couple of weeks in which to do it. I would have thought that as a result of Senator Chaney's amendment he will in fact get a couple of weeks. Therefore, we are willing to support Senator Chaney's amendment. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.10) —Before the debate on the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill was adjourned yesterday I was saying that the Hawke Government has failed the test on each of the three requirements of successful economic policy for the private sector. The three requirements that I mentioned were: Firstly, that policies should be stable and predictable; secondly, that they should encompass restraint and discipline in matters such as government spending, taxing and borrowing; and, thirdly, that the policies need to be balanced. I pointed out that this Government's policies have not been stable or predictable; nor has there been any exercise of restraint or discipline. Government spending has sky-rocketed and so has taxation. Government borrowing has escalated enormously to the extent that the annual interest bill alone on that borrowing now exceeds what we spend on the defence of this nation. Every child born in 1986 will start life with an individual debt of $6,800 imposed on it by the Government. The Government's economic policies, to which Senator Button as the third most senior Minister in the Hawke Government is obviously a major contributor, have not been balanced. Because of the Government's inherent inability to control its spending, due basically to the fact that it is so dominated in its policy making by Simon Crean and Bill Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Government has had to place unwarranted and dangerous reliance on monetary policy to try to keep-- Senator Walsh —We try to cut spending and you whackers in here knock back the legislation. Senator SHORT —The Government is responsible for government spending, not us. The Government has had to place unwarranted and dangerous reliance on monetary policy-- Senator Walsh —You are responsible for stopping the elimination of waste in spending. Senator SHORT —Is the Minister denying that he is placing undue reliance on monetary policy? Senator Walsh —I am stating the fact that you whackers in here knock off legislation to cut expenditure. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —It would assist the debate if Senator Short addressed his comments through the Chair and did not exchange repartee or abuse with the Minister. Senator Short is on his feet and he has the floor. Senator SHORT —The cost of the Government's policies has been disastrous to every Australian and the path of growth that it has been trying to follow is about to take a damaging downturn. The policies of this Government have led to the highest real interest rates for more than 50 years, the lowest value of the Australian dollar in at least 50 years-- Senator Watson —And it is going to go lower. Senator SHORT —It is going to go lower under the existing policies; the honourable senator is quite right. The policies of this Government have led also to a balance of payments deficit which is running at an annual rate of $14.5 billion, which is the equivalent of 5 per cent of our total gross domestic product. By comparison, in the United States of America, where the deficit is considered to be chronic and unsustainable, the balance of payments deficit is 3.5 per cent of GDP. If the United States balance of payments is chronic and unsustainable, what on earth is ours? Senator Walsh —It was 6 per cent when Howard was Treasurer. Senator SHORT —Not the balance of payments deficit. We have an inflation rate twice the average of our main trading partners and four times greater than that in Germany and Japan. We have had an increase both in total unemployment and in long term unemployment. The rate of unemployment in the 36 months that the Hawke Government has been in office has been higher than in all but four of the 86 months that the Fraser Government was in office. But the real weakness of this Government has been in its abdication of responsibility to the ACTU. We do not have a Labor led government in Australia today; we have an ACTU led government. The ACTU calls the shots on virtually every major economic policy issue, despite the fact that Simon Crean and Bill Kelty were not elected by the people of Australia to govern this country. Senator Button made an interesting speech a month ago to the Industry Research Symposium in Adelaide. With much of that speech, I hasten to add, I agree and think that it was a good speech, but he said, among other things, that the Government took credit for having changed the policy environment in Australia in a way that assists industry. I regard that as a considerable misstatement of the real position. He pointed to the floating of the dollar under this Government, and I agree with the merits of that. He pointed to financial deregulation and the admission of foreign banks. I agree with that, although I would point to a fact that is often forgotten, that the real generator of those moves was the now Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, when he was Treasurer. Senator Button then pointed to taxation reform as having improved the environment for industry. I do not know what on earth he was talking about because we have had no taxation reforms or any proposals for reform. What we have are proposals of a ragbag nature left over as the only bits and pieces of the so-called reform with which the ACTU was prepared to let the Government emerge from the National Taxation Summit last year. The proposals are unco-ordinated and totally anti-business. They increased the taxation burden on business very heavily indeed, and for Senator Button to say that the Government's taxation reforms have assisted the business climate is an odd statement for him to make. Senator Button also said that the Government was responsible for an improvement in the industrial relations climate. Some things should be said about that. First, it is open to serious question just how much the industrial relations climate has improved while this Government has been in office. The statistics in that area are quite deficient. But more to the point one would expect the industrial relations climate to have improved mightily, given the Government's sell-out to the union movement on virtually every policy issue. It has been a non-stop, fast track one-way street of benefits flowing to the unions in terms of the shift of power to the unions, in placing them in a privileged position, and in providing them with benefits that have not been provided to any other section of the Australian community. The king hit, of course, is the deal that has been done between the Government and the ACTU on the productivity claim and its flow-on into superannuation. In doing that deal the Government and the ACTU have treated the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with contempt. They have, in effect, said to the Commission `You are nothing but a rubber stamp, you will do what we say', regardless of the merits, the logic or the economic impact of the proposals. To his great credit the new President of the Commission, Mr Justice Maddern, has refused to be so treated. However, it remains to be seen just where the final outcome will be. If it goes through, the productivity-superannuation deal will cause great damage to Australian industry. Australian industry is already experiencing cost disabilities which are making it increasingly difficult to achieve sustainable international competitiveness. I think it is agreed on all sides of this Parliament, and widely throughout the community, that an improvement in our international competitiveness is imperative for the future of industry, our living standards and for the future of every Australian. The disabilities under which industry is suffering are due largely to the taxing, charging and regulatory policies of government and to wage related costs far in excess of most other countries. The cost pressures on industry are increasing. If the ACTU's demands are met, the prospect is that in the 12 months to this coming November direct labour costs alone will increase by no less than 14 per cent-and that increase excludes labour on-costs. The Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia, in a pamphlet issued recently, has given examples of the additional on-costs. It has also said: . . . that what the ACTU is seeking in its productivity claim is a 3 per cent `wage equivalent', that is, the amount of money which the ACTU want distributed in the form of new or improved superannuation schemes is to be calculated on the basis of how much it would cost an employer if the employer had to pay the 3 per cent as a wage increase. The 3 per cent will, therefore, contrary to what the ACTU has said in the past, cost an employer more than just 3 per cent of the ordinary weekly wage because it is payable on overtime, shift penalties and other on-costs. On top of the above claims the ACTU is seeking to have the wage fixing principles `relaxed' to make it easier for unions to gain wage increases outside of indexation and changes to employment conditions. These are vital issues for the Australian economy. They are issues which the Confederation of Australian Industry picked up and commented on in a release just last weekend. I quote from the Confederation's release dated Sunday, 16 March, in which the Director-General of the CAI Industrial Council said: It is hard to believe that the Government is taking the problems of this economy seriously when it can support a productivity-based increase at a time when the only question about the 1986-87 financial year is whether Australia is heading for a mild slowdown in activity or for a major recession. It is an absurdity almost beyond belief to find CAI in the midst of an argument over productivity distribution when each day brings more news of an impending economic downturn. Those comments by two of the leading industry associations in Australia are on vital issues for Australian industry. I was glad to hear from the Minister, Senator Button, in his second reading speech, that one of the main purposes of this Bill is to enable the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to devote more time to policy matters affecting industry. The present Minister needs to do that. I have to say to Senator Button-I am sorry that he is not in the chamber at present-that, as the third most senior Minister in the Hawke Government, he is not producing policies from that Government which will assist industry to restructure, to become competitive, and to provide opportunities for growth in investment and employment. Frankly, the Opposition is asking the Minister, on behalf of those industries for which he has ministerial responsibility, to lift his game and to ensure that the rhetoric of his Government is matched by its performance in relation to what we all agree, I think, are commonly accepted objectives for where we want to see Australian industry heading in the future. To the extent that this Bill will assist him in that regard, on behalf of the Opposition I say that we support the Bill-subject to a couple of minor, technical amendments which I foreshadowed yesterday and which we shall take up in debate in the Committee of the Whole. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.23) —We are debating the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. The Australian Democrats support this Bill, as it is an attempt to rationalise the Customs Service workings. The Opposition has circulated some amendments. I propose to comment on those amendments during the Committee stage, after I have had the opportunity of hearing the comments of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) upon them. This Bill transfers to the Comptroller-General of Customs some powers previously held by the Minister. The Minister is thus freed from some of the more mundane duties of his office and will now be able to concentrate on more important matters. That is how it should be in a well-run, modern government, where the Minister is free to concentrate on policy decisions and is removed as much as possible from administrative tasks, which are, essentially, left to the bureaucracy to implement. In passing, I will say that the load that Ministers carry in parliament is quite horrendous. The more they can be freed to make the right sorts of policy decisions, the better our government will be, whether it is government by the Australian Labor Party or by the Liberal Party of Australia. The Minister still retains significant powers in customs administration. These include the extension or variation of bounty assistance-a very important matter-the proposing of tariff alterations, decisions on import tenders and anti-dumping duties. These areas are all important in political and policy terms. They must be retained by the elected representative of the people. However, customs administration brings to my mind more important issues. I will spend a moment talking about such things as the balance of payments problem facing this country and this Government's apparent inability to do anything about that problem and some of the other urgent problems facing the economy. In 1984-85 Australia faced a record balance of payments deficit-a deficit of $10,000m-odd. This year, despite a 20 per cent devaluation in our currency, the situation is no better. There has been some reduction in imports caused by tight monetary policy but the export situation has deteriorated even further. This is despite the 20 per cent devaluation. We still cannot sell our produce overseas. One is therefore forced to ask: What is the reason for this? Put quite simply, we are putting our resources into production of goods with a very low value-added component. We are still predominantly a primary exporter at a time when primary exports are faced with world gluts. The wheat market around the world has collapsed. Coal is threatened by falling prices. Base metals have never really recovered from the recession in the 1980s. This is the essential problem that we face with export commodities. Our exports are worth less and our import bill grows unabated. By any reckoning, we are living beyond our means. Despite what the Government would like to think, there are no easy answers to this problem. We cannot right things simply by changing our monetary or fiscal policies. We have, I am afraid, very severe structural problems in our economy. Over the last 20 years we have allowed the manufacturing sector to decay. We are now tied to a very high level of imports. No matter what happens to our export markets we must still import manufactured goods simply because we cannot do without them. The manufacturing base that we had once has now been eroded. This is a great tragedy for our young people who need jobs and for the country as a whole which desperately needs export income. To solve the problem we must have a renaissance in manufacturing industry. Although the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has been instrumental in implementing some very worthwhile initiatives in industry, they are nowhere near enough, as Senator Short mentioned, and we need a renaissance-a major objective-to get out industries export-orientated. We must forget about the old concept of developing manufacturing industries to replace imports. We have to develop industries that are export-orientated. I have said in this place many times that to do this we have first to take note of employee participation. We have to tap the potential of the work force to contribute to the efficiency of industry in this country. Until we do that we will never get industries that are internationally competitive. Senator Elstob —What about training managers? Senator SIDDONS —By all means. It is a common problem. I believe we have management which looks on the work force as essentially something that has to do what it is told, but we also have a work force which looks upon management as something which is a boss. Those in the work force think that they should not use their brains to make money for the boss. There is, unfortunately, a confrontationist attitude in industry rather than an attitude of co-operation. Unless we get that co-operative attitude so that we can tap the brainpower, the resources and the real skills of the entire work force from management right down-it needs a fundamental change of attitude-we will not be internationally competitive. That cannot be done overnight. There are various initiatives that should be put in force such as employee share ownership, profit sharing and small group activity set up to discuss day to day problems along the lines of Japanese industry, where there are cellular organisational structures where performance in industry can be measured on a monthly basis so that everybody knows how they are performing in relation to a budget that is put forward. I do not want to dwell on that aspect as I have spoken on that many times in this place. I want to mention in particular another aspect which I believe is equally important. We have to have co-operation between management and the work force. We also have to have co-operation between governments and industry. This co-operation between industry and governments is very much in the Government's corner. One important aspect of this is that we must direct investment to the manufacturing sector. We must modernise it. We must expand it. The present situation, brought about by government incentives, is that we favour making paper profits-stock market speculation-rather than genuine investments in plant and machinery. Let us look at some of the facts. Since 1981-82 the stock exchange index has increased by 70 per cent or more and profits in companies generally in industry have increased by 118 per cent in real terms, yet investment in plant and machinery is actually lower than it was in 1981. It is lower not only in real terms but also in absolute terms. Money is not being directed to productive wealth creating manufacturing resources. It is being misdirected and the Government must shoulder a large measure of the blame for this situation. We see before our very eyes at the moment the largest company in the land-a company controlling 8 per cent of our total exports, controlling three of our major industries and employing over 50,000 people-being taken over through the medium of a $2 billion loan from overseas. Senator Watson —Are you talking on the trade practices legislation or the Customs legislation? Senator SIDDONS —I am talking on the problems of our balance of payments, which are very much related to the whole question of imports and tariffs. If honourable senators will just bear with me, I am covering ground that was also covered to some degree, but not properly, in my view, by Senator Short a moment ago. At present the Government is doing nothing about righting this situation which encourages a very elite group of investors to make paper profits by stock market manipulations-a situation that was very analagous to that which happened in 1928, when paper profits were being made and investment into productive resources was being neglected. One of the major reasons for our balance of payments problem is simply this: We have an ever increasing-- Senator Watson —I rise on a point of order. We are finding Senator Siddons's contribution quite confusing as it is without his continual referring to trade practices-type legislation, matters which will shortly be before the Parliament. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that he should be speaking to the Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —There is no point of order. I allowed Senator Short a reasonable amount of latitude in the comments he made to the same Bill some time ago. Senator Siddons is addressing similar problems. I will allow him to continue, but draw his attention to the fact that this Bill is a Customs Bill and, whilst the Chair is prepared to allow a certain amount of latitude when Customs and import-export related matters are discussed, I ask Senator Siddons to keep within the bounds of the Bill. Senator SIDDONS —I make the point that the Customs Bill relates to imports. That is the critical problem. The Government has addressed this problem to a minor degree in this Bill-which we support. I am merely making a plea for the Government to look at the overall situation in much greater detail and come up with an initiative that attacks some of the deep-seated problems in our import-export areas. Before the point of order was taken, I was making the point that 30 per cent of our exports now go to pay our interest bill. We are like a family that, having sold a house, is now renting a house and buying things on time payment. That can only go on for so long. We are living beyond our means. We are having a great problem in servicing our debts. We have very little else to sell by way of industry to foreign interests to attract foreign money into the country. We have to take note of where we are heading and do something about the fundamental problem of living beyond our means. We have to do something about exporting more and reviving our manufacturing sector. The Democrats support this Bill. It is an area that needs a lot more attention by the Government. We look forward to the Minister taking up some of the critical challenges that lie before this country. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.37) —The Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 enables senators to raise general questions about the operations of the Australian Customs Service, which has been done by other speakers in this debate. Specifically, the Bill is said to contain provisions which will enable the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to concentrate more on the policy aspects of the legislation and regulations made under the Customs Act than on the day to day operation of the legislation. I raise a matter which has been on the plate for some considerable time. I am pleased that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has come into the chamber, as an opportunity has how been presented to me to raise again a matter that I raised in late 1983 with the Minister by way of a question without notice. On 10 November 1983 I asked the Minister whether he was aware that a Soviet-built vehicle named the Lada was being sold in Australia and that it was reported that component parts of the vehicle were being manufactured in Soviet prison camps. On that occasion I asked him: How does this square with Article 16 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulation which prevents the import of vehicles into Australia if they were made in whole or in part by prison labour? I leave aside the rhetorical question I asked on that occasion and get to the point. The Minister responded that he was aware that a Russian light commercial vehicle was imported, and he was aware of that because `Senator Harradine told me at a quarter to two this afternoon'. I followed that up on 7 December when I indicated that I had not received a response from the Minister. The Minister asked me whether I could give him some indication of where people might look to obtain the facts. I then sent the Minister a letter in which I included an article from a Canadian journal which indicated the type of area which the Minister's Department could look at. I have not received a response from the Minister to that letter from that day to this. I think it a very important matter, not only from the point of view of our indigenous motor vehicle manufacturing industry but also from the point of view of the commitment of everyone in this chamber to ensuring that there is no forced labour and in particular, so far as this country and its imports are concerned, that Article 18 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations is rigorously enforced. Since that time late last year it has become evident from statements made by Mr Avraham Shifrin, a Jew who had been a prisoner in the Soviet Union for 15 years and who presumably had come out from the Soviet Union, that Lada and Niva cars are built partially by slave labour and that, for example, rubber tyres are made by prisoners from camp No. UZH-15/2 in Bobruisk which is in Byelorussia; that steering wheels and chassis are manufactured at Sosnovka, one of the seven strict regime camps on the Dubrovlag route east of Moscow. We should bear in mind that the assembly plant for Lada vehicles, which are imported into this country, is situated in the city of Toghatigrad which is some 1,000 kilometres east of Moscow. The steel springs and metal fittings, according to this source, are made by prisoners from the intensive regime camp at Kochatovka in the Tambov region. A top security camp at Votkinsk, a very interesting name, in Udmurf contains child labour and is used to make locks and springs. A range of spare parts is manufactured by prisoners from the ordinary regime camps at Arzamas south of the city of Gorki. Here we have a situation in Australia where these vehicles are being imported-- Senator Elstob —How many are imported? Senator HARRADINE —I am not sure, Senator. But even if only one were imported containing elements of slave labour, it should attract refusal under Item 16 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. I did have the figure previously but I just cannot remember it. Senator Robertson —Do you know whether we import from Thailand, Senator? Senator HARRADINE —Do you mean motor vehicles? I do not think so. Senator Robertson —No, anything. Senator HARRADINE —I am not sure. Senator Robertson —I wonder whether you would widen the category to include all those places that use child labour. Senator HARRADINE —If there were such a case, most certainly I would. Senator Robertson —You would include the lot of them? Senator HARRADINE —Item 16 is not specifically designed for the Soviet-- Senator Robertson —You are not making your own comments. You are just giving an example? Senator HARRADINE —Item 16 has been used recently to prohibit importations from Wormwood Scrubs. There was some publicity about the seizure of speakers by prisoners in the old Dartmoor prison. I think the Minister probably is aware of that. Senator Button —I have difficulty in determining which you would least like to work in-Wormwood Scrubs or a factory in South Korea. Senator HARRADINE —I am making no comment about that; the regulations are there. I am pointing out the fact that the regulations do not distinguish between, for example, compulsory labour in Dartmoor prison and compulsory labour in the Soviet Union. Apparently the only discrimination that is involved is that Customs officials are not sufficiently switched on to answer a complaint that I raised in this chamber as far back as 1983. Since that time information has been provided by a Jewish person who was incarcerated in prison in the Soviet Union for 15 years. That person ought to know all about it. One does not have to go overseas to get that information. On this very day in Canberra there is a person named Dr Cronid Lubarsky, who is in Australia for a period of one month. He is in Canberra now. He is a veteran of prison camps in the Soviet Union. He is an astronomer who once worked on Russia's unmanned space mission to Mars. He is now the editor of a fortnightly news bulletin on internal affairs on the Soviet underground dissident movement. In 1972, after the KGB raided his flat in Moscow and found piles of banned literature, he was sentenced to five years in the camps, going first to Camp 19 in Mordovia. Senator Button —That would happen here if you had your other hat on. What about somebody who had piles of banned videos in his flat here? That person would go to gaol in Australia wouldn't he, if you had your other hat on? Senator HARRADINE —Under what provision, Senator? Senator Button —Under the criminal law. Senator HARRADINE —That is an interesting statement that I might even incorporate into the report when we come to it. It is an interesting statement that we will come to when we are talking about the right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. the Minister would appreciate that, although there is no right to privacy explicitly in the American Bill of Rights, it is implicit. Under that implicit provision of the American Bill of Rights any laws in the United States which prohibit the possession of even the worst types of pornography are not valid. I am glad the Minister raised that. We will come to that matter when we deal with the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. However, the Minister has made me digress. At present there is here in Canberra for two days a person who has experienced treatment in labour camps. He himself has been an eye witness to forced labour in the manufacture of goods destined for the West. He is in Canberra today. In Camp 19 in which he was incarcerated in Morovia prisoners were put to work preparing cases for cuckoo clocks to be exported to Britain and other Western countries. When he eventually got to Europe he saw these cuckoo clocks and recognised the cases that were made in the prison camp. Forced labour was used to make those cases. I feel as though I am being put on the defensive by the Minister in relation to the comments which I have made. I make no apologies for standing here on behalf of the workers of this country and demanding that the Australian Customs Service get off its backside and investigate these things. I make no apologies about that. I make no apologies for speaking on behalf of the workers in the vehicle industry. Many of their jobs are threatened by imports generally. Specifically, if this practice is allowed to continue that will mean that these workers are not only threatened but insulted as well. Their rights are being insulted. If the rights of workers in any country are insulted they are insulted in all countries. I regard this as a very serious matter indeed. I regard it as very serious that the Minister has not answered questions about this matter which I raised in 1983. I challenge him to get his Department to look at this problem, to investigate it thoroughly and to obtain from the manufacturers of the vehicles concerned a detailed list of the component parts and where they are manufactured. I challenge him to submit this to our embassy in Moscow to establish the facts of the situation. I would have thought that that was a reasonable request. It is a major matter of principle, in my mind. We talk about the rights of the worker in this country. We talk about the right and freedom of workers not to be put in the position of forced labour. However, I raised this matter two years ago and still have no answer. I have mentioned the former Russian astronomer who, in fact, lived under a regime which forced him to manufacture goods for export to the West. I believe that it is very important that all information possible be sought by the Customs Service from Soviet officials in regard to the component parts of those particular motor vehicles and that this information be checked out. I believe that we owe it not only to the workers of Australia but also to our fellow human beings who are forced into a position of forced labour to do something. The Department has sat on its backside for the last two years and done nothing about it. I believe it is time that it did something about it. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.55) in reply-It is very evocative of Senator Harradine to talk about departments sitting on their backsides and to make the highly rhetorical allegations which he has just made in his little touch of flamboyance this morning. Of course, the situation is extremely difficult. In my view it is not the function of a customs service in the broader sense to canvas all the issues which Senator Harradine has tried to hang on the provisions in the legislation, which has been there since 1902 and which is now being reviewed by the Australian Customs Service. Senator Harradine says that nothing is being done about this issue. There may well be a disputed set of facts. When I was in the Soviet Union last year I inquired at the Australian Embassy about this question. Officers from the embassy and officers of the Australian Trade Commissioner Service had been to the Lada-Niva factory. The Lada-Niva car is the trojan horse by which Senator Harradine wheels in a whole lot of other arguments. Those officers had been to that factory. To say the least, they doubted very much the allegations made by Senator Harradine and others in this chamber. I make the quite practical point that in respect of components it would be an impossible burden to place on any customs service to ask it to go through a motor vehicle and make an assessment of where all the components have been made. Senator Harradine —That is not what I said. I said to ask the manufacturers where they had been made. That is the first step, surely? Senator BUTTON —That has been done. Senator Harradine —That has been done, with what result? Senator BUTTON —They are not satisfied that the allegations which the honourable senator has made are correct. I put it as low as that for the purposes of this discussion. Senator Harradine —It will be interesting to see what FOI comes out with. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator can pursue that to his heart's content. Getting back to the main topic of the debate here, which is the legislation before the chamber, I wish to address one or two questions raised by Senator Short-the main issues which have been raised. The purpose of the legislation simply is to put into legislative effect decisions which have been made and debated in the Parliament already. The principal basis of the Bill is to transfer the Minister's administrative powers under legislation administrated by the Australian Customs Service to the office of the Comptroller-General of Customs. Since 10 June 1985 that has been vested with the general administration of the Australian Customs Service. The question of the appropriateness or suitability of that transfer of power was judged principally on an assessment as being either administrative, that is concerning the day to day running of the Customs Service, or something more sensitive than that perhaps involving political issues or impinging upon economic or other Government policies. That was the broad set of criteria which was used. It does not need me to say that the issues have been identified as much as possible in that way with the administrative functions, the day to day decisions, going to the Comptroller-General of Customs and the other matters residing in ministerial discretion. Senator Short also raised a number of general questions about the changes which have been made to the Customs Service and what followed as a result. I think it is fair to say that there is a very good working relationship between the Customs Service and the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. Guidelines in relation to co-operation between the two organisations have been tabled. I think the Customs Service has a very high degree of international standing and it has been a major participant in international Customs activities. Recently significant changes have been made to cargo clearance arrangements which have resulted in the majority of cargoes now being available within four hours as distinct from the several days it was previously. The business regulation review unit in my Department has estimated that the cost savings to industry and the community as a result of those changes will be of the order of $40m. The Customs Service has also launched a proposal for an integrated cargo control and clearance system which, by automatic data processing technology, will replace a lot of the paperwork associated with importing goods. In addition, I believe that the Customs Service has had some very successful operational results in a number of instances of drug importation into Australia which have been widely publicised. That is not to say that everything is satisfactory. It is far from satisfactory. The particular problem which has attracted attention is the industrial disputation at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, which subsequently flowed to Melbourne Airport for a while, which involves a ban on body searches. The ban arises from the changed regulations for body searches of incoming passengers. I believe the position adopted by the Customs Officers Association of Australia to be quite incorrect. We have sought to give the authority to conduct body searches to a senior officer in consultation with the Customs officer at the desk. Every Customs officer will not be entitled of his own volition, where he is interfacing with a passenger, to say: `I think you ought to have a body search'. That search has to be in conjunction with the authority of a senior officer. That is the essential element of the change. We think it is highly desirable. That change, of course, has been discussed in various ways in this chamber. Senator Short made a couple of other points concerning section 119 relating to the power of the Minister, which will now go to the Comptroller-General, to grant or to refuse to grant to the master of a ship a certificate of clearance for departure from Australia or the pilot of an aircraft where such a certificate of clearance is not forthcoming from a collector of Customs in the usual course. I just want to make the point that the number of such certificates issued daily is enormous. Those which are refused, resulting in a special application to the Minister-or as is now proposed to the Comptroller-General-need to be processed as quickly as possible. It is considered that the Comptroller-General is much better placed than a sometimes itinerant or otherwise involved Minister to provide speedy clearances in respect of ships and aircraft in that sort of situation. I make the point also that the decision by the Comptroller-General in these matters is reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Senator Short also raised a point relating to Part XI of the Customs Act which deals with Customs agents. A whole range of the Minister's powers under this Part are proposed for transfer, essentially again because it is considered that matters relative to the administration of Customs agents licences fall within the ambit of the Comptroller-General's responsibility. Again, they concern day to day matters. In addition, I note that all the decisions taken for the purpose of this Part of the Act will be subject to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Further, with regard to the suspension, revocation or non-renewal of Customs agents licences, the Comptroller-General's powers in these areas-as was the case with the Minister's powers-are exercisable only after consideration of a report on the issue by the National Customs Agents Licensing Advisory Committee. That Committee has on it representatives of the Customs Agents Association. The transfer of these powers is still subject to the constraint that action to suspend, revoke or not renew an agent's licence can only be taken following the consideration of a report by the National Customs Agents Licensing Advisory Committee and once such a decision or action is taken it is reviewable by the AAT. I make the point that the proposed transfer of power here is supported by the Australian Customs Agents Federation and has been consistent with the general thrust of the Bill to remove essentially administrative functions from the ambit of the Minister and place them in the hands of the Comptroller-General. I understand that Senator Short also raised a point relating to sub-section 26A (5) of the Customs Tariff Act 1982 and the corresponding sub-section 6a (8) of the Excise Tariff Act. These sub-sections impose an obligation on the Minister-proposed to be changed to the Comptroller-General-to publish a notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette for the information of the public advising of new rates of duty and the goods to which those rates apply following the automatic indexation of these duty rates as provided by the respective sections. There is a mandatory obligation to notify in the Gazette the new duty rate and that follows the legislative application of the section. Again, it is considered that such a notification requirement is an administrative function which should be transferred to the Comptroller-General, in accordance with the general thrust of the Bill. I generally thank honourable senators for their support of the legislation. Senator Short has indicated that, at the Committee stage of the Bill, he will move three amendments to the legislation. In a sense, they are technical amendments which I think we would readily concede are consistent with the spirit of the legislation and may well be improvements. The Government will accept those three amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.19) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 5, Schedule, proposed amendments of the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980, proposed amendment to sub-section 20 (1), leave out the proposed amendment, insert the following amendment: Paragraph 20 (1) (r)- Omit `Minister', substitute `Comptroller-General'. (2) Page 6, Schedule, proposed amendments of the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980, proposed amendment to sub-section 20A (1), leave out the proposed amendment. (3) Page 9, Schedule, proposed amendments of the Customs Act 1901, proposed amendment to paragraphs 273GA (c), (h) and (j), after `(c)', insert `(e), (f),'. The amendments are designed to correct, from what the Minister said, two oversights in the Bill, both affecting rights of review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The first two amendments relate to pages 5 and 6 of the Bill, the first one to sub-section 20 (1) of the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980; and second amendment to sub-section 20A (1) of the same Bill. The Bill as proposed would amend sub-section 20 (1) of the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980 by omitting `Minister' wherever occurring and substituting `Comptroller-General'. Sub-section 20 (1) specifies that certain decisions under the Act are subject to review by the AAT. While the Bill will transfer from the Minister to the Comptroller-General the power to require bounty claimants to give security, reviewable by the AAT under paragraph 20 (1) (r), powers relating to the registration of premises and persons, likewise reviewable by the AAT under sub- section 20 (1), remain with the Minister. Accordingly, the Bill would remove this right of review. This is a simple oversight and the proposed amendment No. 1 would substitute `Comptroller-General' for `Minister' only in paragraph 20 (1) (r), thus preserving the right of review in respect of those decisions remaining with the Minister. The Bill would also omit the words `Minister or the' from sub-section 20A (1), the provision requiring a decision-maker to include a statement as to the right of review by the AAT in a notice given to persons affected by a decision. As the Minister remains a decision-maker, this amendment is superfluous and proposed amendment No. 2 would omit it. The third amendment relates to paragraphs 273GA (c), (h) and (j) of the Customs Act 1901 to omit `Minister' and substitute `Comptroller'. These paragraphs provide for rights of review by the AAT in respect of certain powers which are to be transferred from the Minister to the Comptroller-General. However, the powers to make, revoke and vary quota orders under sections 132B and 132C would also be transferred by the Bill, and paragraphs 273GA (e) and (f) providing for the review of decisions under those sections should therefore likewise be amended to omit `Minister' and substitute `Comptroller'. Proposed amendment 3 would accomplish this. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.13) —The Government is happy to accept the amendments. They are constructive and consistent with the general debate on this legislation. I referred earlier to some comments made by Senator Harradine. I had some inquiries made during the course of the debate. The question related to investigation by Customs into the subject of Lada-Niva cars and componentry. In dealing with that question I referred to discussions I had in Moscow last year, I said with embassy officials and trade commission officials. Certainly one of those present was the senior trade commissioner in the Soviet Union. The senior trade commissioner had not long before then made a visit to the Lada-Niva factory and had made some inquiries about this matter. In October 1984 he presented the Customs Service with a report which included this passage: To the extent that it has been possible to do so in the USSR- that is a question which has some difficulty about it- specific inquiries and observations have revealed no discernible use of slave or convict labour in the manufacture of the cars. There were in fact two inquiries made, one in writing and one by a visit to the manufacturer in respect of which the trade commissioner reported to the Customs Service. In the absence of other material it has to rely on that letter in exercising its duty under the relevant section. Of course that is unsatisfactory, but that situation will always remain unsatisfactory until the section is reviewed. I thank senators for their support. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.15) —The position is unsatisfactory. As the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) said, this particular matter had been raised with the trade commissioner on his observation after a visit to the Lada-Niva factory. In nothing I said, and I was repeating what had come out of the Soviet Union, was there any suggestion that at the Lada-Niva factory in Toghatigrad there was slave labour. Senator Button —I know precisely what you said. Senator HARRADINE —I was talking about component parts and referring to specific places which had been nominated by reputable persons who had come from the Soviet Union and who had been in prison camps there where specific component parts had been manufactured-to give three examples, rubber tyres, chassis and springs. The letter I wrote to the Minister was back in 1983. I had heard nothing from him since that time until now. The point has been made that were specific details are alleged by Soviet prisoners, surely that information should be followed up specifically in respect of those prison camps. Clearly this has not been done. Surely it is in the interests of Australian workers and in the interest of international human rights for the Customs Service to ask the manufacturers of Lada vehicles where their spare parts are made. Obviously that has not been done in writing. It should be done in writing so that if further evidence comes from prisoners in the Soviet Union, it is clear that the information given to our officials in Moscow would then be proven to be incorrect and action taken. But, quite frankly, since reputable people have raised the issue, not only in general terms but have also specified the camps where the particular components are being made, surely in fairness to them and to the manufacturing industry here, in order to discharge their obligations under article 16 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, the Customs Service should require a written statement from Lada as to the source of the manufacture of spare parts. That is the next step to which we ought to move, and, as the Minister said in reporting what the Senior Trade Commissioner said, in so far as it is possible to do so in the Soviet Union-- Senator Button —Of course, I agree. What are you talking about? Senator HARRADINE —That is right; it is very difficult. Senator Button —You cannot overturn the Soviet system on the basis of Article 16 of the Customs Regulations. Senator HARRADINE —I am not suggesting that. Senator Button —You are. Senator HARRADINE —No. What Senator Button has just said is that the Trade Commissioner went down to the Lada factory. It is a very serious matter. Senator Button —Of course it is a serious matter, but your argument cannot be taken seriously. That is what I say. Senator HARRADINE —Why not? Senator Button —Because you cannot overturn the Soviet regime on the basis of a Customs regulation in Australia, much as you would like to do that. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —Order! I suggest that remarks be directed through the Chair. I remind Senator Harradine that we are dealing at present with technical amendments, which I should like to dispose of. If he wishes to follow up this matter later in the debate, that is fine. Senator HARRADINE —I thought that we had disposed of the amendments. Amendments agreed to. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.22) —I should like some clarification on section 183 of the Customs Act. It relates to this Bill. It relates also, I think, to some of the Minister's comments in response to my remarks during the second reading debate. I am not sure that I have got the matter quite clear and I seek clarification. As I understand it, under the existing legislation, the Comptroller-General of Customs has various powers in relation to suspension, revocation and non-renewal of Customs agents' licences. Under section 183CQ of the Customs Act, the Comptroller-General may give notice that he believes that a Customs agent has not performed his duties in a satisfactory manner. Any notice shall state in part that the Comptroller-General intends to refer to the National Customs Agents Licensing Advisory Committee for investigation and report to the Minister the question whether the Minister should take action in relation to the licence under sub-section (1) of section 183CS. Where the Comptroller-General gives notice in accordance with section 183CQ, he shall refer the question of whether the Minister should take action in relation to the licence under sub-section 183CS (1) to the Committee for investigation and report to the Minister. Section 183CR gives the Comptroller-General the power to suspend a Customs agent's licence for an interim period. Such suspension has effect until the suspension is revoked by the Comptroller-General or the Minister has dealt with the matter in accordance with section 183CS, whichever first occurs. Under the proposed changes in the Bill that we are debating, to transfer the Minister's powers to the Comptroller-General, the powers of the Minister under section 183CS will become the powers of the Comptroller-General. The relevant sub-section of section 183CS is sub-section (2). It would appear that the Comptroller-General would then have the power to review his own decision. Section 273GA of the Customs Act, about which we were talking earlier, in sub-section (1) (k), provides for all decisions in relation to Customs agents' licences under Part XI of the Customs Act to be appellable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; that is, the decision of the Comptroller-General to give a notice under section 183CQ is reviewable-as I fully accept-by the AAT. His decision to refer the matter to the Committee is reviewable by the AAT, as is his decision to suspend a licence for an interim period. That review mechanism appears to get over the problem of the Comptroller-General reviewing his own decisions, but I would appreciate the Minister's verification, or otherwise, of what I have said. It is a point that has been raised with us by the Customs Agents Institute. I understand that, as the Minister said in his reply to the second reading debate, the Customs Agents Federation has no problem with the proposal. However, there seems to be some confusion on the part of the Institute on this matter, and I would appreciate clarification. If my understanding, as I have just stated it, is correct, I should not be pressing the matter further. If my understanding is incorrect, the Opposition would like to suggest a technical amendment. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.26) —Senator Short's understanding is absolutely correct. The Comptroller-General of Customs may act-if I may put it thus for the purposes of comment-for preliminary suspension. The matter then goes to the Committee. After the Committee has reported to him, he may then review his own decision in light of the Committee's report. All of the steps are subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.27) —Senator Button indicated that it was my argument that could not be taken seriously, not that the issue could not be taken seriously. My argument does not go to the question of Item 16 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations overturning the whole of the Soviet system. My argument is simply that, once questions have been raised about the manufacture of particular goods and those questions involve the use of slave labour or compulsory labour, it surely is a requirement of departmental officials of the Australian Customs Service to take every step possible to check out those questions that have been raised. Senator Button says that those questions are raised by me. They did not originate from me; they originated from persons who had been working under the regime of the Soviet Union. The questions were raised not in a broad-based, broad brush manner; they were raised naming specific camps in which specific items of component parts were manufactured. In my view, what has thus far been done to check that out is insufficient and would, of course, get the answer that was obtained by the Senior Trade Commissioner. Indeed, to be fair to him, he indicated that it was in so far as his task in the Soviet Union was concerned. But I venture to suggest that if the specific questions were asked of the manufacturer and of the importer and a specific requirement were made of both the manufacturer and the importer to answer those specific questions, there would be a record in the Department of those answers, which then could be made freely available to the Senate or to the Parliament generally, or to the public. Persons who have experience of the slave labour system of the Soviet Union could be in a position to challenge them. That is all that I am saying. It has to be done in a specific manner. If people are not prepared to answer the specific allegations, it would be proper for the Comptroller to refuse entry of those goods. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 March. AUSTRALIAN BILL OF RIGHTS BILL 1986 Clause 8 (Australian Bill of Rights). Article 4 (Effect of Bill of Rights on existing rights and freedoms). (Quorum formed) Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.34) —I do not want to delay the debate on Article 4. I simply say that in the days since we last debated the legislation I have had time to carefully read what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has said as justification for reconciling the two paragraphs. One gives every person the right without discrimination to equal protection. The second finds no clear support in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for discrimination in favour. As I understand it, the Minister admitted first that there is no clear statement inside the Covenant-he said that we must take a risk in these things-and finally said that the matter is implicit and will be found in an interpretation of the words `equal protection of the law'. The Minister is really arguing that an American body of law and American court decisions allow this form of affirmative action in terms of the general principle that every person has a right without discrimination to equal protection of the law. Whilst I am aware of the American body of law, I believe that it is a pretty flimsy basis for this kind of principle. I do not believe that one should bring forward a Bill of Rights which, step by step, shows that it is precariously based. If we are to publish this Bill of Rights as an inspirational document, it ought to be published not caveat emptor, but with the utmost faith. In other words, those who read it have the right to believe that the Government is putting this forward secure in the knowledge that it has a constitutional head of power that is most unlikely to be contaminated. If that were not so, why would we do it? Yet step by step, as we saw with the previous Article, Article 3 (1), there is really no constitutionally sound head of power in the Article. I do not want to dilate on this matter because we have had a very interesting and useful debate. I thank the Minister for what he has said but I find no comfort in it. I do not believe that the Australian people should rely on either risk-taking or on some belief that perhaps an argument in our courts would necessarily reflect the American courts. There is an ample body of evidence to show that from time to time our courts do not think the same way and do not accept American precedents. In any case, I come back to the fundamental. There is no sense in having a Bill of Rights, no sense in putting forward this so-called inspirational document, unless it can be put to the people as a document containing 32 articles which stand firmly on their own. We should be able to argue that people can rely on the articles. If, as has thoroughly emerged from virtually every paragraph, the whole of this Bill of Rights is to be litigated in endless arguments before the court, we do not have a Bill of Rights at all; the Australian people do not know what are the limitations and parameters of their rights. The only thing to do is what most people cannot do-test them. I put it firmly to the Minister that any legislation that paragraph by paragraph is found to be totally uncertain should not be put forward to the people as offering them any security or comfort. As I described it, it is a piece of wormwood in many ways because everywhere we probe we find holes, uncertain ground. We find that we cannot be sure that there is a head of power. While thanking the Minister for his explanation, I find no comfort in it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.40) —I do not want to take that as an invitation to open up the whole argument once again about what a Bill of Rights is about and why generalised guarantees are justified. I simply make the point that inevitably when one is dealing with innovative legislation of a kind for which there are few or no precedents in our own legal tradition it is inevitable that there will be a debate of this kind, and questions of the kind that Senator Sir John Carrick is raising, put in issue in the course of the parliamentary consideration. I think that is not in any way itself an indication of defects in the legislation, it is just something that flows naturally from the very innovative and unique, in the Australian legal tradition, character of this legislation. That is an argument we had on the second reading and I do not think it is useful to track back over it. I would like to add another word or two, though, on the subject of the justification for Article 4 (2), in the light of what Senator Sir John Carrick has said this morning. On Tuesday when we last debated this I said that Article 4 (2) of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 was implicit in the equality provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I want to make clear that I was doing so on the basis essentially of a conceptual argument about the necessary character of an equal protection guarantee, making the point that it is a necessary part of that concept that it be able to accommodate rational discrimination and differentiation of treatment based on reasonable objective discernible grounds, and that to that extent the concept of a positive discrimination or benign discrimination was indeed conceptually compatible and really part of the concept of equal protection. I was not calling in aid United States of America authority on the basis of an appeal to authority as such, but really simply to indicate that in the United States, as elsewhere where this particular principle is embodied in domestic systems of law, the courts have had no difficulty in accepting the principle that equal protection of the law does accommodate and allow benign discrimination in appropriate circumstances. A further point that I want to make now, having checked the matter further, is that the fact that this concept is implicit in the equality provisions of the Covenant does in fact emerge clearly from the travaux preparatories relating to the Covenant. The report of the work of the Third Committee at the seventeenth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations had this to say about one of the equality provisions in Article 2 (1) of the Covenant. I remind the Senate that the reports of these committees are in fact the summary form Hansard reports of the debate which preceded the agreement about these various clauses. What was said in that report was as follows: It was expressly emphasized by several members of the Committee that special measures for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward sections of society should not be construed as `distinction' within the meaning of Article 2. The Committee agreed that that interpretation, to which there was no objection, should be specially mentioned in the report. While that passage relates, of course, to the prohibition on distinction mentioned in Article 2 (1) of the Covenant, I think that idea is clearly equally applicable to the prohibition on the word `discrimination' as it appears in Article 26 of the Covenant. As I indicated previously, there is some degree of cross-pollination between articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant and some of the different equality concepts appear in both of them. I make the further point that that view expressed by the Third Committee is perfectly consistent with the prevailing view at international law that equality provisions of the kind embodied in articles 2 (1) and 26 are not intended to proscribe protective measures designed to safeguard the rights of groups in need of special protection. The development of that view at international law is described in a very informative article entitled `The Meaning of Discrimination in International and Municipal Law' by Dr W. A. McKean in 1970, in Volume 44 of the British Year Book of International Law, at page 177 in an article. As a matter of domestic Australian law, the Government took the view in drafting this section as it now appears that there would be some danger, having regard to the rather literal approach to interpretation which has been a characteristic of the common law of statutory interpretation, that domestic Australian courts might just be minded to construe Article 4 (1) as prohibiting any difference of treatment. Any such literal interpretation, if applied to that Article, would obviously make that paragraph far too broad if it stood alone. It is probably unlikely that the courts would so construe the clause insofar as certain negative treatment of particular people is concerned, but they might regard it as uncertain in its operations insofar as laws singling people out for special positive benefits are concerned. There is a danger that laws conferring special benefits on the disabled and so on might conceivably be struck down by a literally minded court. Because of that danger of misconstruction of Article 4 (1), it was decided to spell out in Article 4 (2) what that Third Committee expressly said was meant by the equality provisions in the International Covenant. I think that against that background it can be appreciated that 4 (2) in no way adds to or alters the effect of the Covenant provisions but merely reflects the intention of the drafters. So I do call in aid a further head of authority, apart from just running the straight conceptual argument, and that head of authority is the people who drafted the language in question to which the courts can, of course, have regard in interpreting its effect. On that basis, I do not really think there is any serious reason to doubt that Article 4 (2) will be held to be constitutionally valid. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.46) —I do not see what all the argument is about because, as I see it, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 does not need to rest on the external affairs power. Senator Gareth Evans —That is a new line. What can it rest on if it is not the external affairs power? Senator HARRADINE —I just make the point that, whilst we might be arguing that here and the Minister might say that it rests on the external affairs power, the Bill does not say that. Senator Gareth Evans —It does not need to. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, but what the Minister says does not matter since the High Court of Australia can validate the legislation or particular provisions within it under one or a number of powers. Kitto J. summarised the principles in Fairfax v Commissioner of Taxation, when he said: A speculative inquiry as to which of the main topics touched upon by legislation was the main pre-occupation of those who enacted it has nothing to do with the question of constitutional validity under s.51. Under that section the question is always one of subject-matter to be determined by reference solely to the operation which the enactment has, i.e. by reference to the nature of the rights, duties, powers and privileges which it changes, regulates and abolishes; is it in its real substance a law upon ``with respect to'', one or more of the enumerated subjects, or is there no more in it in relation to any of those subjects than an interference so incidental as not in truth to affect its character. I am not a lawyer but that is the advice that one has to try to get in these sorts of things, when one is trying to grapple with what might happen in the High Court on these particular questions. Clearly the objects outlined in clause 3 of the Bill do not only refer to this Bill as implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It goes broader than that. Therefore, it is arguable that the court could take a view that, no matter what we say here, it need not rely for its validity on the external affairs power. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.50) —I am indebted to Senator Harradine for reminding me of the Fairfax case, even if I mention to him-- Senator Harradine —Were you in it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I was not in it. I mention to Senator Harradine that it is a courtesy that one lawyer gives to another to indicate that he is reminding the other lawyer of a case which it is perfectly possible that, firstly, the lawyer has never heard of or, secondly, if he has heard of he has forgotten. In deference to Senator Harradine's bush lawyerly qualifications, I am employing a similar courtesy in this debate. I was going to make the point in passing that His Honour, Mr Justice Kitto, was one of the more robust strikers down of Commonwealth law for failure to be justified by reference to one or other heads of Commonwealth power and the suggestion that one could embark upon a speculative adventure of the kind that Senator Harradine is, in effect, inviting us to do, based on Mr Justice Kitto's observations, has a certain irony for anyone who is familiar with these constitutional principles. That is all very well. It is perfectly true that the law has to be looked at on its own merits. It does not matter what label it happens to be wearing; it is whether or not a connection can be found of an appropriate kind with some head or other of Commonwealth constitutional power. That is perfectly true. The difficulty is, I suggest, to find some label to justify either this legislation as a whole or individual clauses of it other than the external affairs power. There may or may not prove to be additional support for particular clauses, for example-- Senator Macklin —You are only applying it to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has absolute power to do that. It does not need the external affairs power. Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that an executive inquiry power is given, as Senator Walters will no doubt be anxious to tell us again in relation to State public servants and so on, and to the extent that it has the potential to be applied, I suppose, at some stage in the future should Parliament ever be so minded to extend it to the States, it is important that these principles be sorted out and that we have legislation that will stand up in whatever context it might be challenged. I do not prolong the debate. I simply acknowledge the point that Senator Harradine is making, but say with the utmost respect that I do not think it is of any great help in justifying this exercise. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.52) —The Minister has frequently used the phrase `benign discrimination'. It would be helpful, to me certainly, if he would tell me what that phrase means. It seems that the meaning of the phrase itself could be argued in the courts. On my understanding of its meaning, let me take the case of two people who apply for a significant job. One person is disabled. The other is not disabled and has significantly more talent. However, the disabled person gets the job. In other words, there has been an affirmative action. There has been a discrimination in favour. As I understand it, fundamentally there has been a major discrimination against an Australian citizen-the person who has failed to get the job. I do not understand how, on the one hand, we can assert that there are equal rights and, on the other hand, discriminate in favour. Nothing in the second paragraph of Article 4 says that one can discriminate against. Does benign discrimination imply that it is all right to do so, provided there is no victim? Suppose that there is a victim. Where in paragraph 2 of Article 4 is there anything to suggest that, in discriminating in favour of somebody, one can justify one's discrimination against somebody else? I ask for a simple explanation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.53) — The expression `benign discrimination' is one for which I have a personal affection as I used it in this Article, to which I referred earlier. Senator Durack —Did you coin that phrase? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, but I pre-dated this seminal Article. De gustibus non est disputandum. It is a purely arbitrary choice whether one accepts that language or the language of positive discrimination. Affirmative action is, I think, a different concept again, but one in the same family. There is no particular magic attached to it. The whole argument about benign discrimination, obviously, is at its most intense when what we are talking about is not simply singling someone out for a benefit, such as a disabled pension or something of that kind, but where a disbenefit to someone else necessarily is associated with the action in question, such as the sort of situation Senator Sir John Carrick put forward. It has been most vigorously argued in the context of quota legislation which has been enacted in some American jurisdictions, most notoriously, and which has the effect of giving guaranteed places, whether for jobs, university courses or whatever to members of particular allegedly disadvantaged minority groups in society, the corollary of which has been that others, who are perhaps better qualified for the job or place in question but who are not of that minority status, have missed out. That has been the subject of litigation and so on in the United States under its constitution. Ground rules have evolved, which I do not want to go into now, for dealing with that subject. If one is going to discriminate benignly against someone in a way which generates direct, immediate and obvious disbenefits for someone else, the argument has to be that, if that is justified, it has to be justified by some very clear, overriding and obvious principled justification, and there can be many arguments in practice about that. It would be a question for the courts to resolve here, I suppose, as in the United States, whether any particular claimed justification for the discrimination satisfied the particular criteria that are set out in the Bill-that it is a discrimination set in train for the purpose of redressing any disabilities particularly suffered by that class or arising from discrimination against it. One would have to establish all those logical connections. I hasten to add that no policy proposals are in the pipeline in relation to women, blacks or anyone else so far as Commonwealth legislation is concerned which would raise these questions in a stark way in the forseeable future. I simply make the point that this situation can arise and, to the extent that it does, it is justifiable in principle, given the way in which equal protection guarantees have traditionally been interpreted in every jurisdiction where they have existed. We can have a long argument about the philosophical justification for benign discrimination in the various circumstances that I have posited. But that is an argument that is better held in the context of working out whether any particular exercise in benign discrimination is justified in all the circumstances of the case. That is where such an argument should be had, rather than in the present context, where this Article simply acknowledges the existence of the principle and the desirability of its being carefully thought through in any real world situation that might arise. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.59) —I was not in any way seeking to argue the philosophical justification or otherwise of affirmative action in any particular case. I am concerned that the Minister has found it necessary to make a disclaimer that the Government did not intend to do certain things. That very disclaimer backs up my assertion that the Minister must therefore, see the ability under this provision for a government to do what I have described. Whether doing so is good or bad is not the question. I am trying to extract the meaning of `benign discrimination', not argue whether it is good or bad. I think the Minister has said that the phrase `benign discrimination', which he has grappled to his bosom as his own, and which I accept as his personal acquisition, has not in itself any legal meaning. It may be immortalised; I wish him luck. He has suggested that I be immortalised for the word `journey'. We all have our little quirks. Let us continue to have them. I welcome his. My objection is that the expression is very partisan. It indicates that it is benign because it helps the disabled, but it disguises the fact that it could be malign because it discriminates against another who, on all other grounds, may be much more skilled and a much more justifiable selection for a position. What really is being said-and we have to be very careful of euphemisms in this-is that we are inventing another John Stuart Mill principle, and it may be good or it may be bad. What we are saying, as I see it, is that, in the interests of human concern to assist the disabled, we are willing to deny a fundamental right to someone who is not disabled even though that person may have qualifications far above those of the disabled person. As I say, I am not adjudicating; I am simply saying that we should be careful what we are saying in terms of euphemisms and that a Bill of Rights is of no use at all if all it does is to recite platitudes which, stripped down, mean something else. I now discover that really it would be possible under this Article to do what the Americans, rightly or wrongly, have done in enforcing a situation in which certain disadvantaged and disabled people shall be given preference over others. That is an argument for policy. What we are really trying to do is find where the ceiling rests in this situation and what it allows. Am I right, first of all, in my restatement of a fifth principle of John Stuart Mill when I say that what this really says is that we can justify denying a freedom to an individual, even though that individual may have on every other ground the right to that freedom, if we assist a disabled person? Is that the principle? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.02) —The concept of benign discrimination has a whole variety of applications right across the spectrum. There are some very easy cases-for example, rural subsidies, widows' pensions, and measures to assist the physically or mentally handicapped-about which there is no controversy and where there is no obvious counterpoint. At the other end of the spectrum are the very hard cases involving quotas and so on established for particular jobs whereby people are singled out for preferment or advantage based purely on some criterion which might arguably not be the most appropriate criterion for determining who fills that place. That is the classic quota exercise of a kind which in fact has now been struck down by the United States Supreme Court as incompatible with the equal protection objective. I am referring to the Bakker case, in which a white applicant for a university position, better qualified in terms-- Senator Harradine —Reverse discrimination. Senator GARETH EVANS —Reverse discrimination is another way of putting it, as is benign or positive. This applicant was discriminated against in the sense that he lost his place to a less well qualified member of a minority group. That is the hard case of benign discrimination or reverse discrimination which I was simply being honest enough-maybe that is an undesirable trait to adopt in this debate-to use to indicate that there are very real difficulties of principle about that, and I acknowledge the force of what Senator Sir John Carrick is saying. Then there are, between the easy cases and the hard cases, many middle order cases of which, I suppose, in the Australian context, the clearest example would be Aboriginal land rights legislation. The honourable senators can think of the Northern Territory land rights legislation enacted by the Fraser Government. Aboriginal land rights legislation is what I describe as a middle order case because, while, on the one hand, it is a clear example of the application of the principle, within the language of Article 4 (2), of discriminating in favour of a class of person for the purpose of redressing any disabilities particularly suffered by that class or arising from discrimination against that class, it is not as simple a case as the rural subsidy or deserted wives' pension case, nor is there an immediately visible person who misses out as a result of the favoured treatment being given. There is a class of people, white Northern Territorians, who would argue that they have missed out by virtue of the special or favoured treatment being given to Aboriginal people in the operation of this legislation. It is an argument that one can well understand; one hears it all the time. What I suppose this legislation is trying to put beyond doubt, and what Article 4 (2) is therefore saying, is that the courts must recognise that there is this extra legitimate dimension to equal protection rights and that it is compatible with discriminatory legislation which is nonetheless based on some objective, fair, reasonable and discernible principle. I suppose that in a particular case, were someone minded to challenge the validity of the Northern Territory land rights legislation calling in aid the equal protection clause, Article 4 (2) is there as a directive to the courts to respond in an appropriate way and to give recognition to that particular example of non-equal protection. Simply to pick out a hard case of the application of the benign discrimination concept is not, I think, to meet the concerns that the Government has felt about all this and the reasoning which has led us to incorporate that language in the Bill. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.06) —To follow that up for a moment, when I was a member of the Fraser Government, which brought in Aboriginal land rights, I was not aware that we were relying on the Covenant to do that. We seemed to be able to do it without any need for a Bill of Rights or anything else. It seemed quaint to use it, if I may say so. Equally, in many of the things in which I have participated over the years the principle of Article 4 (2) has been a principle of affirmative action that I have espoused and willingly wanted to implement without going to the Covenant. I think that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) may understand me. I am probing this because of my fear that a Bill of Rights in writing will limit something that we have taken for granted in the past. I am probing it not because I do not find virtue in Article 4 (2)-of course I do, in many cases-but because I believe, first of all, that it is unconstitutional, which could be a disaster in itself, and, secondly, that it could be restrictive in itself. The Minister said that the case that I put up was a hard case. I am well aware that such cases make bad laws. I do not regard it as a hard case; I regard it as one of many cases. After all, let us take the American situation of disadvantaged people being given rights in colleges and universities. Time and time again others with much higher academic qualifications were knocked back. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong. I am asking whether this Article allows that kind of situation or does not allow it. I ask the Minister to respond to that. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(12.08) —I too want to refer to Article 4 (1) and Article 4 (2). Of course, everyone should have the right without any discrimination to equal protection before the law, which I would have thought already existed, but it appears to me that the second part of Article 4 suggests that, if any anyone is unequal, he or she ought to be made equal in some way or other, because the Article says: Nothing in this Bill of Rights affects the operation of any earlier or later law by reason only of the fact that the law discriminates in favour of a class of persons for the purposes of redressing any disabilities particularly suffered by that class or arising from discrimination against that class. Senator Evans referred to land rights for Aborigines in the Northern Territory. What about the example of Aboriginal people who can attract especially low rates of interest on housing loans, as exists in other parts of Australia? It seems to me that people in the lower socio-economic group, people in other ethnic or racial groups, European or what have you, could conceivably use this Article to suggest that they should not be paying 17 per cent interest but should also be entitled to a home loan at an interest rate of 4 1/2 per cent to 5 1/2 per cent. That to me shows the absolutely ridiculous nature of this human rights legislation. The Minister may have a logical, rational, reasonable answer to that point. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.10) —Article 4 (2) does not state that there is an obligation on governments or anyone else to legislate or to take other action in favour of anyone around the place who can plausibly claim to have suffered some disability and for which he or that group requires redress. I repeat that 4 (2) does not create any obligation on anybody to do anything. All that 4 (2) says is that, if government makes a policy decision embodied in legislation to give some favourable treatment to a particular class of persons, based on some rational considerations relating to the past experience of that group, that particular law will not be struck down as offensive to the principle of equal protection of the law. That is all that 4 (2) is about. Senator Sheil —It is affirmative action then? Senator GARETH EVANS —I thank Senator Sheil. I have acknowledged that it is affirmative action, if he wants to use that particular expression, which is an imprecise one. I do not think that assists us. The reason it is necessary to give some acknowledgment of this albeit that it is probably implicit in the concept of equal protection law, as I have argued all along, is that the equal protection concept is one that, read absolutely literally, would imply that all people should be treated exactly the same no matter what differences there are between them. I have argued, and it is recognised in most jurisdictions, that in fact that is not the way in which the equal protection concept is applied. Equal protection means that prima facie everyone is to be treated exactly alike unless there are reasonable, rational, objectively discernible grounds for treating them differently. Senator Jessop —I suggest that they ought to be unequal. Senator GARETH EVANS —But that is the way our whole legal system operates. For instance, taxpayers are treated differently depending on the level of income they receive. That is a discriminatory treatment, if one likes. It is not equal protection of the law to set rates at 46 per cent for some people, 30 per cent for others and 60 per cent for others. But it is a rational ground of distinction on which to base the rate of tax. There are innumerable other examples; the whole legal system is full of them. Equal protection is not a blunderbuss that carves a way through any sort of legal provision which discriminates affirmatively or negatively, for or against, a particular group of people. The equal protection principle is simply one that states that any law is at risk if it does treat people differently unless there is some rational ground for doing so. That is inherent in the principle of equal protection. It is further spelt out in 4 (2) to deal with one particular class of issue that arises very often and which is so often misunderstood that it was felt desirable to try to articulate it in terms of the legislation itself. But there are no basic issues of principle here that are as offensive as Senator Jessop and others seem to think is possible. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(12.13) —Do I understand from what the Minister has said that this applies to any law, State or Federal, or just purely Commonwealth law? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.13) —To the extent that the Bill is directed only to Commonwealth law and that courts can strike down only a Commonwealth or territory law that is inconsistent with the legislation-it cannot strike down a State law that is inconsistent-in that sense, of course, it is applicable only to Commonwealth law. As Senator Walters will remind me, with all of the inexorability of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, there are aspects of the Bill which do allow the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to investigate what goes on at the State level. But in terms of the robust primary operation of the Bill as outweighing and overruling inconsistent legislation, no, that is not applicable to the State. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.15) —I ask the Minister a question out of genuine interest and curiosity. When he was referring to Articles 4 (1) and 4 (2) he talked about a rational explanation for discrimination. Article 4 (1) states that every person has the right without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. What would be the situation with the different age at which males and females receive pension entitlements and retirement benefits? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.16) — That is a good question, and it is one that has exercised-- Senator Crichton-Browne —My mum rang me. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the first evidence of the honourable senator's humanity that we have had for a long time in this chamber. That is a good question as to whether the traditional distinction between men and women with regard to a whole variety of benefits and provisions around the place conferred by Commonwealth legislation is in fact consistent with the equal protection concept. It has been argued out and litigated in the United States of America, I think. There it has been held that for a whole variety of reasons those age differentiations are in fact permissible. I have been reminded, to employ again that lawyerly convention-I did not know but I have been reminded-that there was some litigation in Europe before the European court under the European convention in which Britain was arguing in favour of discriminatory pension systems as between men and women, based on-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Arguing in favour of it? Senator GARETH EVANS —It was arguing about the legitimacy of discriminating in the way that we do. The court in question held that it was an illegitimate discrimination. Maybe this is one of the corollaries of this which will give the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, budgetary nightmares to contemplate. But, under this legislation, it is capable of being overridden, of course. We are not talking about an absolute overriding constitutional guarantee. But that is an excellent example of the kind of issue that governments will be forced to confront as a result of the passage of the Bill of Rights, and so we should confront it. As Senator Walters will acknowledge, it is pretty hard, when one thinks about it, to justify that tradition of discriminating between men and women in terms of eligibility age for a pension. No doubt Senator Walters, with her infinite capacity to rationalise everything, will say that it is impossible that there could be anything in this Bill that could possibly be of any use to anyone. No doubt she will leap to her feet and tell us that in a moment. But it is an example of people or governments being forced to go back to first principles and defend these things. If they cannot be defended in principle, one must at least make a conscious and overt decision for practical reasons, for compelling budgetary reasons or something else, to override them, but at least one has to acknowledge that there is an issue of principle there. It is a good question and I hope that I have given it a frank answer. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.18) —Will the Minister just answer very simply, in not many words, who decides which of the groups, which class of people, has the ability to have discrimination in favour of them? Is it the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, is it the law or what is it? I just want to know whether the Commission actually decides whether one group is eligible and another is not. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.19) — Article 4 (2) is really written as an instruction to the courts in the exercise of their power under this legislation, or the power that they will have in five years time when the legislation comes into effect in this way. It is an instruction to the courts to uphold the validity of laws that have already been enacted or that may be enacted in the future that single out classes of people that arguably satisfy this description. I suppose it gives some guidance to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission if the Commission is reporting upon the legitimacy or otherwise of some particular law that presently exists or is proposed. The Commission would undoubtedly have regard to Article 4 (2) and could look at the criteria and say what it thinks of them. But it should be noted that what we are talking about is not an open invitation to some group or other in the community to claim that it ought to be singled out for special treatment. What we are talking about is a protective device to protect actual laws that have been enacted, a policy decision having been made to give some favourable treatment to some particular group. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.20) —Therefore, the Commission could decide that that class of people really should not be discriminated in favour of and the law could override the Commission in that regard. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.20) — The Commission cannot decide anything on these matters. Senator Walters —Well, it could strike down a law which it believes-- Senator GARETH EVANS —The Commission cannot strike down anything. The Commission does not have powers to do anything of the kind. Senator Walters —It can make that decision. It can make that report to the Minister. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! Can we have just one speaker at a time and not a cross-chamber conversation, please. Senator Evans, have you grasped enough of Senator Walters's question to be able to answer it coherently or would you like her to repeat it? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Commission does not decide anything. The Commission reports and makes recommendations. To the extent that the Commission is asked to make a report about the operation of some law which raises this question, yes, the Commission could say that in its opinion the particular group which was singled out for favourable treatment is not one that satisfies this particular description and the law accordingly does not appear to be justified under Article 4 (2). That is possible, but it is Parliament which has the last word, because if Parliament does not like what the court does, under this whole scheme the Parliament would have the capacity to override it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.22) —As I understand it, this Article also could apply to unionists. Indeed, quite legitimately it could be said that unionists are a class of people that are discriminated in favour of and that is by reason of redressing a disability because they are paying union dues while other employees in the same business or industry are not paying union dues. Therefore, it could indeed be classed as a group which needs discrimination in its favour. I can see tremendous problems associated with my scenario. Can the Minister tell me whether the Human Rights Commission already has had approaches made to it to the effect that there has been discrimination against people for not being union members? What is the situation in that regard? These people feel that in their employment area they have been discriminated against purely because they are not union members. What are the decisions which have been taken in this area? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.23) —I think this is a matter which is better addressed under the clause concerning freedom of association. I am not sure what the experience of the Human Rights Commission has been in relation to complaints being made to it or reports which in fact it has issued. Senator Walters —You can find out? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can find out in due course, but I do not think I can find out in the next two minutes. Perhaps I can find out and be armed to answer questions of that kind when we get to the clause which will undoubtedly attract some discussion about the trade unions, the right to join them and the implications of not being a union member. May I suggest that we leave that until then. Senator Walters —We can leave that, but what about the other part of my question? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry, what was the other part of the honourable senator's question? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.24) —Would it be permissible for unions to be considered a class of people which should have laws discriminating in their favour under this particular Article? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.24) — There are two separate questions. One question is whether it is legitimate under the principle of equal protection for laws to treat people unequally, based on certain characteristics-whether it is age, sex or union versus non-union membership, in the case of preference clauses and so on. That is one question which arises in any ordinary application of the equal protection principle. Another question is whether Article 4 (2) has some specific application which deals with one particular kind of unequal law. Article 4 (2) is not the only exception to the principle of absolute equality of treatment. There is a whole heap of unequal treatments that can be justified other than by reference to Article 4 (2). I am sure that the question would hardly even arise, in even the most adventurous unionist's breast, of seeking shelter under the protection of Article 4 (2). I cannot imagine that that would be so. I cannot conceive of a context in which that could arise. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.25) —I asked the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) several questions. I asked him under what head of power we had brought in the land rights legislation. Also I asked him what heads of power were used for the various affirmative action and benign discrimination measures undertaken over the years. I did so because I want to know whether those heads of power which exist now might be constrained by the Bill of Rights. May we have a simple answer to those questions? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.25) — The only land rights legislation we passed is for the Northern Territory. As such, it is based on the combination of the Territory's power under section 122 of the Constitution and, I suppose, the Aborigines'-people of any race-power under section 51 (xxvii). The social security legislation, which almost by definition is discriminatory as between different classes of persons, is based on section 51 whatever it is of the Constitution which gives the Commonwealth power to legislate in respect of old age and other classes of pension. I do not think it could be said that a constitutional issue would here arise. If the Bill of Rights legislation which we are now seeking to pass is a legitimate constitutional exercise of the Commonwealth's power and some prohibition or some element of the Bill of Rights is in conflict with another law which is also passed in legitimate use of the Commonwealth's constitutional power, it is simply up to the courts to resolve any inconsistency between the two laws in question. It is not a question of overriding the Constitution in all of this; it is just a question of the ordinary application of legal principles in the interpretation of conflicting Commonwealth laws. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.27) —Fundamentally, my worry is this. We seem to have got on pretty well, without a Bill of Rights, by using the section 51 powers of the Constitution which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has just referred to. We seem to have been able to fly fairly widely under that. I approve of that. I am worried about whether the Government is absolutely convinced that the wording and the nature of this Bill of Rights will not in any way conflict with what we have done or cause endless litigation to determine what it is all about. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.27) — Senator Sir John Carrick keeps on wanting us to have a second reading argument in the interstices of the consideration of particular clauses. I do not believe that any mainstream Commonwealth legislation, in any area which is manifestly acceptable to the Australian community, will be put at risk by the operation of the Bill of Rights. It may be that there have been particular insensitive applications of Commonwealth law in the past, particular regulatory provisions which have excluded women from particular occupations, or things of that kind, which may well turn up. I am inclined to think that instances of unreasonable unequal treatment are more likely to turn up in the interstices of State law than in Commonwealth law, but to the extent that they do turn up it is important that they be able to be the subject of argument under the Bill of Rights. To the extent that people can identify problems of this kind, I am sure as often as not the Commonwealth will be only too happy to correct them without the need for extensive and expensive litigation. One of the utilities of the Bill of Rights is that it forces governments to look again at the statute books and to look again at their executive practices to ensure that things are operating in accordance with proper principles and are not just left to possible chance misapplications in an unfair way, as has happened often enough in the past. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.29) —I would like to come back to the discussion the Committee has been having about the constitutional justification for Article 4 (2). Senator Evans has admitted, and it is quite clear, that in fact there is no explicit provision in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to support the inclusion of Article 4 (2) in the Bill of Rights. There has been debate on other aspects of Article 4 (2), but in relation to the question of its justification he has argued that it is implicit in the provisions in the Covenant which talk about equal protection of the law-as he has said, in a somewhat confused way, with which I entirely agree. He claimed that Article 4 (1) of the Bill of Rights makes the position more clear than the provision in the Covenant. That may or may not be so. It is not a very easy concept to make clear and it is not a very easy concept even to understand clearly. We know that is certainly a concept which leads to endless litigation and always will. This is the sort of objection that we will continually have to article after article in this Bill of Rights. There is no doubt that there will be-as happened in the United States of America-an enormous amount of use of the Bill of Rights by people trying to establish that there is something wrong in the law because it does not provide equal protection. Senator Evans, in justifying Article 4 (2), has relied on the implicit meaning of the Covenant. Of course, what he really is primarily relying on is a large amount of American case law and his own article which he has referred us to relies on such case law. I regret to say that I have not yet had the time to refer to that Article. I make the terrible confession that I have never actually read it but I hope to repair that serious omission in my legal education when I get time. I want to ask Senator Evans whether he relies entirely on the American jurisprudence and his own article and other implicit meanings that may be read into the Covenant. I ask him whether he relies solely on that or whether he relies in any way on the severability provisions contained in clause 47 in Part VI of the Bill which states: If this Act exceeds the powers of the Parliament by reason of the inclusion in the Bill of Rights of a particular provision or particular provisions, this Act is intended to operate as if that provision, or those provisions, as the case may be, were omitted from the Bill of Rights. I do not recall-I cannot pick it up in Hansard quickly-whether the Minister has used that as a way of overcoming the problem. If the courts decided that it was not within the Government's power for some reason, would clause 47 be of any assistance to the Government? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.32) — Clause 47 is there as an expression of the Parliament's desire that a sub-clause which is found to be unconstitutional be severed and that the remainder of the Bill stand. In the absence of a clause such as clause 47 it is possible for the courts to take the view that they have not been given sufficient guidance as to Parliament's intention or will in this matter and, accordingly, they might strike the whole thing down. The reason clause 47 is there is to ensure that, if the courts reach a decision about some part of the Bill, they will sever it to the extent possible. I certainly have never mentioned clause 47 as an affirmative justification for any clause or sub-clause of the Bill. I have taken a very strong position, and will again when further baubles are offered in later amendments, that we ought not to embark on any adventures in relation to this Bill which would attach to it provisions which are manifestly unconstitutional or manifestly at risk constitutionally. I have taken that view all along and I will continue to take it throughout this debate. I have certainly argued for Article 4 (2), not on the basis that it is a kind of optional extra which might be a nice idea to have there and it does not matter if it gets thrown out at the end of the day as being unconstitutional, on the ground that it is necessarily implicit in the concept of equal protection. I further stated this morning, and it may be that Senator Durack was not in the chamber at that point, that I derived some assistance in that respect not only from the United States cases-which I certainly was not relying on as a forcible authority without more, but just as a supplementary assistance-but also, and I sought encouragement and support for this, from the paragraph in the report of the Third Committee at the Seventeenth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. I will repeat it for the record because I do not think Senator Durack could have been in the chamber; in other words, to the extent that special affirmative action measures were consistent with the concept of that distinction, no. There has been a consistent thread through all this that, while it is not based on any actual language in the Covenant-to that extent it might be thought to be a slightly risky enterprise to put it into the Bill of Rights-it is so bound up in the notion of equal protection in the way in which that concept has been construed and applied and the way in which it was clearly present in the minds of the drafters of this legislation that it is justified in its own right constitutionally. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.35) —I am sorry, perhaps I did not make my question clear. I know that the Minister has been arguing forcibly-we have listened to that argument for a long time-that Article 4 (2), its proper interpretation and all the rest of it, can be justified under the Covenant. What I am really concerned to know is whether the Minister argues that, in the event that all those arguments fail, the inclusion of Article 4 (2) will not be fatal to the Bill. In other words, by using clause 47, it will not be fatal to the Bill: Does the Minister argue that? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.36) —I do argue that and I do not accept the suggestions of the Australian Law Council to the contrary that Article 4 (2) is somehow so inextricably connected with the mainstream fabric of the Bill that it will bring the whole edifice tumbling down if it should go; implausible, in my argument, as it may be that it would go. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.37) —I just wish to take that further. The Minister has argued already that the further we get away from the language or the provisions of the Covenant the more risky the exercise becomes from a constitutional point of view. The Minister has argued that very specifically in relation to the addition of the word `disability' in Article 1 which the Committee has agreed to. The Minister has expressed a great deal of nervousness about our moving away from the words of the Covenant. Presumably now we can say that, if we can find something implicit in the Covenant, it will be all right. The Minister has said that Article 4 (2) is implicit. I would have thought that Article 4 (2) is very much a further removal from the words in the Covenant than the addition of the word `disability' in Article 1 (1). What the Minister is doing in Article 4 (2) is incorporating into the Bill of Rights a concept which has very wide ramifications. He did not like the words `affirmative action' but the sort of effect that Article 4 (2) will have will justify affirmative action in whatever form it may take. I know that this Government uses words in the way it wants them to be used by calling a Bill an affirmative action and equal opportunity Bill, which is not affirmative action in the ordinary sense of the words. It would even go so far as to cover a genuine affirmative action in the American sense of quotas. Therefore Article 4 (2) goes a very long way and has wide ramifications in regard to the powers of parliament, what it can do at various times and what it has done. It is a major departure, if it cannot be justified under the Covenant, of the arguments Senator Evans is advancing. Then I was interested to hear that he still thought that it would not affect the whole of the Bill because of the operation of Clause 47. I would point out that the argument he used in cautioning us and warning us and opposing the addition of the word `disability' in Article 1 was perhaps rather beside the point. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.41) —Just for the record, I would remind Senator Durack that I said, in the context of the debate about disability, that that was a very minor example. I did not think there was any particular risk associated with the insertion of the word `disability'. I said that I was simply making the point at that stage foreshadowing a point that I would be making with much more vigour in the context of some later amendments that were proposed. The other string to my bow in relation to disability was that it seemed to me to be an arbitrary selection of one particular additional status ground when there are so many others jostling for potential attention, such as age, marital status and so on. There were other considerations than simply the notion of adding extra language to the Bill. I acknowledge the other points that Senator Durack made, but do not think I can add anything useful by way of answer to what I already have said in earlier replies. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.42) —I have a couple of minor points. The wording of Article 4 (1) differs from that in Article 26 of the ICCP in that it uses the singular and not the plural. I wonder why the Government did that. I do not think the use of the singular does what the Covenant intended. The use of the plural surely would seem more appropriate when providing for equality. My second point follows the question asked by Senator Crichton-Browne. Senators who were not present when he was here should realise that the question related to Article 4 (2) and its application or possible application on the question of pensionable ages as between men and women. I have a similar question relating to the laws associated with the lifting of weights for workers, which in many areas is different as between men and women. My concern is that Article 4 may affect the protective provisions of those laws. I point out that under the Sex Discrimination Act protective weight-lifting limits for women will become unenforceable automatically as from 1 August 1986. Senator Crichton-Browne —Was there not mention of this in the BHP case recently? Senator HARRADINE —I am not familiar with that case, but I will be interested in it. To give an example under the Tasmanian laws, and there are other examples-- Senator Gareth Evans —We hope to finish this part of the Bill by 12.45. May we try to get this clause before that time? Senator HARRADINE —If the Minister can give me an answer now. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.44) —As to the singular and plural point, it is basically a matter of drafting style. I do not think there is any significance attached to it. We have used the concept of `every person' all the way through. I have already indicated that in drafting articles 26 and 1 of the Covenant into the language of this Bill of Rights, we have taken the concepts and reshuffled them, as it were, between those two articles. In the course of that the drafting has been expressed in the way it is. I will have a look at that question, but I do not honestly believe there is any significance attached to it. Senator Harradine —Will the Minister give me an answer to the other one later? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the Sex Discrimination Act, which in effect rules out weight restrictions of the traditional kind which cannot be justified in any rational way other than as an employment discrimination mechanism in the past, they would be rubbed out and continue to be rubbed out by the primary effect of the equal protection clause in 4 (1). One would not have to sneak in with the help of 4 (2) to justify that particular equality principle applying. Article agreed to. 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 no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(1.46) —I desire to speak on this, the day before the Afghanistan national day, about the conditions of Afghanistan people and our reaction to them. I did speak last year on the first day of Afghanistan's spring, which is recognised as its national day. I think it is important that we should constantly keep before the Australian people, and particularly the Australian media, the fact that Afghanistan is suffering a travail which has gone on now for six years of warfare which the Soviet Union has imposed upon that country. The valiant efforts of the mujihadeen have been such that they have resisted throughout that period attempts to subjugate them. We have made various gestures at various times in the past. We, in fact, boycotted the Olympic Games and our leaders have constantly said that we are at one with the Afghan people. I think that we should bear this in mind as we come to this matter today. I want to refer to the situation which is, I think, well known to honourable senators. The leader of the Afghan community in this country, General M. Nawaz Waziri, the President of the Afghan-Australian Islamic Cultural Association, in writing to me on 5 February 1986, had this to say: . . . After the Russian invasion, the Afghan nation was confronted with countless problems such as homelessness, helplessness, tragical events. The bloody Russians did a lot of aggression to the innocent people of our beloved country. They used all kinds of power and razed to the ground hundreds of thousands of houses of people, Mosques, bazaars, towns, villages, and burnt up the harvests of the people and over four million people were forced to leave their beloved country and become refugees. That situation continues today, with many people remaining outside Afghanistan. Something like one-fifth of the population has had to leave that country. I think it is interesting in this regard to refer to remarks which were made by Mykola Mochvan, a former soldier of the Soviet Union Army who defected in Afghanistan. Writing in the autumn 1986 edition of the Australian-Ukrainian Review, he had this to say: This war is being waged against the Afghan people by the leaders in the Kremlin and their Afghan quislings. The victims are the Afghan people and the young men of the Soviet Union who are forced to spill their blood for the imperialist ambitions of their masters in Moscow. The governments of the democratic states expressed their outrage at first with loud protests and threats of economic sanctions against the Soviet aggressors. Today, we see the same governments and their most principled statesmen engaging in friendly talks with the tyrants of the Kremlin. The tragedy of the Afghan nation is made worse by the silence of world public opinion. This man, a Ukrainian, points out in the article that the problems are the same as those that his own people in the Ukraine have found over an even longer period of domination by the Soviet Union. Thirdly-and I speak only very briefly of the travail and destruction that have taken place-I want to say something of the Soviet aggression in the light of international law. This has been referred to in a recent edition of Afghanistan, the first publication by the Australian Relief Committee for Afghanistan, of which I have the honour to be a patron. An article by Peter McMullin, the Chairman, points out that the intervention by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan has been in contravention of the principles of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples proclaimed in Algiers on 5 July 1976, which expresses ideals widely shared by an increasing number of men and women throughout the world. Mr McMullin adds: More specifically, the Soviet intervention clearly violates article 5 of this Declaration, which states that every people has the imprescriptible and inalienable right to self determination and to choose its own political status in complete freedom without any external interference. He refers also to the following decision of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal on Afghanistan held in Stockholm in May 1981: The Tribunal-condemns the Soviet Union for Violation of the laws and customs of war-declares that such violations are closely linked to the inalienable rights of the Afghan people and that respect for the fundamental rights of peoples constitutes a sine qua non condition of the respect of elementary human values inherent in the laws of war. We know that the United Nations Organisation has made a number of declarations of the same nature. There is no doubt that this is a war against the people, one contrary to international law, and one which we must constantly keep between the people and before the people so that we can persuade the Russians to take a different course. I want also to mention today questions of aid and of migration. I think they are relevant and that we should consider them in co-ordination with what we are doing for the people of Afghanistan. We are, in Australia, giving some support-the Americans of course, are giving much more-to assistance to refugees. Three and a half million of the people of Afghanistan are in Pakistan and 800,000 are in Iran. They have to be supported and in due course have to be placed somewhere if this war is not going to be ended by some type of agreement. We, in Australia, in 1984-85 gave $4,939,000, nearly $5 million, mainly in food aid, particularly wheat, to the World Food Program. We also joined in the water drilling project of UHNHR. I think we have made a useful contribution but I would hope that our contribution will be greater because, clearly, there is a grave need to assist these people who are living in great poverty, in Pakistan particularly. I want to turn now to another matter where I am very concerned that the Australian Government is not showing the same type of recognition. That is the question of the migration of Afghans to this country. I desire to put into the record certain letters because they show both the fears of the Afghan people here in Australia and the response of the Australian Government, which is not good enough at all. In the first place, an organisation known as Khodaye Khedmat Garran wrote, in very special terms, to the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) on 13 and 15 July, 1985 respectively. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter which they sent. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- KHODAYE KHEDMAT GARRAN P.O. Box 1429M, Melbourne, 3001 Australia Telephone: (03) 596 7576 13 July 1983. Mr Bill Hayden, Foreign Minister, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. Dear Honourable, As you know the crisis in Afghanistan getting worse, the Afghans people are really in trouble and suffering from post regim and communist, since, the invasion of Afghanistan some peace lover countries around the world do accept the Afghans as refugee and have had some sort of contribution for them every year. However, we are aware that the Australian Government do accept some refugees from the other countries, and they have had contribution yearly to settle in Australia. I do believe that you have seen the situation personally in May this year and did talk with the Afghan Chief In Pakistan, we do appreciate that you condemned the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and called for withdrawal of Soviet forces. Also the aid given to the Afghans proud people and Free Fighters. I am wondering why the Australian Government has no attention and some contribution for the Afghans potential refugees and innocent people? There are a few people who come under S.H.P. Family re-union and refugee programs, which is absolutely not good enough. By the way, our request is from the Australian peace lover Government please, solve our big problems and give contribution for them as same as other countries to settle in Australia yearly. Trusting in your sympathetic consideration of this particular matter. Yours sincerely, Sherehad Marshall. Chairman. Senator MISSEN —In that letter they point out that some people need, want to and are trying to migrate to this country and urge the Government to take appropriate steps. The matter was referred by the Foreign Minister to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for his particular attention. The Honourable Chris Hurford, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, replied on 28 August, 1985. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ETHNIC AFFAIRS The Hon. Chris HURFORD, M.P. Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600 84/95697-2485Q REF/VB:MT 28 Aug. 1985 Mr Sherahmd Marshall Chairman Khodaye Khedmat Garran PO Box 1429M MELBOURNE, VIC. 3001 Dear Mr Marshall Thank you for your letter of 15 July 1985 in which you enquired about the resettlement of Afghans in Australia under the refugee program. You also wrote to the Foreign Minister, Bill Hayden, on this matter. Let me first assure you that the Government is committed to diversification within the Australian refugee and humanitarian program with particular attention to the Middle East and Latin America. For administrative purposes my Department processes applications by Afghans under the Middle Eastern program. Australia, however, does have regional interests in Asia as well as an on-going interest in refugee situations in Eastern Europe. Although a specified number of places is allocated annually to the broad program categories in order to facilitate efficient administration of the overall program, it is not generally the practice to allot specific places for individual nationalities. This allows for maximum flexibility in responding to changing situations. In order to achieve our aim of a globally-based program, Australia must utilise the limited number of available resettlement places for those most in need. Applications are therefore assessed on a case-by-case basis and applicants individually must establish a claim to refugee status or humanitarian consideration and fall within one or more of the priority categories for inclusion in the Australian program. I am aware that Afghan refugee numbers, particularly in Pakistan, are large but the number considered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to be in need of resettlement outside the region is not large. I understand a majority are rural people who are in need of temporary refuge until such time as they can safely and freely return to their homeland. In separate correspondence you expressed concern about a number of recent unsuccessful applications for resettlement by Afghans. It must be understood that individual applicants from whatever countries need to establish an eligibility on their merits and against specified criteria. The program does not give automatic entry entitlement to nationals of any given country nor to those who have relatives in Australia. Australia already considers individual Afghans for humanitarian resettlement and we will continue to consider deserving cases deemed by the UNHCR or comparable authority to be of concern and in need of permanent resettlement elsewhere. I trust this letter resolves some of the concerns raised in your correspondence. Yours sincerely CHRIS HURFORD Senator MISSEN —In particular, in that letter the Minister points out that there are plans for the resettlement of a number of people from Asia and one would think that an effort would have been made to include some of those in Pakistan, who have been trying to get to Australia, and who have been for many years. There is talk in that letter of the fact that these people are very often of a rural background and perhaps would not settle into Australia but, unquestionably, those who have sought to come here are people of considerable education and training, who would be a great asset to Australia and would fit very largely into our community. The fact is that, since that time, 150 people have been interviewed. They are carefully selected. They are people who have qualifications that would fit them for Australia. We sent over from our embassy in Syria someone to specially interview them but only 10 have been admitted to this country. The rest have been excluded. They have received letters which indicate that they are not to be included in the Australian population. I think it is deplorable. The result of this is that I wrote on 7 February 1986 to the Hon. Chris Hurford deploring the situation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of that letter. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- The Hon. Chris Hurford MP Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, Re: Afghan Community and Migration to Australia I have recently had discussions with three representatives of the Afghan Community in Melbourne. They are Mr Mohammad Nawaz Waziri, President of the Association, formerly a General in the Army of Afghanistan; secondly Mr Mohammed Moyen Bajawray, former Kabul University Lecturer and Secretary of the Afghan Community Association (P.O. Box 128, Elwood, Victoria 3184); and Mr Sher Ahmad Marshal, former official of the Ministry of Education as co-ordinator of Refugee and Migrants Committee Affairs. They are very concerned at the treatment which Afghan applicants, now mostly in camps in Pakistan under very trying conditions, are receiving in relation to migration to Australia. I understand that last year there was an indication that some hundred or so applicants would be allowed to come to Australia. The people who put applications in were people of high qualifications, but only ten have been granted. I have before me letters of rejection from the Department to a number of people who have brothers and sisters in Australia and who have been told to review their options, including ``refugee resettlement elsewhere with the assistance of the UNHCR''. It seems to me that there are many people who have family connections in Australia and we are quite wrongly sloughing them off. In view of the actions which the Australian people have taken over Afghanistan and the horror which we all feel towards the invasion and the attempt by the Soviet Union to tyrannise these people, I find it impossible to understand why your Department adopts such an inconsistent attitude. Various applicants last year were interviewed by Mr Paul Smith of the Syria Australian Embassy who went to Pakistan to interview them, and in fact interviewed more than 150 Afghans during that period, but most have been rejected and I think for quite inadequate reasons. I am very impressed by the responsible attitude of those who saw me and by the efforts which have been made by members of the Afghan community to settle in this country. There are not very many of them but they are proving good citizens and I think that the rejection out of hand of these applications is particularly offensive. Let me give examples: In regard to Mr Bajawray, he has been here for three years and will get citizenship in a few weeks. His sister, whose husband died in the fighting, has been turned down by the Government and she has been told try elsewhere. Mr Bajawray also has a brother in Pakistan. Of Mr Marshal's family, three members are in Melbourne and are all Australian citizens, and the applications for his father-in-law and mother-in-law and their children have likewise been turned down. Mr Waziri has been living in Australia with his wife and two children and his two sisters-in-law. All are permanent residents but for less than two years. His attempt to sponsor his brother-in-law, Mohammad Aref Moh-Seni who is 32 years old and a graduate of the University in Engineering, has likewise been turned down. Reference has also been made to the case of Dr Feda Mohammad Eqbal, who is Mr Marshal's first cousin. He is an excellent doctor and speaks good English. He was turned down by Mr Smith who interviewed him in Pakistan. These are only some of the examples where I suggest an unfeeling attitude has been adopted, particularly as it must be patently obvious to members of your Department that they are unable to return to Afghanistan without real risk to their lives. I suggest that the present applications have only been for educated persons and they would obviously provide excellent citizens for Australia. I would suggest that if you would look at the experience of the 40 families or so in Melbourne, roughly 170 people living in Victoria, you will see that many of them have purchased homes and that they are a hard-working and able group in the community. There is a bigger number in Sydney. I understand that something like 95% of them are working and more than half of them are buying their own homes. I am aware of the letters written by Mr Marshal, who was Chairman of the group known as Khodaye Khedmat Garran which has now amalgamated with the general community. He wrote to you on the 15th July 1985 and to the Foreign Minister on the 13th July 1985. In case they are not immediately available to you, I enclose a copy of this letter to the Foreign Minister, which is in the same form as the letter written to you, and his reply of the 6th August 1985. I know that in the reply which they received from R. A. Stainsby, Assistant Representative (Legal) of the UNHCR, dated the 22nd July 1985, he said that you were announcing Australia's Humanitarian Programme and there were 750 places allocated to persons from the Middle East under that programme. This was to include some Afghan refugees and some Afghan humanitarian cases. Apparently this has amounted so far to ten persons in all. I am, of course, aware of your reply to Mr Marshal dated the 28th August 1985. In that letter you state that a majority of the Afghan refugees are rural people in need of temporary refuge until such time as they can safely and freely return to their homeland. To begin with, of course, it is likely to be many years before this can come about but in any event the applicants who have so far sought resettlement in Australia have not been rural people but educated people who can obviously fit very well into the Australian community. You maintain there that you will continue to consider deserving cases deemed by the UNHCR or comparable authority and in need of permanent resettlement here. I suggest to you that most of the people who have applied so far fit into that category and I would strongly urge that the Government once again acts in a way in which the Australian people have expressed their views on this subject, and show a great deal more consideration to the resettlement of Afghan refugees. I would hope for an early reply so that I can communicate it to the Afghan community in Victoria. Yours sincerely, Alan Missen Senator for Victoria Senator MISSEN —I set out in that letter not only the detailed arguments but also the position of various people who have sought to migrate to this country. Some have families and are still in Afghanistan, living in very extraordinary circumstances and in great danger to themselves. I refer to the earlier correspondence, to which no proper response has been made by the Minister, and regret that this has not led to us doing something in reality towards bringing into Australia a number of people who would fit into this country. We will be showing, in our demonstration of migration policies, what we should be doing and what we have been saying in our foreign affairs policy. I made the same arguments, the same criticism of the Government, last week in regard to similar circumstances arising with the Tamils of Sri Lanka. I have spoken previously of the situation with regard to Irian Jaya. I believe that we must show by our policies consistency between foreign affairs declarations and decisions made by our Migration Department. I should just add that I wrote a further letter on 10 February because of additional material that I obtained from the Afghan community. I forwarded to Mr Hurford a letter to me of 5 February 1986 from the Afghan community and I seek leave to incorporate that in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Senator Alan Missen, Senator for Victoria, 400 Flinders Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000. Dear Mr Alan Missen, Thank you for your letter of 5th December 1985, and giving us the opportunity to write to you regarding the Afghan problems. I am absolutely certain that Your Excellency is well informed of the existing situation in Afghanistan. After the Russian invasion, the Afghan nation was confronted with countless problems such as homelessness, helplessness, tragical events, The bloody Russians did a lot of aggression to the innocent people of our beloved country. They used all kinds of power and razed to the ground hundreds of thousands of houses of the people, Mosques, bazaars, towns, villages, and burnt up the harvests of the people and over four million people were forced to leave their beloved country and become refugees. According to the abovementioned circumstance, an Afghan woman by the name of Fatemah Bajawray with her children is among one of those thousands of families encountering calamity, hardship, and a miserable life. The husband of the abovementioned unfortunate woman was martyred. Her father-in-law or her husband's father, because of the Russian atrocities, has already taken refuge in Pakistan. The small town in which this innocent lady lived with her children was completely destroyed and converted into a big ruin as the result of Russian bombardment and she has no accommodation any more. Since her husband was killed during the bombardment and especially when her son joined Freedom Fighters, the woman and her children's life have become liable to a great danger and threat. As the result of such unfavourable conformation and difficulties, they were forced to leave their country. Unfortunately, after a short time, the woman's father-in-law passed away, and the whole family were left in distress and misery in Pakistan. There is no one bearing the responsibility of taking care of them and they are unable to return to Afghanistan. She has no mother, father, sister, father-in-law, or mother-in-law and all her children are below nineteen. There is no job availability and no proper education for her children. Her only hope are her brothers, one of whom is in jail in Afghanistan because of his highly influential and religious family, and another one, who is in Australia as a permanent resident and citizen, and who has sponsored the mentioned woman and her children, as he feels great responsibility for them. Unfortunately, she was turned down in an interview that took place in Islamabad; a copy of this letter is attached. Our Association is certain Your Honour is very well informed with the Afghans' problems. We have great hope that you would kindly pay humanistic attention to those Afghans like we have mentioned in this letter, who really live under miserable conditions. Hopefully these problems will be overcome by your efforts. I look forward to hearing from you. With every best wishes, Yours sincerely, Gen. M. Nawaz Waziri, President. Senator MISSEN —I just want to say in general that I believe in this respect we are not doing what we should in accordance with our statements and our previous record in regard to the Afghan people. I believe we have to improve our decisions in this regard and find a place for, particularly, those who can fit into our community. There is a long record, since 1850 or so, of Afghan people settling in this country. They have become industrious citizens. The people I have met in the Afghan community seem to me to be admirable citizens who are settling well into this country. Most of them have jobs and are working to obtain houses here. They are people who are making an excellent name and indeed strengthening the Australian community. I therefore urge members of the Parliament and of the media, in particular, to draw attention to the Afghans' travail and to the fact that it is their national day tomorrow. I hope that the Government will take urgent and useful steps to bring more Afghans to this country, thereby demonstrating that we support them in their particular problems. Senator JONES(Queensland)(12.58) —As honourable senators are well aware, the Bjelke-Petersen National Party Government of Queensland has, to say the least, not had a happy time of late. Indeed, it is true to say that it has reeled around like a collection of drunken sailors from crisis to crisis. We have just witnessed the Lindeman Island fiasco, where only a fierce groundswell of public opinion prevented a virtual give-away of a national park to a company of which Sir Edward Lyons, a discredited crony of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, is the Queensland Chairman. I think it was an example of people power being able to reverse a decision taken by the Government. We have serious charges now before a court against a former departmental head who for many years was Sir Johannes's Press Secretary, and against the wife of a former departmental head. There is an enormous outcry against the outrageous electoral gerrymander in Queensland, which means that the National Party could rule in its own right, without the Liberal Party, on a mere 35 per cent of the vote. I think it is small wonder that the people of Queensland are comparing Bjelke-Petersen to Marcos in the Philippines. He feels it wise to buy silence and a proliferation of writs has been issued against State Labor Party Opposition members, also officials of the party-litigation that, I might add, has been paid for by the long-suffering Queensland public, not the people taking the action. The word around Queensland is that, while Marcos rigged the election result, the National Party in Queensland does not have to because the election has been rigged prior to any result becoming known. Now, while these are by and large problems of suffering Queenslanders, there is also a factor brought about by the mismanagement of the Bjelke-Petersen Government that is very much the concern of all Australians. I refer to the pathetic Queensland economic performance under the guiding hand of the pitiful apology for a treasurer, none other than Sir Johannes himself. Here is the proof of the appalling economic performance so damaging to the national effort-proof supplied by the Commonwealth Bureau of Statistics. Senator Archer —On a point of order: I think that reference to a member of another Parliament in these terms goes beyond the arrangements that we have in this place for debate on matters of public interest. I regret, Mr Acting Deputy President, that I have to draw your attention to the matter. I would have thought that the honourable senator would have accepted the situation as it exists between the parties. I would ask him to withdraw those comments about a member of another Parliament and to proceed in a more orderly manner. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Senator Jones, I was talking to the former occupant of the Chair at the time, but the point has been raised that it is rather unethical to refer offensively to a member of another Parliament and if you have offended Senator Archer I suggest that you might consider what he has had to say. Senator JONES —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am not sure whether you are asking me to withdraw or whether you are saying that I should give way to Senator Archer's point of view. In actual fact I was referring to the Premier and Government generally of Queensland. I thought under normal circumstances one could refer to the Government of another State without infringing any standing orders. Senator Archer —The reference was specifically about a certain person, in a certain position. I request that it be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I draw the honourable Senator's attention to standing order 418, which states: No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any Statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. I suggest at this stage that Senator Jones should withdraw. Senator JONES —Mr Acting Deputy President, I will withdraw, but I thought you said that you did not hear my remarks. It seems quite unusual that you should ask me to withdraw and yet not hear the remarks passed. Anyway, let me refer to information from the Commonwealth Bureau of Statistics, which I will relate to the performance of the Government of Queensland totally. Of the 18 key economic indicators, as released until March 1986, Queensland had the worst result in seven, the second worst in four and was below the Australian average in 15. Queensland recorded the worst result in the following: The unemployment rate of 10.3 per cent for February, 1986 was the highest in Australia and average weekly earnings of $377.20 for males were the lowest in Australia for the month of August, 1985. Mr Acting Deputy President, I suppose some of the facts as put down will offend some of the senators listening. Also, Queensland recorded the lowest number of overtime hours, at 6.21, worked in August 1985. Residential building completions for the September quarter, 1985, recorded a negative growth rate of 21.1 per cent compared with the same period a year before, while the Australian total grew by 4.8 per cent. Bankruptcies for 1984-85 compared with the previous financial year had their highest growth in Queensland. In the three months to the end of January 1986, new telephone connections fell by 10.5 per cent in Queensland compared with those for the same period a year ago. Again, Queensland's rate of industrial disputation was the highest in Australia, with 427 days lost per 1,000 employees for the 12 months to November 1985. The Australian average was only 237. Queensland recorded the second worst result in the following areas: In the three months to the end of January 1986, the number of new dwelling units approved dropped by 14.5 per cent. New fixed capital expenditure for the year to the September quarter 1985, as compared with the same period a year before, grew by 8.4 per cent in Queensland, well below the total growth rate for Australia of 15.2. The job vacancy rate in Queensland for August 1985 was 0.8 per cent and household income per capita in 1983-84 was $9,675. I repeat, in Queensland, household income per capita in 1983-84 was $9,675. Queensland was below the national average in retail sales growth for the three months ended December 1985, in new motor vehicle registration, for the three months to January 1986 in growth of residential building under construction at the end of September quarter 1985, and in growth in the number of tourist guest nights in hotels and motels for the September quarter 1985. It was a litany of disaster. My reason for painting this picture of the Queensland economic gloom is simple. Despite the obscenities of the Lindeman Island exercise and the blatant gerrymander, I firmly believe that the forthcoming State election will be largely fought on the Bjelke-Petersen Government's incapacity of handle the economy. I believe equally firmly that despite the gerrymander the growing realisation of the Queensland public as to just how far down the track of total economic disaster Sir Johannes and his gang have led the State will be sufficient at election time to send the National Party and the Government in Queensland to where it belongs, the political wilderness. I believe that the people's power in Queensland will remove the Government and return to the Treasury benches of that State government that will perform in a way in which Queensland expects its government to perform. Sitting suspended from 1.07 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the paper circulated by the Chairman of the Caucus Economic Committee, Mr Bob Brown, in which Mr Brown warns that the Government's present economic policies will result in rising unemployment and a deceleration in economic growth. Mr Brown also states that, as the Treasurer's J curve has not turned up fast enough, the Government should impose selective import quotas linked to domestic production as a means of slowing down imports. Does the Minister agree with Mr Brown's analysis of the economy and his suggestion on quotas? Senator BUTTON —I suppose that I have said on a number of occasions here that economic growth is clearly slowing and that is a result, in part, of government policy in connection with interest rates. The national accounts figures for the December quarter tend to illustrate that point, in part-although there are some qualifications about those figures. I have not seen Mr Bob Brown's analysis of the situation, but the comments that he makes are not inconsistent with comments made by others and are within the Government's purview and under consideration by the Government now, as they have been for some time. As to the solution that Mr Brown proposes, I am not, again, familiar with the methodology that he suggests to implement that proposal, but if it is anything like the methodology suggested in a paper by Dr Theophanous, about which I was asked last week, I would repeat the same sort of comments as those I made then. Senator MORRIS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation aware of the case of Mr Peter Langley, who was refused transport on a pre-booked Qantas Airways Ltd flight from Hong Kong to Sydney on the ground that he had not given Qantas advance information that he was a paraplegic? Will the Minister inform the Senate of the full circumstances of this case, and will he assure the Senate that steps will be taken to ensure that disabled persons have the same ease of access to Qantas flights as any other person? Senator GIETZELT —I am sure that all honourable senators would agree that this was a very unfortunate incident as a result of a misunderstanding and an apparent lack of prior notification by the airline which booked Mr Langley's forward passage. This resulted in embarrassment to him and in a degree of inconvenience. Senator Morris would be aware that Qantas acts as a publicly-owned commercial enterprise and that it makes all its decisions based upon normal commercial procedures. However, in the case of Mr Langley, I am sure that all of us regret that the incident took place. In defence of Qantas, however, I have to say that the airline looked after Mr Langley in Hong Kong and arranged for him to board a Cathay Pacific flight some two hours later. I think that one is obliged to apologise to him for the embarrassment caused, although these matters are not within the Government's purview because Qantas has a commercial charter and has independence in the way in which it operates. I take advantage of the opportunity provided by this question to say that prior notification of disability is important from the point of view of the airline as well as that of passengers. I hope that the publicity that has occurred on this occasion will serve as some sort of notice to airlines and passengers that they should take special steps to see that these sorts of occurrences do not take place in the future. It is pretty clear, unfortunately, that the system broke down. I am sure that Qantas has learnt its lesson over this matter, and I am assured by the Minister I represent in this chamber that Qantas will be taking steps to ensure that such incidents do not occur in the future. Senator MESSNER —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to a question asked by Senator Peter Baume on 20 February last, in which he asked whether the Government would agree to exempt charities from the fringe benefits tax. The Minister gave an assurance that he would seek an answer to that question from the Treasurer. I also refer the Minister to a statement by a spokesman for the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, in which he said that to exempt charities from the fringe benefits tax would create loopholes for people to use in abuse of the system. I now ask the Minister whether his failure to provide an answer and an assurance from the Treasurer that charities will be exempted from the operation of the fringe benefits tax is because the Government has no intention of excluding them from it-in which case, is this not contrary to the assurances regarding the treatment of charities provided to the Australian Democrats back in November 1985? Senator WALSH —I have some recollection of that question but I concede that my recollection of it is imperfect. I did not think I said that I would try to get an undertaking from the Treasurer that charities would be exempt. As I recall it, what I said was that I would get the facts clarified and get an answer from the Treasurer. I am afraid that I have not got an answer yet. I am sorry. I shall approach the Treasurer again. Senator ZAKHAROV —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The question refers to the commercial for a breakfast food that is currently being shown on television, which includes shots of the Australian Institute of Sport and in which the product is promoted by a member of the staff of the Institute. Under what arrangements, financial or otherwise, was the commercial made? Senator RYAN —The Australian Institute of Sport has entered into a commercial sponsorship arrangement with Kellogg Australia Pty Ltd in developing the new product Sustain. In return, the Institute of Sport receives a royalty payment. The making of the commercial incurred no cost to the Institute of Sport. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that joint Australian-United States air exercises will be carried out at Williamtown air base between 5 and 10 April? Has the Department of Defence broadcast on some Newcastle radio stations a statement that local residents will be subjected to extreme noise levels during those exercises? What maximum A-weighted sound pressure level does the Department expect at ground level near residents' homes? Will the Department consider the request of local residents that these exercises be conducted so that extreme sound levels occur over farmland or, preferably, out to sea? If not, why not? Does the Department keep accurate records of sound pressure levels to which communities are exposed during such exercises and are these freely available to interested parties? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, the Minister for Defence tells me that Exercise Pitch Black, involving both Australian and American military forces, will be conducted in the Royal Australian Air Force Base Williamtown area between 4 and 21 April 1986. However, the period when aircraft activity will be significantly different from normal day to day activity levels has been restricted to 9 to 11 April. Even in this period RAAF planning has taken cognisance of other activities that need to be accommodated, and the concentrated air activity periods have been restricted to the following times: Wednesday 9 April, 0930 to 1200, 1400 to 1630, and 1830 to 2100, local time; Thursday 10 April, 1200 to 2130 hours. As to the second part of the question, no, Department of Defence personnel have not made any broadcasts on Newcastle radio stations. However, a Press release was made by the Air Staff at RAAF Base Williamtown to areas between Newcastle and Brisbane. People living in the rural areas between RAAF Amberley and RAAF Williamtown have been warned of the likelihood of low-flying, simulated enemy military aircraft passing overhead during 9 to 11 April as they try to approach Williamtown without being detected by our radar. Members of the public wishing to report progress of such aircraft may ring 048-286081. I repeat the number, and `Cheerio' at the same time: 048-286081. This is a very boring answer although I have no doubt that it is of utility to people in the area. Senator Lewis —You have improved it no end. Senator GARETH EVANS —Question Time is for those opposite. I will continue. Senator Chaney —Incorporate it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am happy to do so. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the remainder of the answer. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 3. The maximum A.-weighted sound pressure level that the Department of Defence expects at ground level is in the region of 100 DBA. This level will exist for only a short period of time as the aircraft passes over the area and then only when aircraft are at low level. As far as is practicable, residential areas will not be exposed to overflying aircraft although total avoidance of dwellings is not possible. 4. Although at least 25% of simulated attacks will be from over the sea, it is not possible to conduct Exercise Pitch Black purely over farming areas or out to sea as the aim of the exercise is to test the Australian Air Defence system, and to provide realistic operational training for strike (F111) crews. The Air Defence system is established to protect valuable military and other land targets such as RAAF Base Williamtown. The aim is not only to exercise military aircraft, but also many other land-based elements such as CRUs (Control and Reporting Units) responsible for the radar control of defensive fighter aircraft, and Army Air Defence units with Rapier and Redeye missiles. The exercise, and the need to conduct it in as realistic an environment as is possible, is essential to maintain the required level of training and proficiency in the Australian military. 5. The Department of Defence does not maintain records of sound pressure levels experienced during exercises; however, sound pressure assessments in answer to Question 3 have been made from measured aircraft engine noise signatures. As these assessments are associated with aircraft performance, the information is classified and is not available for general release. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the following resolutions passed by a recent women's conference in Mount Isa: First, that the isolated patients travel and accommodation scheme is inadequate, inefficient and needs total review with community liaison input; secondly, that there needs to be more flexibility built into the system to take account of the complexities of transport arrangements in isolated areas; and thirdly, that not the least of the problems is the long delay in payment of claims in many cases? Will the Minister recommend an urgent review of the isolated patients travel and accommodation scheme, which is apparently failing to meet the needs of isolated women and their families? Senator RYAN —I had not previously been informed of the resolutions from the Union of Western Women's health and family planning workshop concerning the isolated patients travel and accommodation scheme. However, for some time the Government has viewed with concern the wide-ranging scope of criticisms which have been directed from many quarters at existing arrangements. As a consequence, a working party comprising Commonwealth, State and Territory officials was established to study the rationalisation of patient transport generally, including the role of IPTAS. The purpose of establishing a working party was to seek broad ways and means to improve the existing patient transport assistance arrangements, particularly in the delivery aspects. It was not intended that the working party undertake an in depth review of IPTAS. In any case, the time frame and available resources of the working party would have precluded such an in depth review. The working party has now completed its report. This will now be considered at the 1986 Australian Health Ministers Conference, which is to be held early in April. Of course, I cannot pre-empt the results which may flow from the Australian Health Ministers Conference consideration of the working party report. However, I assure Senator Reynolds that should an in depth review of IPTAS result there would be community participation in such a review. It would address administrative issues such as the prompt settlement of claims. Senator REID —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Territories aware of current delays being experienced by people awaiting connection of electricity by the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority to new houses, which can be as long as 12 weeks? Does the Minister realise the hardship, expense and anguish that this causes the families concerned? Does the Minister agree that this impost adds to the burden already suffered by new home owners, in addition to the burden of the present high interest rates? What does the Minister intend to do to have this serious problem of supply of electricity rectified? Senator GIETZELT —I have looked through the brief that the Minister for Territories has supplied to me. There is no reference in it to the serious problem raised. I will seek an early response and convey it to Senator Reid. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the fact mentioned in the Four Corners program of 11 March that the Sandinista Government is now obliged, because of serious economic problems, to impose prescription charges for the first time at its previously free and highly successful clinics, would the Australian Government consider assisting Nicaraguans with direct medicinal aid? Senator GARETH EVANS —Australia has not embarked on a major aid program in Central America. However, it has provided some assistance to the region, notably for refugee relief activities in Nicaragua and El Salvador, through the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and for various local aid projects through the small discretionary aid fund administered by the Australian Ambassador in Mexico City. This assistance has included some medical supplies. The Government will look at the possibility of providing through these means further medical supplies that may be sought by Nicaragua. Another means by which medical supplies could be provided would be through an arrangement between Australia and Nicaragua based non-government aid organisations. A goodwill visit to Central America by Australian NGOs is scheduled in May, as a result of which they may be participating with local NGOs in an expanded assistance program in Nicaragua, to include community health and sanitation. The Australian aid program includes the facility for government funding support of approved NGO projects. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate explain why it has become necessary to establish a country task force when there are so many rural representatives in this Parliament who have been trying to tell the Government for some time what is wrong with the policies that it has forced on the town and country people of rural Australia? What is the Minister's response to suggestions that this is merely a highly expensive superficial and political exercise designed to boost the Australian Labor Party's poor standing in rural areas? Senator BUTTON —I hope that this will not come as too much of a shock or surprise to Senator Bjelke-Petersen but it is a political exercise. After all, we are all politicians. It is just that some politicians are of better quality than others and the rural representatives in this Parliament have, traditionally, not been of as good quality as the average contributors to both parties in political debate. Senator Gareth Evans —Ours are better. Senator BUTTON —Of course. Many of the problems with which this country is confronted today have been inflicted on us by a series of structural problems for which the National Party is probably the most easily identifiable contributor. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —It is all very well for Liberals to interject. Every one of them knows that that is true. Senator Withers knows that it is true. He has been one of the most intelligent contributors to debate in this Parliament over the last three years. He has said absolutely nothing. Over many years this Parliament has been inflicted with National Party pork barrelling and structural assistance programs for rural industries which are the cause of many of today's problems. If the task force to which Senator Bjelke-Petersen refers can make a contribution to intelligent debate on issues in the rural community, as distinct from the contribution which the Queensland Government, for example, seems prepared to make to the future of the sugar industry-if they can contribute some sensible views in their peregrinations around rural communities-that will be very helpful. Of course this is a political exercise. That is what we are all about. I suppose that the honourable senator is concerned about its likely success. I think that there will be a lot of success. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In view of the daily revelations about the appalling state of the Queensland economy I ask: How do Queensland unemployment figures compare with the national figures since the last Queensland State election, which was held on 22 October 1983? Senator WALSH —As Senator Jones has said, the last Queensland election was held in October 1983. In only three of the 28 months for which unemployment figures are available since then has the Queensland rate not been above the national average. The last of those three months was February 1984, more than two years ago. So for all of the last two years the Queensland unemployment rate has been above the national average. From memory-I think the figures are not quite comparable because one is seasonally adjusted and the other is not-the national figure at present is 8 per cent and the Queensland figure is 10.3 per cent. Moreover, let us look at youth employment, particularly in view of the Premier's election policy speech which was delivered on 22 September 1983. He said: Your Government will continue its attack on the problem of youth unemployment. What has happened since then is that the youth unemployment rate in Queensland has risen from 19.6 per cent in October 1983 to a massive 24.6 per cent in February 1986, the most recent month for which figures are available, of course. The Queensland youth unemployment rate has gone up a full 5 per cent and, over the same period, the national youth unemployment rate has fallen by 5 per cent. We find that on the question of youth unemployment, and for almost every economic indicator that one could think of, Queensland is dragging the rest of the economy down. It does have higher figures than the rest of the country on some things; for example, bankruptcies, industrial disputes, unemployment levels, venereal disease and teenage pregnancies. On any measure that most sensible people would regard as something desirable and something to be aspired to-- Honourable senators interjecting- Senator WALSH —I did not hear what Senator MacGibbon said. It was probably some comment about VD or teenage pregnancies, seeking an explanation as to why Queensland records the highest figures on those two matters of any State, and does so consistently. On almost any indicator that most sensible people would regard as being desirable, Queensland is tailing the rest of the field and dragging the rest of the country down. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and relates to his answer to a question yesterday in relation to the Government's refusal to accept the amendment proposed by the Opposition parties and the Australian Democrats to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill relating to its retrospective operation, in which the Minister said that the Government's view `has the unanimous support . . . of the veterans community'. I ask the Minister: Is it not a fact that the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council, representing some 15 veterans bodies, along with the associated organisations, mainly the Partially Blinded Soldiers' Association, have expressed their strong support for the retrospectivity amendment of the coalition to that Bill? Is the Minister not aware that the Partially Blind Soldiers' Association described the retrospectivity position of the Government as `outrageous' and that the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association described the position as equivalent to `removing the goal posts during the middle of a game'? When will the Minister acknowledge that there is much opposition, despite his misleading of the Senate yesterday-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator bring his question to a conclusion. Senator LEWIS —There is much opposition in the veterans community to the retrospectivity position. I ask the Minister to revise his position in this matter before increasing opposition throughout the veterans community and within his own back bench forces him to end up dropping this Bill altogether? Senator GIETZELT —I will not acknowledge that there is any difficulty as far as my own Party's back bench is concerned. It, like the Government, wants the passage of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill forthwith. As far as the veteran community is concerned, I have correspondence from organisations associated with the Australian Veterans and Defence Service Council indicating support for the passage of the Bill, a view which was unanimously agreed to at a veterans summit meeting some six weeks ago. It is true that one person, claiming to act on behalf of the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council, has repudiated the agreement made at the veterans summit, which was addressed by myself, Senator Macklin and Mr Fischer. Nevertheless, I have on the record the unanimous view of the veterans community at the peak council level. I have never suggested that every veterans organisation in Australia agrees-if we take all the unit associations there would be anything up to 100 such organisations-any more than the Returned Services League of Australia would suggest that its 600 sub-branches necessarily fully and unanimously agree with the views taken by their national body. Nevertheless, that grouping, which includes Legacy, the War Widows Guild and the TPI Association, which I addressed last week, unanimously called for the passage of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. Therefore, it is competent for the Government to take the view that it has the overwhelming support of the veteran community with respect to the Bill. So far as the Partially Blinded Soldiers' Association is concerned, it represents a point of view of the State Branch of New South Wales. It does not represent the viewpoint of the national body. Are we to take that view as representing the view of the veterans community? It wants no Bill at all, not even the improvements which the Bill seeks to put into place as a result of the long consultative processes which began when Senator Messner was the Minister in setting up the consultative council and which has continued right through my three years as Minister. I find it incomprehensible that Senator Lewis should take the view of a person who writes to both the Opposition and the Government suggesting that there should be no Bill at all when we have, in the presentation of the Bill, improved a number of areas for veterans. As Senator Lewis knows, as one who has consulted me extensively on the Bill representing his shadow Minister in this place, a whole range of improvements contained in the Bill were not provided for in the original Repatriation Act. On the basis of that the Government sought to make sufficient changes and priorities within the legislation to enable it to recognise, for example, the rights of those people not covered by the Repatriation Act who served in Vietnam and many other improvements in the Bill, such as for war widows who remarry, and so on, on the basis that there would be a re-arrangement of the funds saved in order to pay out funds in more deserving cases, including the one I referred to yesterday on the children's education scheme. The Government makes no apologies. It is not prepared to apply the retrospectivity aspect to the legislation, which will cost something in excess of $25m a year. I would prefer, and I am sure the veterans would prefer-in fact, it is the view of the veteran community, without any argument at all-that sort of saving to be spent in the area where it is badly needed, that is, in improving the hospital system, having regard to the age component now of the veteran community. Senator COOK —My question is to Senator Walsh in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer. The question is simply: Are interest rates falling? Senator WALSH —I can only assume from the titters across the way that the notorious innumeracy of the Liberal Party of Australia and the Country Party-the National Party of Australia, as it is these days-is manifesting itself again because the short answer to the question is yes. The figures I have show that the 90-day bank bill rate on 10 February was 18.85 per cent and on 19 March, just over five weeks later, it had fallen to 16.25 per cent. That is a decline of 2.6 percentage points on 90-day bank bills. The yield on 10-year bonds on the same date, 10 February, was 14.47 per cent. On 19 March it was 12.83 per cent, a fall in the yield on 10-year bonds of 1.64 percentge points. Notwithstanding the ill-informed titters across the aisle, the fact is that over the last month interest rates have fallen quite appreciatively and, indeed, at an extremely rapid rate. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is it a fact that 133 out of the 504 beds at the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital are currently closed due to the severe shortage of registered nurses and that up to 50 veterans a day are being turned away? Is it a fact that the Federal nursing award is, on average, from 10 per cent to 20 per cent, or $2,000 to $4,000, lower than the Victorian State award? In addition to the British nurse recruitment program, what other action is the Minister taking to liaise with his ministerial colleagues to overcome this acute problem which exists in various degrees at all repatriation hospitals across Australia? Senator GIETZELT —I do not necessarily disagree with the figures cited by the honourable senator. I am prepared to accept that a considerable number of veterans are not able to be accommodated in our repatriation hospital at Heidelberg. The problem exists in most of the repatriation hospitals because of the acute shortage of nurses and the difficulty that creates so far as the operation of many of the beds and wards is concerned. The Government is very concerned about the problem. I have had numerous conferences with the Royal Australian Nursing Federation. Even the Prime Minister has been involved in discussions in an attempt to resolve the difficulty of the award rates with respect to the nurses employed at Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital. We have taken the matter to the Australian Council of Trade Unions because the current guidelines with respect to anomalies preclude the matter being resolved at the Public Service Board level. A case is being presented to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to try to resolve the impasse that has been reached in respect of the salaries of nurses at Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital. Compared with nurses at private and State hospitals, nurses at the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital are seriously underpaid. However, the anomalies system that operates at the industrial arbitration court level has not given us any opportunity to resolve the matter. The Department of Veterans' Affairs and I are concerned. We recognise the plight which exists. We recognise the inequality of the wage structure at Heidelberg. We have done everything within our legal power to resolve the situation. It can be resolved only on the basis of undertakings the Nursing Federation will have to make to the Arbitration Commission. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction seen Press reports that the St George Building Society has arranged a $1 billion facility through the Chase Investment Bank in the United States `at no cost to the Federal Government' in order to provide housing loans at a fixed interest rate of 13.5 per cent? Can the Minister comment on this initiative? Senator RYAN —I have not seen a detailed account of the scheme referred to in Senator Sibraa's question, but I am sure that my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr West, will give it careful consideration. He is aware, as the Government is aware generally, of the great pressures on the housing market and of the difficulties that Australians are now experiencing in getting housing finance. As I think I informed the Senate earlier this week, the Cabinet will be giving very detailed attention next week to a package of measures designed to assist Australians into home ownership and to relieve pressures on the rental market. Whether this scheme will form part of that package is not for me to say. However, I am sure that the Minister for Housing and Construction will be giving very careful attention to this proposal, as he will to any other constructive proposal that can be considered, in a very serious and comprehensive effort by our Government to address the problems in the housing industry. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and follows his confident answer to Senator Cook that interest rates are falling. If that is so, why does the Government not pull the upper limit off housing loan interest rates because it is on a sure thing? Senator WALSH —Housing interest rates, as I thought even Senator MacGibbon would know, are presently regulated at a level lower than they probably would be, even after the very appreciable falls in interest rates that have taken place in the last five weeks and to which I referred in answering Senator Cook. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. Is it true that moves are currently under way in Western Australia to terminate the lease held by a Mr Montague in Oobagooma station and Tarraji Rivers station in Western Australia? I understand that both stations form part of a defence training area near Derby. Can the Minister advise whether these moves are being initiated by the Commonwealth Government and, if so, why? Senator GIETZELT —In 1978 the previous Government took steps to acquire 566,000 hectares of land at Oobagooma and Tarraji Rivers stations in Western Australia. The purchase was made by the Government on a walk-in and walk-out basis. The purpose of the purchase was, as Senator McKiernan has said, to establish a joint service defence training area. Arising out of that, the Government has taken steps to resolve the earlier walk-in and walk-out decision which applied in respect of one section of the area and over which the Army has care, control and management. It has a caretaker looking after it. In order to make the effective purchase the previous Government agreed to a lessee leasing the other two sections at Yampi in Western Australia. Following receipt of a management appraisal of the stations prepared by professional property consultants, the Government has taken steps to end the lease arrangements with the former lessee. A notice to quit was taken out on 12 December 1985. The Government took this step because our legal advice was that the termination of the lease was justified on a number of grounds relating to the conditions of the lease. However, I am not able to say anything more about the subjective matter because I understand that it will have to be resolved in the Western Australian Supreme Court. Senator TOWNLEY —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I preface it by saying that I note with interest that the Treasurer has announced a special $1 coin for the International Year of Peace, many of which I am sure will end up in the collections of coin collectors. I ask: Now that the $1 coin has proven to be so successful, will the Treasurer examine the possibility of introducing both a $5 and a $10 coin and also have his Department examine changing the size of all Australian coins with a view to reducing their size to an amount of metal more in line with their present value? Senator WALSH —In the last part of Senator Townley's question he seems to be suggesting that we should go back to minting golden sovereigns or their equivalent. I really do not think that is a very sensible idea because the value of metals changes as well as the face value of coins. That proposition should not be taken seriously. A more sensible suggestion might well be the minting of a $5 or a $10 coin. The dollar coin replaced-three years ago I think-dollar notes. The chief reason for that was that dollar notes had a very short life-I think it was about six weeks. The coin was much more durable. I think that as a general rule the lower the denomination of the note, the shorter its useful life. Senator Townley suggested that many of the dollar coins probably went into glass jars on the mantelpiece or something like that. I think that is highly likely. Perhaps that is an additional reason why we should consider minting $5 and/or $10 coins. The coins that go into glass jars on the mantelpiece effectively become interest free, voluntary loans to the rest of society by the people who fill glass jars with coins. If we were to mint a $10 coin, one could perhaps get quite an appreciable amount in voluntary but interest free loans from the public. I will certainly pass on Senator Townley's suggestion to the Treasurer. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows the question which was asked by Senator Bjelke-Petersen this afternoon. I ask: Has the Leader's attention been drawn to a farm poll in today's issue of the National Farmer? Does this poll indicate that rural residents are deserting the National Party of Australia in droves? This being the case, can the National Party claim to represent the interests of rural Australia? Would the Leader expect the National Party's standing to erode further following the work of Labor's country task force which was referred to earlier today? Senator Puplick —I take a point of order, Mr President. Under no conceivable circumstances can the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce be required, in terms of his ministerial responsibilities, to have any responsibility for the National Party, telephone polls or for any comments about the National Party, since none are related in any way whatsoever to his portfolio responsibilities. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. The question was addressed to Senator Button in his capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate. A portion of the question related to Government policy and therefore the question is in order. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I think the question was directed to me in that capacity, as you have pointed out. That makes me responsible for everything and, in a sense, at the same time totally irresponsible, and enables me to say what I want to about this. Senator Puplick —I hope you are quotable on that point of being responsible for everything. Senator BUTTON —And irresponsible at the same time, I said, Senator. But let me go to the specifics of the question. It is true that in a survey published in today's issue of the National Farmer, the fortunes of the National-- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —You read it, do you? Senator BUTTON —Of course I read the National Farmer. I just explained that I am Leader of the Government in the Senate. Any Leader of the Government in the Senate who did not read the National Farmer would be remiss indeed. Let me say that indeed the point made by Senator Colston seems to be borne out by that survey published in today's issue. That survey, a farm poll of February 1986, shows a slide in the fortunes of the National Party of Australia from 54 per cent at the time of the last election to a 43 per cent intended vote for the National Party today. The Liberals do not seem to fare much better, with a decline from 31 per cent to 26 per cent whereas the performance of the Labor Party, with a decline from 7 per cent to 4 per cent, is relatively much better. That is a poll conducted among farmers-not in rural electorates but among farmers. One would expect in the normal euphoria of Australian politics that the Australian Democrats, who are not well represented here today, would anticipate that they would pick up some of that decline, but unfortunately for them that is not the case. The same sorts of figures are reflected in the leadership of the National Party where the decline has been more significant than the decline in the fortunes of the Party itself and those of the spokesman on primary industry issues for the National Party in the House of Representatives. All I was seeking to say earlier in answer to Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question was that, whatever noise we get from the National Party section of the chamber, farmers are clearly not satisfied with the quality of the intellectual leadership they are getting from the Party which has claimed to represent them over many years, and indeed has, which is why the farmers have been in so much trouble. The farmers are obviously very concerned about that. Of course, those concerns are reflected much more widely in rural communities. So Senator Colston is quite right in the point that he sought to intrude subtly into his question. I agree with that. The point which was made earlier is amply supported by those figures. Senator KILGARIFF —I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister say whether any International Year of Peace funds have been allocated either to the United Nations Association of Australia or the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, or both of those organisations? Is the Minister able to confirm or deny that the present visit to Australia by the anti-nuclear activist, Dr Helen Caldicott, who has been going around the countryside preaching doom and destruction to children and adults alike, has been funded by either or both of these organisations with IYP funds? If so, is the Minister concerned that Dr Caldicott is making statements which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control, such as her calling for the removal of the joint defence facilities, in contravention of the guidelines set down for the provision of IYP funds to organisations? If IYP funds from any source have gone to finance any aspect of Dr Caldicott's visit, what action will be taken by the Federal Government to recoup the funds and ensure that there are no future breaches of the guidelines? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not have any information as to whether Dr Caldicott's visit is being funded in any way out of the International Year of Peace program. I will endeavour to find out and give an answer accordingly. Until I do, I do not think it is appropriate to say anything more about the other matters that Senator Kilgariff has addressed. Senator BLACK —My question is to the Minister for Education. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to statements from the Queensland Minister for Education, Mr Powell, supporting the establishment of a private university in Queensland? Does the Federal Government share the Queensland Minister's enthusiasm for this proposal? In view of similar moves towards profit-based education by groups in the Northern Territory and Western Australia, can the Minister advise whether the Federal Government would consider providing any assistance to private universities and the students attending them? Senator RYAN —Yes, my attention has been drawn to reports that Mr Powell, the Minister for Education in Queensland, seems to be enthusiastic about proposals for profit making private universities. I know that this fad is also being pursued by some people in the Northern Territory. I think I have made it clear before, but I would like to make it quite clear now, in response to Senator Black's question, that our Government will not support the establishment of private universities in this country. Our Government, for reasons that I do not really have time to go into now, does not believe that such proposals would be in the interests of either those students who would have access to those universities or other students throughout Australia. We are opposed to the establishment of private universities. Because we are opposed to such a development, we would not provide any assistance by way of Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission funding for such institutions; nor would we be prepared to provide the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance for students who attended those institutions; nor would Commonwealth agencies for accreditation of tertiary courses be prepared to accredit those courses; nor do I believe that vice-chancellors of existing public universities would be prepared to admit such an institution into their group. So I believe there would be no point in a State government deciding, by legislation, to establish such an institution and call it a university since the government which has responsibility for funding and administration of universities, namely, our Government, would not be prepared to accept such a development. I should make it quite clear also that our Government is not opposed to private support for university activities in Australia, be that support in teaching or research activities. If there are private benefactors and wealthy private interests around, either overseas or in Australia, who wish to support university activities, we would certainly be very pleased for them to do so. For example, we are encouraging industry funds to support research in universities and in institutes of technology. We think it is highly desirable that industry play a larger role in supporting research activities in our universities since industry stands in a very favourable position to benefit from the products of research. We would also be pleased to see wealthy private interests donating to university trusts, establishing chairs and things of that nature. Therefore, we are quite positive towards support by private sources for properly regulated and properly run public university activities at teaching or research level. We will not facilitate in any way-in fact, we will take measures to prevent-the establishment of institutions set up for profit which would not operate in the interests of any students at all and which would certainly, in the longer run, undermine the very high standards we have established in our university sector. Senator SHORT —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to a recent report in the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial to the effect that Colonel Gaddafi has instructed three Libyan diplomats in Australia to return home? Two of those diplomats are said to be from the Libyan People's Bureau in Canberra and one from the Libyan Cultural Centre in Melbourne. I ask whether this report is accurate. If so, what reasons have been given for the action? Have the three left Australia? If not, when will they leave? Will the Australian Government allow the three to be replaced? Does the removal from Australia of the Director of the Libyan Cultural Centre mean that that centre will be closed? If not, why not? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not have an answer on that question. I will seek one and let the honourable senator know. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on Youth Affairs able to say what the result of analyses carried out on the Priority One: Young Australia national phone-in has been? Can the Minister advise whether the phone-in and its result are likely to alter the Government's plan of action for the Priority One program? Senator BUTTON —This question involves some detailed figures. I thought I had an answer to it. However, I do not at the moment. Therefore, I will seek the information for Senator Elstob and provide it as soon as possible. Senator BOSWELL —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Communications assure the people of north Queensland that the Government does not intend to downgrade the weather forecasting services by removing briefing officers from Rockhampton, Mount Isa and Cairns? Senator WALSH —I do not know what the plans are for the removal of weather officers there or anywhere else. However, I can tell Senator Boswell that if he is concerned about services in general in country areas he had better quick and lively scuttle the Opposition Leader's plans to privatise services. I would not be at all surprised if Mr Howard has in his back pocket privatisation list privatising meteorological services along with Australia Post, Telecom Australia, Trans Australia Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd and everything else which he has said at various times that he, as a Liberal Prime Minister, would privatise. Should that happen Senator Boswell would have a great deal to complain about if he purports to represent the people of northern or outback Queensland because they would not even have a telephone or postal service. Senator Boswell —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. My question was not directed towards the answer that I am receiving. Mr President, I point out to you that the Minister is not answering the question. I ask you to call him to order. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I call the Minister for Finance. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I had actually finished my answer except to say that I will see whether Mr Duffy has anything to add to my answer. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to a report in yesterday's Melbourne Herald-in fact on the front page-that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Neil Brown, believes that the Commonwealth Government car service is `extravagant'? Can the Minister, as the Minister responsible for managing government expenditure, provide information to the Senate on whether improvements might be made to the current position? Senator WALSH —The recent history behind the matter reported in yesterday's Melbourne Herald is of course that the tactics committee of the Liberal Party had, with a brilliant sense of timing, decided to release their waste watchers stunt the day after it had been published that its Deputy Leader had been caught with his fist well and truly in the taxpayers' pocket. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that comment in respect of a member of another place. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President, I withdraw. The day after it had been revealed that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had been running up a $10,000 a month bill-I repeat that, it is not a slip of the tongue, a $10,000 a month car pool-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It has been made quite clear by Mr Brown that he has challenged those accounts and that there are definite errors in them. The Minister would know that. He is deliberately using false information in Question Time for political reasons. He should be called to order. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I call Senator Walsh. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I am aware that it has been claimed that the figures are false. However, so far as I know, absolutely no evidence has been produced to support that claim. I turn more directly to the point of Senator Maguire's question and Mr Brown's claim that there is room to alter and improve the Commonwealth car service. I think that is probably true. I agree with that. There is room to improve it, particularly to reduce the costs. In particular, Mr Brown should start by curbing his self-indulgence and reducing his demand on the Commonwealth car pool. Senator JESSOP —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services say whether the Government will introduce legislation before the end of this autumn session to replace the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act to establish a general revenue sharing arrangement for the next four to five years, or will it be another one-off arrangement dictated by the Department of Finance and Treasury? Also, when is there likely to be a statement on funding levels for local government, realising that these points are quite important as far as forward planning for local government is concerned? I believe the Government ought to give urgent consideration to it. Senator GIETZELT —Local government shares in Commonwealth revenue. Of course, that has its relationship to State government revenue which is made available on an annual basis. I know of no steps which the Government contemplates to change either the ratio or those arrangements. However, I will seek an opinion from the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services to see whether it is contemplated that any legislation is proposed. I have not heard of it in respect of the current session but I imagine that the existing arrangements will continue and the matters will be determined in the 1986-87 Budget for context. Senator JESSOP —I ask a supplementary question. I am not sure whether the Minister got the full impact of my question. I asked whether the Government will introduce legislation before the end of the autumn session to replace the Local Government (PIT) Sharing Act and establish a general revenue sharing arrangement? Senator GIETZELT —I have no knowledge of it at all. Members of Cabinet may have different views. Certainly I have not been advised of any steps in that direction. Again, I will seek the opinion of the Minister as to whether it is contemplated. I have not seen it listed in any of the suggested legislation for this session. Senator FOREMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, relates to the disposal of surplus migrant centres announced as part of the May 1985 economic statement. What progress has been made in identifying surplus centres and disposing of these assets as part of the 1985-86 Budget strategy? Senator GIETZELT —As a result of the 1985-86 Budget savings the Government decided to dispose of surplus land and buildings at various migrant centres around Australia. Four centres were found to be surplus to our requirements and are to be sold in their entirety. I am advised that they are Fairy Meadow and Cabramatta in New South Wales and Eastbridge and Wiltona in Victoria. The hostels were declared surplus to requirements by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in August 1985. As the honourable senator would be aware, the disposal will come within the responsibility of the property section of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. The revenue generated from these disposals will contribute to the Government's general economic objectives of offsetting capital expenditure on redevelopment and rationalisation, as well as providing improved transit accommodation for new arrivals in Australia. The standing policy for the disposal of surplus Commonwealth property, which was established by the previous Government, is that surplus property is first offered on sale to the State and then to local government bodies before it is made available for public sale on the open market. I am advised that the Department is negotiating with the New South Wales Department of Housing for the purchase of both Fairy Meadow and Cabramatta hostels and that that Department has carried out a feasibility study of the likely cost of converting the hostels into public housing-a much needed amenity. In Victoria, the Ministry of Housing is currently undertaking a detailed investigation of the possibility of converting the units at Eastbridge migrant centre to self-contained accommodation. As there appears to be no State or local government interest in the Wiltona migrant centre, it will be offered for sale on the open market in the near future to realise the financial objectives of the 1985-86 Budget. The PRESIDENT —Honourable senators will be aware that the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings met yesterday morning and determined that an additional condition 5A should be inserted in the guidelines governing the access to proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives for the purpose of recording and broadcasting excerpts. The new condition is to the effect that material constituting part of a debate or proceeding in either House that was subsequently withdrawn would not be available for rebroadcast. I add that the Committee was of the opinion that to rebroadcast material that was subsequently withdrawn was not in accordance with guideline No. 5, which states that fairness and accuracy must be observed. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the adoption of guideline 5A places rebroadcast of material in a slightly different position from that adopted by the written record as appears in Hansard. The Committee was of the opinion that Madam Speaker should make a statement on this matter and that a copy of the statement should be forwarded to the broadcasters mentioned by the Leader of the National Party in the House of Representatives in the matter of privilege he raised in that House on Tuesday of this week. The Speaker indicated in her statement yesterday that the Presiding Officers would be seeking discussions with representatives of the Press Gallery as to the operation and observance of the guidelines generally. This meeting subsequently took place late yesterday afternoon. In the course of that meeting some areas of concern on the new guideline 5A were put to us. The Speaker and I informed the media representatives that they should put these matters in writing. The Speaker and I undertook that, upon receipt of this written material, we would convene a further meeting of the Committee to consider the matters raised. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.05) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I note that this statement is in the nature of an interim statement in that the matter of the new guideline is still under consideration. The PRESIDENT —I interrupt the honourable senator to say that the new guideline exists now. Senator CHANEY —That is understood, Mr President. But the matter is not closed as far as the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings is concerned because I note that, at the end of your statement, you say that you and the Speaker have informed the media representatives that they should put their concerns in writing. I think it is appropriate that there should be that further consideration because, as the statement points out, the addition of guideline 5A puts the rebroadcasting of material in the electronic media in a position different from that adopted with respect to newspapers. I have expressed what is essentially a personal view in this matter in previous discussions in this chamber. It is certainly my personal view that, as far as possible, we should be putting the electronic media in the same position as the print media with respect to the coverage of Parliament. I think it is particularly important because of the very important role the electronic media-both radio and television-now play in the dissemination of information and news in the community. If access to the Parliament by the electronic media is limited the influence of this Parliament is limited, and that is a bad thing. Having said that, I in no way adopt on behalf of the Opposition a firm view on the new guideline. I think it is a matter which needs some consideration at the party level. The possibility of thoroughly offensive material which, under the direction of the Speaker or of the President of the Senate, is withdrawn as being unparliamentary for whatever reason being rebroadcast over and over again in unvarnished form and without any reference to the fact that it was withdrawn gives rise to doubts, certainly in my mind and, I am sure, in the minds of some other senators and members, and I think we have to look at the significant problems which could emerge if there was an unlimited power to rebroadcast material which was offensive and which was withdrawn. I think the Committee has come to grips with a difficult situation. It has taken perhaps a more cautious course by putting in a new guideline whilst it is still to receive the final views of the media representatives who have met with the Committee. In the interests of seeing the growing access of electronic media to the Parliament advance in a steady way, I think that caution is probably justified. Mr President, if members and senators lose confidence in the changes that have been instituted under your presidency and under the Speaker with the active involvement of the Committee we might go backwards even further. I commend the cautious stance that you have taken but I look forward to the Committee giving these very important issues closer consideration. Certainly the Opposition parties will want to consider the implications for the operation of the Parliament. I will not seek leave to continue my remarks because I know that Senator Chipp is interested and has some views on this matter, but it is a matter which we may wish to debate further at a later time. Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.08) —I concur largely with most of what Senator Chaney has said. I also have not had time to put the matter to my Party. Therefore, at this stage, I put forward only my views, which I regret to say-with ultimate respect to you, Mr President, and to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings-I put in much stronger terms than did Senator Chaney. I vigorously disagree with the recommendation or the decision that you have made and the guidelines that you have placed on the electronic media. I find it not only inconsistent but also-again with ultimate respect to the Committee-absurd that words can be said in this chamber or the other chamber and then members or senators can ask for them to be withdrawn, the print media can reprint those words and use them in cartoons, yet the electronic media cannot rebroadcast them. I find it even more extraordinary that the very words which will subsequently be forbidden to be used by the electronic media have already been on the electronic media if the proceedings of that chamber happened to be broadcast on that day. An incident occurred in the House of Representatives yesterday when the proceedings were not being broadcast. My distinguished friend Senator Chaney was called a name. The Minister who called him a name-not a very flattering name-was quite properly asked by the Speaker to withdraw, which he did. Mr President, under the guidelines that you have brought down, as I understand them, an excerpt of that Minister calling a distinguished member of this chamber a name cannot be rebroadcast. But it appears on whatever the page is of the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, with that incident being told over and over again. I believe that that Minister should be able to be exposed on the electronic media for the wrong thing he did in the same way that he has been exposed in the print media. I believe that by denying the electronic media the right to do this, we are abusing the very high privilege we have in this place. I know that this is not the intention of the Committee, but the effect on the media towards us must be `Those people down there can misbehave, they can put on a terrible performance in front of school children and whatever and bring this place into disrepute', which we do from time to time, and I include myself in that. But then we say, `But we will not let the electronic media rebroadcast it because it might look bad to the people out there'. We are having a bit each way on that. If we misbehave in this place, why deny the free press, free radio and free television the opportunity of exposing that misbehaviour to the people of Australia? The material can be reprinted in full in a newspaper. A summary, including a quotation, may be given on television but the actual excerpt may not be, while at the same time the entire incident now being banned could well have been broadcast over the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, if that chamber happened to be broadcast at the time. There are people, even in this hallowed chamber, who sometimes offend Standing Orders. There is one Minister here-I will not name him-whose behaviour in terms of personal abuse leaves a lot to be desired. I am sure that Minister, who gives as good as he gets, would not mind himself being broadcast or rebroadcast. He would probably enjoy it. But why are we protecting people like that? I myself, I freely admit, have transgressed Standing Orders, and quite properly have been called to order by you, Mr President, or by your Deputies. There is no reason why I should be protected by the Standing Orders. I feel very strongly about this and I intended to move that the matter be referred back to the Committee for further consideration. But as Senator Chaney has foreshadowed that he will take the matter to his Party and I will take it to mine, it may be that we shall have an opportunity to debate the matter again in this chamber at a future time. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(3.12) —I am sure that members of the Senate are aware that I am a member of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, and we discussed this matter for quite some time prior to the making of the statement by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The matter is still before the Committee. The matter will not just pack up and go away; it will be constantly before us. How we get around it is yet to be determined by the Committee to the full extent. I simply take this opportunity to move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —During Question Time Senator Kilgariff asked me about Government support through the International Year of Peace program for the visit to Australia by Dr Caldicott. I am able to advise him and the Senate that the Foreign Affairs Department has now advised me that the Australian Government has not been asked to provide, and has not provided, any financial assistance under the IYP to Dr Caldicott for her visit to Australia or travel within Australia. I believe that the record should be set straight on that point. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present a report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit dated March 1986. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(3.15) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I present the fifth report on the examination of annual reports dated March 1986, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts I table the fifth report arising from the Committee's examination of annual reports, pursuant to the provisions of sessional order 7. During 1985, the Committee reported to the Senate on several important issues. Honourable senators will recall that the Committee's first report dealt with the timeliness of reporting to Parliament by Government departments and authorities. The second report considered standards of presentation and information which should be in annual reports. The third report concentrated on children's television standards. The fourth report examined the 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority and, in particular, assessment procedures used in Australian Capital Territory secondary colleges. The report I table today is sub-titled `another look at children's television'. As that title indicates, this Committee has shown a long standing interest in children's television. This is its fourth report on the subject. In 1978 the Committee tabled a report on ``the impact of television on the development and learning behaviour of children''. In 1981 the Committee tabled another report entitled `children and television revisited'. In August 1985 the Committee reported on children's television standards. In this report, the Committee examines in detail the development of the Australian Children's Television Foundation and the Children's Program Committee of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Committee also considers the activities of the government-owned television broadcasters in the field of children's television and discusses some other issues relevant to the future of this important aspect of Australian television. There is no doubt that television monopolises the lives of most Australian children. On average, children view approximately 24 hours of television a week. Some children view television from 40 to 50 hours a week. At the time of the Committee's first inquiry into this matter in 1978, concern about what children were viewing on television was widespread and acute. The situation had not changed significantly in 1981. Few quality children's programs were being produced and those that were lacked variety. In 1985 the Committee was pleased to hear and see evidence of significant improvements that have recently been made in the quality of children's programs. In taking another look at children's television, the Committee has reviewed the work of the Australian Children's Television Foundation. In 1981 this Committee strongly supported the establishment of, and Commonwealth financial support for, the Foundation. The Foundation, which was incorporated as a company in 1982, was intended by the Government to play a `catalytic role in the development of quality children's television programs by bringing together the industry's best resources'. The Committee's report gives details of recent developments within the Foundation. It concludes that the Foundation has contributed significantly to the production of high quality children's television in Australia. The Committee was particularly impressed with the quality of the `Winners' series, which was the first of the Foundation's major undertakings as an executive producer. This impression no doubt is shared by the many thousands of Australian parents and children who have enjoyed these excellent programs. The Foundation, regrettably, has experienced some funding problems. When the Foundation was set up, it was envisaged that, after three years of operation, it would be self-sufficient. The Foundation, however, remains totally dependent on government funding. It receives grants from the Commonwealth and all the States and Territories, with the notable exception of Queensland. The Committee was told by representatives of the ACTF that the procedures for raising funds from eight different governments on a yearly basis are cumbersome and time consuming. The Foundation is bound by the requirements of different ministerial departments, both State and Commonwealth, when making its annual requests for finance. It is worth noting that donations to the Foundation are not tax deductible-a fact that has probably impeded the original goal of financial self-sufficiency. The Committee believes that the present arrangements for financing the ACTF lead to uncertainty and a lack of confidence in the plan ahead. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) should review the present funding position of the Foundation in the light of the difficulties noted in the Committee's report. The Committee's report also examines the development of the Children's Program Committee of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. This Committee advises the Tribunal on all aspects of children's television including the classification of children's programs. It comprises four members drawn from the public and three members from the television and advertising industries. From the evidence before it, the Committee considers that the members of the Children's Program Committee are competent, dedicated and enthusiastic. There was no evidence available to the Committee to suggest that a more effective body could be found to classify children's programs. The report also discusses four issues that the Committee believes are important for the future of children's television in Australia. These issues relate to: Children's viewing patterns and `C' time; programs for six to nine-year-olds; formula programming; and children's drama. Children constitute a significant segment of the total television audience. The peak viewing time for children aged 5 to 12 is between 6 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. At 7.45 p.m. almost 50 per cent of children are watching television. Information presented in annual reports of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal reveals that the number of children viewing television during `C' time-that is, the hour between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays-in metropolitan areas decreased from 265,000 in 1977 to 163,000 in 1985. Various reasons have been advanced for this decrease, one of which was that 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. may not be the most desirable period for `C' time. The Committee considers that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's review of children's television standards should include an investigation of when `C' programs should be shown. There is some evidence which suggests that the television needs of six to nine-year-olds have to some extent been neglected. The Committee heard evidence that most children's programs are aimed at the upper end of the six to 13 age group. The Committee would encourage the ABT to consider this issue when it reviews the children's television standards, sometime after 1 July 1986. Nevertheless, it considers it would be unfortunate if regulations became necessary to meet the needs of children in this age group. Formula programming for the children's hour continues despite the existence of the children's television standards which encourage variety. Formula programs, sometimes referred to as magazine programs, are produced for long periods using the same formula. The Committee was told that it is possible to attract children to `C' programs by broadcasting a diverse and interesting range of programs. The success of a particular television broadcaster in Adelaide lent support to this proposition. Children's drama is an essential element of television for children and the Committee strongly supports the ABT's regulations encouraging the local production of children's drama. No report on children's television would be complete without a discussion of the roles of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. The Committee found that the ABC continues to provide a diverse range of quality children's programs. Many see the ABC's children's programs as the yardstick by which others can be measured. The Committee trusts that the ABC's high priority to the production of these programs will continue. The role of the SBS in children's television is more modest than that of the ABC. The SBS does not have in-house production departments and relies heavily on overseas programs. This reliance creates several problems which are detailed in the report. SBS children's programs rate poorly and SBS is reviewing its role in children's television. Nevertheless, the Committee's view is that children's programs reflecting cultural and ethnic diversity have a place on Australian television. The Committee welcomes the widespread recognition within the industry that the children of Australia have special television needs. This recognition has not always been evident in the past. The Committee trusts that quality children's television will soon become the norm, rather than the exception. Recent developments in the field of children's drama suggest that this is possible. The Committee is confident that firm foundations have been laid for the industry to produce innovative, exciting and entertaining programs for the benefit of our children and the nation. I commend the report to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Teague) adjourned. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the tenth annual report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the Seventy-seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on legislation considered by the Committee over the period from July 1984 to June 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The report I have just tabled describes the work of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee during a 12-month period from July 1984 to June 1985 last year. A report on the period July 1985 to June 1986 is under preparation. During the period covered by this report, Senator Coates was the Chairman of the Committee. He deserves great credit for the courteous, efficient and committed way in which he led the Committee through its scrutiny of many hundreds of instruments of delegated legislation. I also pay tribute to the other senators who have served with dedication and without complaint on this busy Committee. All have acted in keeping with its long-established tradition of bipartisanship. The Committee has been in existence for over 50 years examining delegated legislation to ensure that it is in an appropriate form and does not infringe on accepted rights and liberties. As the 77th report will demonstrate, the need for a vigilant scrutiny committee is as strong today as it ever was. Delegated legislation represents an enormous growth of executive law-making. The sheer volume and complexity of many of these instruments can lead to infringement of rights and curtailment of liberties. The day-to-day mechanisms of government administration are built on instruments of delegated legislation. But the ever increasing complexity of government can result in the deliberate or inadvertent reduction of freedoms without express parliamentary sanction. The Committee is a watchdog. It exists as the eyes and ears of the Senate chamber in scrutinising executive laws that the Senate itself cannot possibly find time to examine and debate. The Committee's responsibility is to the Senate. I am pleased to say that the Committee has long enjoyed the consistent support and encouragement of senators on both sides of the chamber, who recognise the Committee's highly developed sense of bipartisanship in performing the task of legislative scrutiny. I would ask Ministers and their officials responsible for preparing delegated legislation to read the Committee's 77th report. It will reveal certain themes which reflect the Committee's concern to protect rights by upholding the principles which are its terms of reference. The report will be of assistance to Ministers and officials preparing legislation who wish to avoid the pitfalls pointed out by the Committee report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 13 March, on motion by Senator Lewis: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 13 March, on motion by Senator Lewis: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.33) —The Academic Salaries Tribunal report may well be considered as unimportant by many people. I suggest that it be read by honourable senators because it is not necessarily the level of salaries that it recommends but the reasoning and the development of the philosophy that are important as far as many people in this type of occupation receiving this type of remuneration are concerned. It involves one group of officers similar to judges, departmental heads, Ministers and, of course, members of parliament including senators. Some have more or less involvement with taxation changes. At this stage, all these things need to be taken into account. We need to consider whether there is relativity between the various groups and whether, for instance, there should be one major scale of salaries determined with perhaps sub-scales being developed from that. There have been suggestions quite regularly that some of these officers should be paid on a post-tax or non-tax basis. Should there be a reconsideration of attitudes by governments on the relativity question as well as on allowances and entitlements generally? I think that changes to the tax laws that are under consideration mean that quite a few of these remuneration schedules and scales should be looked at. Clearly, it is not the quantum but the method and the recommendations put forward by Mr Justice Ludeke that demonstrate the maze of considerations for the academic area only. While the recommendations will help to rectify many complaints, just as surely they will open up many others. I urge that we again look at the 1973 legislation, particularly as it relates to other salaried and tribunal officers of the Commonwealth. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.35) —I join my colleague Senator Archer in speaking to the Academic Salaries Tribunal report. We have had the experience over the last few years of seeing universities and colleges of advanced education punished by the Government whenever they decide to pay salaries at the level they think appropriate to the most senior officers of their organisations. I refer, of course, to the salaries paid to vice-chancellors and principals of colleagues. I put to the Senate the proposition that it should be a matter for the institutions as to what they think should be the salary for the chief executive officer whom they employ. We frequently criticise our tertiary institutions for the quality of their management. One of the determinants of that quality is the stature and capacity of the person selected to fill the most senior post in the university or college. Yet the salary scale is determined centrally and rigidly administered. We inflict upon the institutions a punishment if they dare go outside that salary scale, particularly if they pay more. It seems to me that we should be saying to the universities and colleges: `You have a total budget. You manage that budget. If within that budget you wish to employ a person on a higher salary scale, that is your judgment. You live with it. You take the consequences.' Instead, we have had the practice over some years-I have been able to examine it a little more carefully in Opposition than I could when in government-where we require compliance with that pay scale and we punish the institutions if they go outside it, as some have tried to do and some wish to do. Let us look at the way the North Americans operate their universities and colleges. They have no doubt that if they wish to get top people they will have to pay top salaries. There is no reason why universities and colleges should not be able to determine pay scales for their staff according to merit as they see it and to appeal to a wider group of scholars and administrators, not only in this country, but throughout the world. It is quite clear that the report of the Academic Salaries Tribunal is necessary because of the rigidities that we have built into the tertiary system and higher education in this country. The question before us all is whether that rigid system is appropriate, efficient or optimal. The more I examine it, the more I conclude that it is not efficient or optimal and even if it were appropriate once it is not appropriate now and will be less appropriate in the future. My colleagues and I would be much more disposed to look at a system which gave greater flexibility and autonomy to colleges of advanced education and universities to let them work out, in accordance with their needs and the type of people they wish to employ, who would be the most appropriate person and what salary would have to be paid. For example, the modern vice-chancellor above all has to be a manager with good academic standing-certainly a scholar-and with scholarly standing if possible. But the vice-chancellor of a university has to be a manager. If we look at the salaries for top managers in the private sector, what is offered through the Academic Salaries Tribunal by our universities is not sufficient to attract the top managers in this country and certainly not the top managers from overseas. The same thing applies to the colleges of advanced education. Some of them are very large business undertakings. The chief executive of any of those organisations should be a person of absolutely top management skill and capacity. They will not be obtained and held in our tertiary institutions while this rigid system continues. It is my understanding that our parties will be seeking to provide a more flexible arrangement in government when it is our turn again to administer this system and to administer the tertiary and higher education systems. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Senator Mason: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.41) —I rise to make a few comments concerning the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Bill Hayden. The statement gives an account of his recent visit to a number of South East Asian countries. The Minister refers in the statement to the need for Australia to recognise the significance of this region to our future. I certainly agree with the Minister on that point. Of course, in some areas of South East Asia I believe Australia must pick up its act because it has been shown in some of the islands that there is a tendency now to look to Australia as the big brother, and not in a nice way. The statement also refers to the Minister's visit to the Philippines following the fall of the Marcos Government and the advent of the Aquino Government. Mr Hayden has outlined plans in this document for an increase in the level of Australian aid to the Philippines. I commend the Government for making this move, as I commend the Government for being amongst the first countries to recognise, on behalf of Australia, the new administration of Mrs Corazon Aquino. Along with many, I was amazed at the developments in the Philippines which led to the downfall of the Marcos regime. It was quite remarkable to see the people of the Philippines effect that change with such a minimal amount of injury and loss of life, particularly when one considers the density of the population and the strength of feeling of the Filipino people, with the abuse of human rights and the heavy-handed use of the police and the military which had prevailed under Mr Marcos. It was a remarkable revolution, perhaps I should say, a national uprising. As many commentators have pointed out and, indeed, as the Minister pointed out in his statement, the euphoria has now died down. Now the real task of rebuilding the country begins, which will be a very long road. Mrs Aquino and her Government must now bring the people back to earth so that together they can implement realistic programs to get the country back on track and relieve the dismal conditions of so many Filipino people. The Minister makes the point in this statement that there is a great need to ensure that stability is maintained in the South East Asian area. It is of benefit, of course, to the countries themselves for with stability comes a better opportunity for economic development and growth. It also benefits Australia because it is in our interests that we are part of a stable region. I am concerned about recent reports in the Press, specifically the article in the Australian on Wednesday, 19 March. There are other articles which indicate that the New People's Army is persisting with its guerrilla activities in certain provinces of the Philippines. The article in the Australian of 19 March states: Guerilla activity by the Philippines' communist insurgents is on the rise, belying claims by the Aquino Government that it is close to negotiating a nationwide ceasefire with the rebels. Members of the New People's Army (NPA) have carried out at least 10 operations during the past week, indicating the onset of a major new offensive. The guerillas have conducted raids in eight provinces, including two where government officials had said the NPA was observing an unofficial ceasefire. The report continues: The death toll from rebel activities during the past week- this is this last week- stands at 60, with the biggest loss of life reported after a raid on a National Food Authority warehouse in the north-eastern province of Cagayan where 23 people were killed. Another attack, in which 10 Government militiamen died, occurred in the island province of Bohol, one of the provinces where the NPA was reportedly observing a ceasefire. It is interesting to note that the numbers of deaths by the communist insurgents in this last week is far more than the number of people who lost their lives in the national uprising. The article continues: The Aquino Government's pledge to act quickly to solve the insurgency problem has been largely discredited by the upsurge in guerrilla attacks. Although NPA spokesmen have consistently said that the insurgents are prepared to consider a ceasefire, the terms they set as a pre-condition for negotiations have cast doubts on the sincerity of their offer. The rebels have insisted that President Aquino terminate the United States bases agreement, launch a comprehensive land-reform program, withdraw the army from insurgency prone provinces and make other major concessions. In return, the NPA has offered to observe a truce for a limited period while retaining possession of its weapons. The Defence Minister, Mr Enrile, has publicly expressed scepticism over the NPA ceasefire offer. I will briefly read other parts of that article, which I think are quite significant: Although NPA regional commanders in some areas have commented on the ceasefire proposal there has been no official response from the Communist Party's central committee. . . . . Although Mrs Aquino won an important propaganda victory during her first few days in office by honouring a pledge to release all political prisoners, including hardline communists and former guerrillas, it has become obvious that her honeymoon with the Left is over. We must take note of these reports because Mrs Aquino will require much fortitude, strength and assistance now to ensure that her Government comes through with developments peacefully. One must realise too, when one sees the support that communist insurgents get in the battles and fighting in other countries very close to the Philippines and in South East Asia, that we must be very wary. I believe that at this time, when Mrs Aquino is endeavouring to get her Government and the country back on its feet, it is very susceptible to guerrilla and communist insurgency action. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —Madam Acting Deputy President, I know that at least one of my colleagues wants to make a contribution on this paper. To enable him to do so, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.49) —by leave-Forest and forest-based industries have an important role to play in the overall economy of Australia and I think it is rather disappointing that the only time we hear anything about our forests is when they are razed by bushfires or are going to be raided by opposing armies, according to the conservationists, of forestry workers or road building groups. We must acknowledge that only a very small area of Australia is suitable for the growth of new forests and an even smaller area is natural rainforest. To that extent, the latter should be preserved. That means that the Federal and State governments must work alongside private enterprise and the conservation movement to ensure that we make the most of our resource, while at the same time protecting the environment and our national heritage. In other words, we have to establish a better balance between the demands of the environmental control and economic viability. The report by the various States regarding forestry and forest products clearly indicates that attempts are being made to try to keep this balance. In my own State of Tasmania a Forest Practices Act, the first of its kind in Australia, was passed in May last year to ensure that timber harvest is conducted in an environmentally acceptable manner and in accordance with approved timber harvesting plans. I commend to the Senate the major objectives of the national forestry strategy for Australia, as outlined on page 19 of the report, which seeks to gain a commitment from all parties involved in forest industries to treat forests in a manner that maximises their benefit to the community in the long term and to recognise the importance of multiple use management on a sustained basis. What concerns me is the Government's lack of interest in the growing of more and better forests, borne out by what I believe is a lack of intelligent forward planning, lack of money put aside for research and legislation that is determined to drive the private forester and developer out of business. Forests do not grow overnight. Even a softwood pine plantation takes up to 20 years to reach maturity. So it is important to invest and to encourage private sector investment in research and development. I note the concerns expressed in the report about long term funding for the national bushfire research unit. I agree that bushfires are a matter of public concern that demands priority attention from both State and Federal governments. I note that the Federal Government has given priority to providing a 150 per cent write-off for manufacturing industry research. I only wish that the Government took its commitments to the forestry area more seriously and gave a similar write-off to people who are interested in establishing new forestry plantations. I also regret the Government's action in quarantining farm losses in forestry operations because it will be a further disincentive to the planting of forests in a land which sorely needs a greater planting of trees throughout the length and breadth of the country. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.52) —I move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for- (a) plunging the housing of Australian families into the worst position in 50 years by doctrinaire and unbalanced policies; (b) creating and maintaining a high interest, high tax economy that makes home ownership an unattainable goal for many young Australian families; (c) presiding over and causing a rapid decline in the availability of rental housing, causing extreme hardship to low income families in particular; (d) creating uncertainty by not releasing after 6 months, details concerning taxation policy on investment property; and (e) destabilising the finance market by artificial and sectoral constraints which will have long-term detrimental effects on home ownership funding. There is so much wrong with housing that it is difficult to know where to start. At the moment the Government seems to have about 10 spokesmen on housing. What they say seems to vary quite a lot. I was impressed to read in a transcript of the World Today what a Mr Duncan was reported to have said in answer to a question along the lines of `What do you believe the Government should be doing to resolve this housing crisis?' He said: . . . I think we haven't got quite to a housing crisis yet. I wish we could all agree that that was the case. But clearly it is not the case, and it is not the way the situation is seen by some of the Government spokesmen who are talking so much about it. Of all the problems that there are, not one has been caused by the weather, by international events, by the America's Cup, by Halley's Comet or anything else but the implementation of the crazy policies of the Government. Never-not even under Mr Whitlam-were the results of government policies so totally predictable and so absolutely inevitable. To evaluate the position fully we must consider the home owners, the rental property owners, the would-be home owners, the tenants, the building industry, the industries that live from the housing industry and the finance people. Every single one will suffer from now on from trouble that has been engineered by the Government. Two major components have produced the present disaster. One component is the so-called dollar float, the Clayton float, the component from which we get all the disadvantages but none of the advantages because of the intrusion of the Government with artificial interest intervention. The second component is the media failure to report. It strikes me as being quite amusing that, in spite of the fact that those of us who have an association with the housing industry and with housing generally have been talking since September last year about the problems that have been arising, the media discovered housing only yesterday. One has only to look at the amount of headline print that brought housing to the fore yesterday and again today to see what I mean. I do not know why it has taken the media so long to realise that the things we have been saying and the predictions we have been making should have been given due publicity. The signs are absolutely clear. There is a recognised market in Australia for approximately 130,000 new houses a year, give or take a few. That position prevailed over the seven years the Liberal-National Party Government was in office. Whenever there is a shortfall there will be a catch-up. Whenever there is an oversell, a borrow on the future, there will be a recession. No one who has followed housing over the last 20 or 30 years will argue about that for a minute. We were promised 500,000 jobs. It became necessary for the Government to buy those jobs, irrespective of the future cost. The building industry, being the easy industry to prime, took on 80,000 of those jobs-80,000 temporary jobs, I regret. The Australian Bureau of Statistics commencement figures that were released yesterday barely touch the position. The figures that were produced were for January. What about February and March? What about the pipeline effect that goes with figures of this sort? We need to remember that March decisions are probably not statistics until June to September. Information obtained from some of the project builders about inquiries indicates that the figures for March are down as much as 60 per cent so far. This is no longer a slide; it is a precipice. Something has to be done by the Government. At present all we hear is what the Government is not going to do. I realise that it is confronted with various alternatives. There are political alternatives, economic alternatives, philosophical alternatives and, I suppose, one would have to throw in the election alternative. The problems will not go away. We are way past the stage where band-aids will help. There are no scapegoats at this stage. The reality must be faced. The phoney float we have learnt to live with over the last year or two has to go and the results faced up to. The Government's hope that the half-float would do enough good to enable it to back off in due course has failed. The devaluation of our currency failed to slow imports significantly, curtail borrowings, increase export income, tidy up the balance of payments, increase Australian profitability generally, slow the deficit growth, reduce inflation significantly or improve long term unemployment. Referring to employment, what about those 80,000 people who look like being only very temporary additions to the work force? I refer to the carpenters, the bricklayers, the tilers, the glaziers, the plasterers, the manufacturers of white goods or furniture or carpets or curtains. What will happen to these as we watch the slide go on? The projection errors have been obvious to the people who watch the housing market since at least last September. When I asked a question of the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, even a month ago, on 14 February 1986, recorded at page 390 of the Senate Hansard, she made the comments: Earlier this week Senator Archer asked a question relating to the state of the housing industry. I now have information in response to that question. She then cited 1984-85 figures of 152,700 dwellings having been commenced, an 11-year high. She continued: Dwelling commencements were maintained at a high level in the September quarter of 1985 and dwelling approvals data indicate that this level held through the December quarter. Some decline is now expected but the forecast of 140,000 dwelling commencements in 1985-86 still holds. The Government acknowledges the effect that interest rates are having on the availability of housing finance. It is essential to keep money supply growth under control and to support the Australian dollar. Clearly this policy is working. I underline those words: Clearly this policy is working. She continued: We recognise that high interest rates and tight availability of housing finance are likely to cause housing activity to decline starting in the March quarter. However, we must get the fundamentals right. The housing industry can then look forward to a bright future under the Hawke Labor Government's strategy for growth. In the meantime the Government is closely watching the situation and, if necessary, will consider appropriate remedial policies for the housing industry. Over the last few days the revisions have been coming from everywhere. Everybody is now saying: `Oh yes, but we think we will have another look at those figures'. I find that we are getting revisions of 30,000 or more from different people and that those who were saying that 140,000 is a reasonable figure to expect, as a drop of only 12,000 from last year, are now saying that they think it may be 110,000 or somewhere between 100,000 and 110,000. What about jobs? What about investment? I noticed in a paper that turned up on my desk only this morning-a paper called Property Review of 20 March under the heading of `Lean year for suppliers', `Housing sector trough bodes ill for supply stocks'-the article by Robyn Goodfellow which starts off: Sell building material supply stocks which rely heavily on the local housing industry, is the share tip from leading stock broker, Ord Minnett and Co. Ltd. In a circular to clients, Ord Minnett which is 50 per cent owned by Westpac Banking Corporation advised clients to sell their holdings in Brick and Pipe Industries Ltd, Brickworks Ltd, Bristile Ltd, Bunnings Ltd, Calsil Ltd, Clifton Brick Ltd, Jennings Industries Ltd and Softwood Holdings Ltd. I am afraid that that sort of prediction bodes ill all round. Then we come to the finance. The savings bank interest limit is an absolute farce. People with long bank histories and plenty of collateral and in reasonably comfortable circumstances may still get savings bank loans. But what about the new customers? I refer to those with $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 of their own, who probably have a wife and two or three children at home and earn $400 to $450 a week. Do honourable senators want to know what happens to them? I can tell them that they have no hope in the world of getting a savings bank loan. But on occasions they have been able to get what is now referred to as a cocktail loan. They may get $20,000 or $30,000 at 13 1/2 per cent and then $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000 at about 17 per cent to 19 per cent from the bank; they may get it from a permanent building society at 14 per cent, 16 per cent or more, and recently they may have been able to get it from the fringe finance companies at anything from 16 per cent to 20 per cent. We piously carry on about 13 1/2 per cent being the housing rate ceiling. That is rubbish unless the policy of this Government can deny that the poor miss out and that the two-income, middle-income and better-off-income families get the funds. But now those funds are running out. This is because the Government's policy has made it happen. The savings banks have no money. The building societies have no money. The housing recession is unquestionably roaring on. The housing market, as reported by the unthinking and uninitiated journalists, has been written up as being buoyant and one of the great successes of the Hawke Labor Government. Weekly sales reports have shown rising prices and large auction clearances. But what is it that underlies these figures and statements? Of course, the rental return on housing is poor. Historically, and with interest from managed funds being usually about double that of rental housing, returns from those sources are often, say, double the rent. So the owners of necessity started selling off where the income was important and where the costs were getting too high. As the Government started supporting the dollar float with interest rates, it became necessary for them to do so. Then it became clear that the Government's basic philosophy of attacking property owners was still alive and well. Then we got capital gains taxes and negative gearing provisions, and so the housing started to slow. For one or other reason, thousands of rental units around Australia have been sold and thousands of tenants have been forced to seek alternative accommodation. In actuality there are virtually no vacancies of rental properties in Australia. A rental vacancy of less than one per cent is full occupancy; that is the way it is in all the major centres. In my notice of motion I raised the issue of funding. The figures were released after I put down that notice. They show that since last month savings bank loans have been reduced by 15 per cent, trading bank loans by 20.8 per cent and permanent building society loans by 13.6 per cent. Only the fringe lenders showed a slightly upward trend. The figures showed the sixth consecutive monthly decline and the lowest number of home loans in a month for over three years. All this has been brought about by the policies of this Government. Loans for the purchase of newly-erected houses are the lowest ever recorded by the Australian Statistician. The situation of project builders, large and small, spec builders and contract builders is critical. Bankruptcies in established and smaller firms have already started, and I regret that there will be plenty more of both builders and subcontractors. What will the Government do? Will it unprop the overall interest rate? No, it will not, because as the Treasurer, Mr Keating, rightly said, if it lets the dollar find its true level of, say, plus or minus 60c the electorate would throw it out. Will the Government borrow huge amounts of overseas money for more props so that overseas interest payments will further erode our debt structure and further increase our consumer price index? I do not think it would want to do that. Will the Government have a proper look at the sham that we have had in the last three years of its pretending that the economy is lovely while all the time we have seen our reserves destroyed, our balance of payments lose ground, our debts mounting daily and a huge and inevitable day of reckoning just around the corner? No, I do not think the Government could face its masters in the Australian Council of Trade Unions on that one either. Will it tear up its stupid prices and incomes accord and get some system that the country can afford to live with? Again, I do not think so. Even half a look at the latest Indicative Planning Council projections and the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for January as released yesterday must jerk the Government into action and out of the droll complacency so evident in answers given to me by the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr West, and by Senator Ryan. The Indicative Planning Council is a very skilled group but totally constrained under its guidelines. It gave a clear warning when in Professor Gruen's letter of 1 November he told the Minister: However, for the first time in over two years, the cost and availability of housing finance is likely to have some restraining influence on activity. The tenor of their warning appeared several times through that report. However, the gung ho ministerial approach raced on like the Titanic. Let us look at the rental position. There has always been an Australian Labor Party obsession with property owners and those who make provision for retirement income and who become second property owners for whatever reason. There are distinctly two classes of investment property owners. Firstly, there is the investor who is now selling out because of the Government's attitudes, actions and charges. Secondly, there are those people who become owners and stay with their property. It may be that a unit has been brought to house an aged single parent. A unit may have been bought for a student family, especially in a university area. A house may have been received by bequest. It may be that a house or unit could not be sold when desired. It may be that a house was kept when a new one was built. A house may have been held when on away postings-and Canberra is the prime example of where that sort of thing happens. All those people may become investment home owners for all those reasons. Traditionally in the past they have provided a very large portion of rental accommodation. The Government cannot afford to lose private rental owners. It has to encourage private sector owners to provide an ever increasing share. The Government's 4 per cent depreciation allowance will get it nowhere. Universally the return on rental housing is less than that available from other sources. The Government can never meet the demand for housing if it loses these owners. To provide around 30,000 rental houses, which will be this year's current shortfall, would cost in the order of $2 billion. I would be very surprised if the Government's priorities are such that it can afford to put up $2 billion just to meet the shortfall. Clearly, the Government's philosophy is to sock the savers and to encourage people to spend it all and join the race for the social security queue. I have a few suggestions to offer. Firstly, I suggest that the Government let the dollar float and I mean really float. Secondly, the interest rate for housing will then return to its proper and rightful level. Thirdly, I suggest the removal of all obstacles to secondary finance. Fourthly, I suggest that the Government reverse and withdraw the tax nonsense against those who provide rental housing. Fifthly, I suggest that the Government get greater use of the most efficient users of housing funds, for example, the co-operatives and the community groups which provide aged person housing and so on. Sixthly, I suggest that the Government follow some of the advice from the many reports on housing-for a start, the housing costs inquiry. If honourable senators think, as various media gurus try to portray, that the only problem is in regard to housing I would suggest that they look again. That may be the problem that is most obvious this week. However, I ask honourable senators to look at the rural sector as a whole; I ask them to look at the mining sector. I ask honourable senators opposite to phone some of their friends in the manufacturing area where costs have gone through the roof. Retail orders in the last six or eight weeks have stopped coming through, and threatened added interest costs, taxes and charges have really caught them. I ask honourable senators to think of those businesses which traditionally, and, I add, quite safely in the past, have used high gearing funds for their operations and which now find that their average interest rates are 22 or 23 per cent. They are all in trouble. The loss of confidence that will flow on from housing will go right through business. There is no J curve. We lost the value of our dollar and got nothing in return. The Government must face the problem sooner or later. The longer the Government leaves it, the worse it becomes. Every day that no action is taken means days longer taken to recover. The Government's interest prop-up policy is the key to it all. I am not one who spends time attacking or worrying about the media but on this occasion the media deserves a bit of a blast. It has toed the Government line. The media would not print or listen to the warnings we were giving on the very clear signs ahead. The media failed to research the issues. The media would not listen and then, strangely enough, yesterday it found housing. There was the big expose; the big banner page. The issue was certainly ready to go because the Government has done nothing of any consequence about it for so long. The media is there to produce the information, not just to represent the Government. There is a crisis. It is a disaster. Action cannot be delayed. The loss of employment, bankruptcies and the disruption caused cannot be allowed to happen. The causes are totally clear. They represent the fulfilment of government policy. It is up to the Government to fix it. The Government stands condemned for the state to which it has reduced housing. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.15) —We are discussing an Opposition motion censuring the Hawke Government on housing. It is a very audacious motion. It is very audacious for the Opposition to be criticising the Hawke Labor Government. I will deal with that in some detail later. However, at the moment I am interested in Senator Archer's statement that the Press discovered housing only yesterday. The Opposition, of course, has asked only three miserable questions this session on this so-called crisis in housing. The Opposition has thought the issue so important that it has asked only three questions this session. Of course, one of the questions to which Senator Archer referred was asked by him. The situation is that the Liberal Party of Australia has decided that there is a crisis. Of course, Senator Archer has, in the usual Liberal fashion, started to talk down the economy. He referred to the suffering of people from now on as he made his prediction of doom and gloom, which is typical of the Liberal Party. I would like to remind Senator Archer of the facts. Those facts are unpalatable to the Liberal Party but they show that the general economy in this country is particularly prosperous. They show that despite the circumstances applying when this Government came to power the economy has prospered. The figures show, for example, that the growth in the gross domestic product in the year 1983-84 was 4.9 per cent. In the year 1984-85 the growth in the GDP was 4.8 per cent. They were two very substantial years of growth. Those figures compare with two years of the Fraser Government when the growth in the gross domestic product was 0.6 per cent-a shocking thing as far as the economy in the year 1982-83 was concerned. In 1981-82, under the Liberal Government, the growth in the gross domestic product was 2.8 per cent. Unemployment in the country has fallen from 9 per cent in 1982-83 to 8 per cent now. In 1982-83 under the Liberal Government, the consumer price index was running at 11.5 per cent. In 1985 it was down to 8.2 per cent. That was a direct result of the prices and incomes accord which the Hawke Government has with the trade union movement. We have created 600,000 jobs in this country since March 1983. Employment is up and unemployment in the housing and construction industry is only 4.8 per cent. Honourable senators opposite can ask building tradesmen in Australia what the changes have been. The building tradespeople throughout Australia know that under the Hawke Government there has been a tremendous turnaround in the economy. This general milieu in which the housing industry in this country at present finds itself shows that we are in a very good position. In regard to industrial relations, we have the best figures for 17 years. Of course, this Government decided that it was most important to have a strong building industry. We realised that it is based on Australian produce and Australian tradespeople and that it has a very effective labour multiplier effect. Right at the moment this Government has the question of housing under active consideration. Both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) have indicated that we will consider the matter in the Budget context, just as we will consider any matter that needs to be looked at. We realise that it is a matter which has to be under constant review. Let us contrast what happened under the Hawke Government and what happened under the previous Liberal Government. This Government has a great record in housing. When in government in 1982-83, the Opposition had the housing industry on its knees. As a result of our policies, such as the first home owners scheme, by the stimulation of public housing and the general lift in the level of economic activity we have been able to raise the number of housing commencements from 105,000 to 137,000 in our first year and to 153,000 in the second year. The level of housing commencements will be 137,000 in the financial year 1985-86. These are the facts, which cannot be talked down. Our economic performance, the stimulation of industry in the private sector through the first home owners scheme and our increased efforts in public housing are significant. By the end of this financial year 210,000 families will have been successful in moving into their first homes as a result of our first home owners scheme. As a result of those approvals, the existing and ongoing commitment will be $870m. As organisations within the building industry have stated, this scheme is the most successful home ownership program produced in this country. That is a statement of industry organisations such as the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders Federation of Australia Inc. If honourable senators opposite compare that scheme with their miserable scheme when they were in office, they will see that their home deposit assistance program assisted only 82,000 families up until the time this scheme was abolished. When the Government knocked it off in December 1985, only $170m had been paid out. They are the facts again. I ask honourable senators to make the comparison. It is no wonder that we have lifted the number of commencements from 105,000 to 153,000 in just two years. Some reference has been made to interest rates. I wish to set the matter straight as far as what exists at the moment and what happened under the former Government. The housing loan interest rate for savings banks is now 13 1/2 per cent. In the December quarter of 1981-82 interest rates for savings bank housing loans were 12 1/2 per cent. In the March quarter of 1981-82 interest rates rose to 13 1/2 per cent and stayed that way for four consecutive quarters. We are now into the second quarter of the period in which interest rates are at a peak of 13 1/2 per cent. I believe that there is every indication that those interest rate figures will come down in the foreseeable future. I am fortified by quite a bit of long term prediction taking place, believing that interest rates will drop a number of percentage points before the middle of this year. Despite what Senator Archer said, housing loans have increased. If we look at the 1982-83 quarters we will see that major lenders lent money for 52,000 new housing loans for the first quarter, 55,000 in the second quarter, 60,000 in the third quarter and 65,000 in the last quarter. When the Government achieved office in the March quarter of 1983 the number of housing loans rose from 55,000 to 79,000 and subsequently they varied from 81,000 to 85,000, 84,000, 80,000 and 82,000 until the December quarter of last year when the number of loans fell to 71,000; a slight reduction. Nevertheless, the overall program is working favourably for our Government. In contrast, in 1982-83 the number of housing loans for the four quarters were 52,000, 55,000, 60,000 and 65,000. In the December quarter last year 71,000 housing loans were granted. When we talk about private housing we see that the inept economic policies of the Fraser Government cut private dwelling approvals to a record low at the end of 1982. The approvals dropped to 8,000 in the last quarter and they are currently around 11,000 for the last quarter for which we have figures. This indicates the priority which the Liberals gave to housing. In contrast, the Hawke Government re-negotiated the Commonwealth-State housing agreement and doubled the funds in one year. We introduced the first home owners scheme which led to a dramatic recovery in the housing sector. The Opposition's motion criticises, among other things, the capital gains tax. Of course, the Liberals have been very upset by the correction of an anomaly that existed and developed under the Liberal Government where people did not pay a fair share of tax and there was no adequate coverage of people who took all their profit in capital gains. That certainly distorted our economy. The Government's capital gains tax-despite the Opposition's claim that there is some confusion-is very clear. The tax has been outlined already in the draft white paper and anybody who can read should know the essential details of that tax. It will have little or no impact on rental housing. Firstly, it applies to real capital gains. In Sydney for the past five years there has been no real rise in house prices. Therefore, the capital gains tax will not apply. Secondly, the fact that losses on rental properties can be carried forward and offset against future profits means that no one will be affected by capital gains on rental housing. The abolition of negative gearing may have an initial impact. Its essential aim will be to rid the market of speculators. Negative gearing is essentially a rort. I disagree with Senator Archer, because I believe that negative gearing has been a way in which people have artificially avoided tax. We have allowed doctors, lawyers, pilots and all sorts of other people not to pay taxation. Ordinary wage and salary earners are sick and tired of subsidising people in a scheme such as negative gearing as it applied to the building industry. Senator Archer referred to six or seven proposals of the Liberal Party. Many people may not understand the final paragraph of the motion, which states: (e) destabilising the finance market by artificial and sectoral constraints which will have long-term detrimental effects on home ownership funding. Of course, that is the sting in the motion, because it relates to the Liberal Party's policy of deregulation. The motion does not put it as clearly as the Liberal Party's platform in which, under a rather strange heading `Goal Two: Encouraging Families' and a sub-heading `Home Ownership', the key provision of the Liberal Party's housing program states: As such, further deregulation of our financial market will play a vital role. That is the goal of the Liberal Party. John Olsen, the South Australian Liberal leader, knows that the deregulation goal of the Liberal Party is an own goal; a goal which John Howard kicked against his own side when he introduced this deregulation idea when he was in South Australia; a place where people could test out the deregulation idea on a rather doctrinaire and unbalanced people, to take some words out of the Opposition's motion. It is doctrinaire and unbalanced to believe that home owners should be subject to all the expressions of the market which represent vast repayment increases in the home loans of ordinary people. In criticising the motion, I do not know whether I should refer to Senator Archer's comments, when he said that the Government in some ways was gung ho, racing ahead like the Titanic. I did not quite get what he meant by that. But if ever there were a policy that was gung ho, doctrinaire, unbalanced and racing ahead like the Titanic-I defer to the Opposition's knowledge of bottom of the harbour matters-its policy would be. It is unacceptable, doctrinaire and unbalanced. I use as an authority a statement by Mr Shield in this morning's Sydney Daily Telegraph where Mr Shield expressed a view on behalf of the St George Building Society in an article headed `Society hits out over loan funds'. The article states: St George Building Society accused major banks of withholding funds for home lending and claimed that they had lost the purpose for which they were developed-to lend for housing. The article continues: Mr Shield, expressing the Society's opposition to any move to deregulate home lending, said banks would raise interest rates on home loans by 3 per cent if the ceiling was removed. This would add about $100 a month to average repayments. Mr Shield said plans by the banks to defer the effects of higher interest rates meant people would never be able to pay off their home loans. Mr Shield, of the St George Building Society, pointed out that it will mean $100 per month more on an average home repayment or, alternatively, home repayments will go on for many years more under the proposed Liberal-type policy that Senator Archer has supported here today. When we look at what that would do to the same people for whom Senator Archer was crying crocodile tears we realise just how serious it is. For example, what would happen to home loan repayments if the ceiling were not maintained? The impact of a one per cent rise in interest rates on a $50,000 home loan would be significant. Information provided by the St George Building Society indicates the impact of a one per cent rise in interest rates on a 25-year repayment period of a $50,000 home loan. Present interest repayments on a $50,000 loan at 15 per cent over a period of 25 years currently stand at $604.42 per month. If the same loan were secured at 16 per cent and monthly repayments remained the same, the period of repayment would stretch beyond 50 years. In short, it would be impossible to repay the loan under those conditions. However, if repayments were raised to $668 a month it would take a period of 47.8 years to repay the $50,000 loan. That is the situation we would have under the deregulated scheme that has been advocated by Mr Howard for the Opposition and repeated in this chamber by Senator Archer. My personal view, of course, is that the banks have grown rich on the backs of the home buyers. Last year they recorded profits which totalled $1 billion. They should now be prepared to be socially responsible. The answer to the current dilemma facing the housing industry is not to remove the ceiling but to reduce interest rates and introduce innovative new packages to attract funds into housing, such as the recently announced rental housing trust. Succumbing to bank pressure and lifting the ceiling would only jeopardise the housing industry, cut jobs in all areas of the economy and eliminate home ownership aspirations for hundreds of thousands of Australians. I know that the Government, the Minister for Housing, Mr West, and the Prime Minister are very concerned about the current situation in this country and they are making every effort to ensure that, if there is any short term problem, it will certainly be addressed by this Government. I would like to refer to paragraph (c) of the motion moved by Senator Archer on behalf of the Opposition because it refers to public housing. I think I should mention this for the record so that those people who are listening to this debate might realise that the Fraser-Howard Government cut the amount of funds for public housing in real terms by two-thirds. If the level of funding had been maintained, an extra 15,000 homes would have been built in New South Wales alone. So that is the price we had to pay in New South Wales for the effects of the cutting of public housing funds by the Fraser Government. Australia-wide there are now 150,000 people on waiting lists for public housing. I am very concerned about that and I know the Government is. These people are the victims of the disastrous Fraser-Howard period of Government, which forced up unemployment and ignored housing needs. We have had a herculean task to try to redress the situation that we inherited from that Government. Mr Acting Deputy President, I would just like to remind you and honourable senators that Australian families are now in very good hands as far as housing in this country is concerned. The Government has a program that it is preparing for the Budget and I am absolutely certain that it will act before that if it is necessary. I believe that we have shown that we do not have a doctrinaire and unbalanced program, but this is certainly the record of the Liberal Howard-Fraser regime of the past. The Opposition has adopted an even more doctrinaire and unbalanced program which relies for its success on the law of the jungle, the law of deregulation and the prevention of the protection of home payments that people have had under this Government. As I have said, the State Liberals in South Australia have learnt what this means in practice. They have been defeated by Mr Howard's doctrinaire and unbalanced approach and Mr Howard's popularity is reflected in the way that the Australian people see these policies. The wisest thing for the Opposition to do would be, in shame, to withdraw this motion. The wisest thing for it to do would be to examine genuinely the housing problems and to strike out that platform point in which it proposes to deregulate the housing industry as it would make so many Australians suffer. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.37) —Today we have before us a motion which centres on the problems in the housing industry, ranging from issues such as interest rates through to the decline in the availability of rental housing and presumably also the decline in the number of approvals being given for home loans. During the debate Senator Archer said that there was so much wrong with housing that it was hard to know where to start. I can give Senator Archer a couple of pointers in that direction. He could start with what happened during the last years of the Fraser Government. He could start, if he wanted to, with the fact that the banks are making record profits. Indeed, Australian banks are among the most profitable organisations in the world; yet they are still demanding the right to make even greater profits, regardless of whatever social responsibilities one might believe they should have. If neither of those two positions suits him he can come back to the fact that we have in power at the moment a conservative Labor Government which has a string of broken promises behind it, not the least of which is the promise to double public housing stock in the first 10 years of its existence. That promise looks like going much the same way as its promise to provide 20,000 new child care places in an even smaller amount of time. It is interesting that Senator Archer did not make these same sorts of criticisms about high interest rates and the problems that they were causing in the community back in 1981-82 when, under the previous Fraser Government, interest rates rose almost monthly until they reached what I guess is an equal record high with this Government's limit of 13 1/2 per cent in June 1982. Undoubtedly, that was also a factor in the Fraser Government's defeat at the 1983 election. But Senator Archer was not concerned with hitting out at the monetary policies of the Fraser Government in those years, nor of blaming the Federal Government then for the fact that interest rates were going sky high and were causing enormous pressures, not only on the building industry in Australia but also on ordinary Australian families, their security and the security of other industries peripheral to those of the building industry and the housing market. In 1982 he was blaming not the Federal Government, but State government and local government policies and their zoning methods. I suggest that in looking at two years in which housing interest rates hit 13.5 per cent, when people are facing forced sales, are unable to get loans, when rental housing in the private market is rocketing and public housing is diminishing rapidly, Senator Archer should be consistent in his criticism. Certainly I intend to be. I criticised the Government then for its blinkered policy, for not accepting the fact that housing loans, the buildings and furnishings that flow from those loans are an important factor in the economy. They are a major part of people's plans for their future and their family's future. It is not accidental that problems in the housing area affect elections. If one looks at a sine curve of what has been happening over the last few years, one sees that when housing interest rates go up and approvals for dwellings go down and an election occurs, the Government in power inevitably loses. It certainly happened with the Fraser Government. If the current Hawke Government does not do something about the matter quickly, I suggest that it should not contemplate an early election, because it will need all the time it can get before people realise that it is not a government that is committed to the needs of people at all, despite its rhetoric to the contrary. Access to housing, both privately owned and public, is regarded very highly by the electorate. No matter what other issues politicians push or like to pretend are important, that issue alone will frequently dictate how people vote. There is no doubt that it happened in the 1980 election when Malcolm Fraser won, because interest rates were considerably less than they were a few years later and housing approvals were considerably higher. In fact, housing approvals in 1979-80 had leapt to an almost record level of just over 145,000 from a figure of 127,000 only 12 months previously. Housing interest rates at the time ranged between 9 1/4 and 10 1/2 per cent. That was a significant factor in the successful election of the Fraser Government in 1980. Unfortunately, interest rates began to rise almost immediately after that election, going from 10 1/2 per cent in late 1980 to 11 1/2 per cent in mid-1981 and to 12 1/2 per cent at the end of that same year, hitting the peak of 13 1/2 per cent-the same peak we have now-in the middle of 1982. At the same time, housing loan approvals were dropping, reaching a decade low of just over 116,000 by the financial year 1982-83. When one combines high interest rates, inaccessibility of housing loans and, hence, limited housing loan approvals, one finishes up with a very disgruntled electorate. Other issues tend to take very much a back seat when people are worried about their security, the roof over their heads, and how they can pay for other necessary items when increasing mortgage repayments are eating into their family budgets and when their family security is genuinely in jeopardy. It was not surprising that in the 1983 election Malcolm Fraser and the Liberal coalition Government was resoundingly beaten. By 1984 interest rates had dropped to 12 1/2 per cent, housing loan approvals had risen to almost 151,000. Again not surprisingly, by the time the 1984 election came around the Government that had produced the drop in interest rates and the increase in housing loan approvals was returned to power. Eighteen months later, unfortunately, we have a situation that is very much reminiscent of what faced the Fraser Government in 1982-83-rising interest rates which equal the Fraser Government's record level and housing loan approvals which are dropping. If anybody needs a more recent indication that the question of housing and access to housing and to reasonably priced loans is an electoral issue, he can turn his mind back to the 1985 South Australian State election, when the Liberals' popularity plummeted after the Liberal Leader federally, and to a lesser extent the Liberal Leader in South Australia, had trumpeted that what was necessary was deregulation in the housing loan market. Most of the electorate can add up and most people, particularly in the mortgage belts, realised that they would be significantly worse off under deregulation. Even if people cannot remember what had happened back in the deregulation period of the previous Fraser Government, they are certainly capable of working out that deregulation means that the ceiling comes off and that before too long 13 1/2 per cent will be a fond memory. The Government has done nothing to ameliorate this problem through any other measures. It has not increased the amount of money it has contributed to the public housing sector. It has made some attempt through rental subsidy schemes to assist those people who are in the private rental market, but when one considers that that is an extremely expensive place to be and that the supplementary rent assistance goes only to those people who are already on pensions, one realises that there is a large percentage of the community who are not being catered for by a government which is allegedly committed to social justice, social welfare and social issues generally. If Senator Archer wants to know where to start, I suggest he go back to the problems facing the Fraser Government in 1982-83. The problem is compounded by the attitude taken by the banks. Senator Childs said that the private banking sector is pressuring the current Government to do something. I would go so far as to say that the private banks are attempting to blackmail this Government into doing something. I find it outrageous that one sector of the private business community can seek to blackmail a government into correcting the damage that that sector's predatory behaviour has caused to another section of the private sector-namely, the building industry. I find it extraordinary to hear people on the one hand complaining about excessive government expenditure and arguing that this should be cut back in the interests of the national economy and national development, and then screaming that the Government should deregulate interest rates so that profits can go even higher. They then on the other hand demand that the Government do something to subsidise the building industry and those people who have need of the building industry-namely, those who want to build a home. It is not possible to want both things and still expect one's credibility to be particularly high. The Australian banking community has been making record profits for the last few years. According to an article in the Australian Financial Review in November last year, the first half of 1985 saw the National Australia Bank lift net profit 32.3 per cent to $144.9m while Westpac's earnings grew 29.2 per cent to $185.4m. The article further said: Both banks enjoyed- and that is their verb, `enjoyed'- good margins and deposit growth during the half, to March 31. The article went on to say: Annual growth of savings bank deposits in the year to September grew 7.3 per cent, compared with 10.8 per cent in the year to September 1984. Other newspaper articles since then have indicated that it is not just those two banks that are making significant and record profits, but others as well. A few days later, again in the Australian Financial Review, we read that the Commonwealth Bank, in the year to June, had an increase of 24 per cent in its profits; and the National Australia Bank was referred to again, as was Westpac's after tax earnings figure, which was shown as having grown by 20.2 per cent to $367.6m in the year to 30 September. Furthermore, the rate of increase in profitability for banks was higher than for any other industry in Australia. For them to turn around and claim that they need assistance because their loans area for housing is not making the same sort of profits as other areas is ludicrous. The banks' housing loan areas are making a profit; they are just not making as big a profit as everywhere else. I would have thought that it would be incumbent upon those organisations to be prepared to offset their large profit areas against their lower profit areas. Nobody is expecting them to make a loss. At the moment they are still making significant profits and should not be grasping for more. I think that those of us who are concerned about the sort of debate we have before us today, the sort of problem that Senator Archer has raised in his notice of motion, should be starting from the position that most Australians deserve a roof over their heads-either the assistance they need to own their own home or the concerned assistance from governments to put them into the public housing sector until they can afford to purchase their own homes, assuming that they so wish. It is time, too, that people remembered that governments in fact subsidise private home ownership to a much greater extent than they subsidise people in the public housing sector. Notwithstanding that fact, we have something like another 700,000 householders being forced into poverty because of the high cost of their housing and a government which is not prepared to put into motion measures that will help it to keep the election promise that it made to double the proportion of public housing stock in its first 10 years in office. The simple fact of the matter is that State housing authorities have not been provided with adequate funding levels to meet the demand for public housing. The Federal Government is aware of this fact. Its own research tells it what the problems are and the fact that there is something like-from memory-159,000 unsatisfied applications for people to go into the public housing sector. We must remember that these unsatisfied applications are coming from the very lowest economic sector in the community, the group which needs the most assistance if poverty is not to become rife in this country. Assuming, then, that we start from a position that most Australians are entitled to a roof over their heads, whether privately owned or not, we have to realise that a deregulated free market approach to housing will achieve neither of those things. In a deregulated economy, investment obviously will flow to the areas where there is the highest return, the highest profit opportunities and the highest profit margin. It will not go into the areas of greatest social priority. I repeat: Governments of all persuasions need to look back over the last 10 years and remember what happens at elections when the electorate feels threatened, insecure and uncertain about how to provide for itself and its families. The question then, I would suggest, is not whether government interference is needed to house all Australians in an affordable manner. It is, I suggest, a question of how best to assist or subsidise Australians into affordable, quality housing. So far, neither the previous Fraser Government nor the current Hawke Government has been prepared to make housing the priority that it deserves to be. Again I say that the Government will continue down that track at its electoral cost. There has been some talk today about the fact that the Government's tax policies are likely to cause havoc and insecurity in the market and that that, indeed, is being seen already. Those people who are complaining about the fact that a highly equitable and rather watered-down capital gains tax will destroy the housing market are really living in some odd sort of cloud-cuckoo-land. For a start, it is a very limited form of capital gains tax. Secondly, why is it affecting people so dramatically if, as they believe, it will drive the current Government out of office? If it drives the current Government out of office, presumably the Howard Liberal Party will come into office and, equally presumably, it will take away this allegedly iniquitous capital gains tax. All the astute business people in the world cannot be thinking too far down the track if they are panicking over what is effectively a pathetic capital gains tax package. Also, as far as the negative gearing proposals are concerned, I wonder why we all think it appropriate that the best way of providing cheaper rental accommodation is to provide a tax incentive to those who are on the highest marginal tax rates, because they are on the highest incomes. It seems like a double inequity to go about it that way. Why must we subsidise the wealthiest people in the community in order to provide private rental accommodation so that those on lower incomes can get a roof over their heads? Why do we not, for example, look at the British system of providing taxation assistance, which is across the board and non-discriminatory, and which seems to be housing at least as high a percentage of the British population as we do of ours and which, even more importantly, is keeping interest rates down? If outright tax deductibility or partial tax deductibility of interest rates does not suit the Government's purposes at the moment, it should look again, I suggest, at a scheme we suggested some five years ago-a scheme which would encourage Australian savers to put their money into building society and savings bank accounts paying less than top interest rates. At the moment, Australian taxpayers go looking for the highest possible interest rate that they can get for savings, because they know that they are going to lose a significant portion of interest in taxation. Why do we not do away with all sorts of inequitable assistance and subsidies, such as the negative gearing proposal on the one end of the scale and the first home owners scheme on the other, and instead look to encouraging people to put their money in bank and building society savings accounts paying, say, less than 10 per cent per annum, and to encourage them to do that, offer-do more than offer; legislate, because it is necessary, after all to legislate for this-legislate so that the first $1,000 of any interest they earn on that money is not taxed? People who put their savings in an account paying, for example, 10 per cent, who do not have to pay tax on the first $1,000 of interest they earn, will get an effective rate of just over 14 per cent. It would give the banks a pool of lower interest money on which to draw for equally low interest rate housing loans. It would certainly take away any excuse to cry poor and weep crocodile tears all over various government's heads as banks attempt to blackmail governments into letting them have a free rein in the market-place whilst shoring up the very seriously damaged building industry. We need to remember too that it is not just the building industry that suffers when housing loans figures go down. For every house that is built, carpets, curtains and white goods are bought; everything from large items to shrubs and lawn seeds are bought. There is a tremendous ripple effect in the community from the purchase or building of a home. Senator Archer —It started to ripple. Senator HAINES —Yes, it started to ripple in 1982 and rippled the Fraser Government right out of office. If this Government is not careful precisely the same thing will happen to it, although where the electorate has to go I am not sure. At the moment it seems to believe its only choice is between an inept Labor government that sort of promises to take social issues into account but does not and a deregulation-spouting Liberal Government that can, at the very best, promise rocketing interest rates and an increase in the problem. We need to be aware of the fact that not only is there a significant positive impact in the business community for every house which is built, but also there is an equally serious and significant impact in those same industries when people are forced to sell their homes or are not able to get loans to build them in the first place. It is not surprising to see that there is a significant amalgamation in certain industrial areas, such as the whitegoods area and so on, because demand is simply not as high as it could or should be. Senator Archer's motion is worthy of debate. The issues certainly need to be aired. Solutions need to be canvassed. It is sad that it is five years since I first proposed across the board assistance to people to encourage them to use savings bank accounts and building society accounts so that those institutions could lend at lower rates than they currently do. We are still on a path to a housing crisis which could well cause a general social crisis if it is not ended. Interest rates must come down. Housing loans must increase. Banks will have to accept the fact that they simply cannot use the community to make massive profits without giving something back. This Government has to be aware of following the same track to electoral defeat that the previous Fraser Government went down. The only way that it can avoid that is by accepting the responsibility that it has to the Australian electorate, the community generally and families in particular. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.05) —Senator Haines said that the motion is worthy of debate. It certainly is. It is more than that. It is absolutely essential that we look at the plight of many Australians as they face problems with housing. Despite all the facts and figures that are given, talk of bank profits and everything else that we have heard, the reality is that human beings, families, need to house themselves and want homes. Many of them want to own their own home but are not able to do so. For that reason it was disappointing that the first Australian Labor Party speaker to contribute to the debate dealt very much with matters of historical interest. Many of them are good points worthy of debate and capable of challenge. But what of the future and what of the people who are now in difficulties with housing and who are unable to obtain housing? The previous Labor speaker, near the end of his speech, indicated that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) are concerned about the situation. I was encouraged to hear that. I would have hoped they would be a great deal more than concerned, because I certainly am. In a wide-ranging review of the past, that speaker hit upon one figure and boasted that the present industrial relations figures were the best in 17 years. Of course, he was talking about strike action. Presumably the figures that he was looking at are accurate. What people do not bother to take into account when looking at this matter are the number of bans placed on work at present. It is a fairly new thing. The concept of work bans has happened quite recently. The effect on the economy is just as bad as that of strikes, but somehow people do not really keep track of the number of days lost through work bans. If we added the number of days and the number of jobs affected by work bans, the figure would be very different. I do not need to quote the old saying about figures and what they can do, but in this instance there is no doubt. I have kept a chart in my office from December 1984 until February 1986 and just in the Australian Capital Territory there have been 77 incidents-very few of them were strikes, but they were significant work bans-that have had a great effect on sections of this community. We should hear no more of that sort of nonsense and manipulation of figures in the industrial scene by not comparing things that, in reality, are similar. Undoubtedly the housing industry is an important part of the economy. If it goes down there is a recession; if it goes up there is a resurgence. It certainly went up after this Government came in, but it was artificially propped up with public funds. But other significant things were not controlled. The cost of housing escalated. Interest rates escalated and the sorts of economic decisions which should have been made and which would have kept these at different levels were not made, with the inevitable consequences which are now occurring. Home ownership is fast moving out of the reach of many Australians. It has always been prized as an important aspect of Australian life, certainly by the Liberal Party and more recently by the Labor Party. The Labor Party introduced the first home owners scheme when it came into office and put money into housing and the creation of jobs in the housing industry. But the interesting thing to look at is what has actually happened to the Australian dream over the years. In some respects to compare Singapore and the United Kingdom with Australia is a distortion. However, Singapore went from a home ownership rate of 22 per cent to 62 per cent between 1966 and 1985. In a similar period, the United Kingdom went from 47.8 per cent to 60.2 per cent. Of course, one would welcome that. In 1966 Australia was far ahead of both countries at 71.4 per cent home ownership. It had dropped and was 70.4 per cent, one percentage point down, in 1981 and it has slipped away by 0.4 per cent from then to 1985. The significance is not very great. Considering population growth during that time we are talking about a lot of families. Whatever we might say about the figures, there is a tendency downward and not upwards as one would have hoped. People simply cannot afford to purchase homes as they have in the past. Over the past five years the gap has narrowed between the median weekly income and the average monthly loan repayment and in some States the two have merged. There was a time when 25 per cent of the single bread winner's income was regarded as about the right amount to be paid for shelter, for a home. Now, of course, one really needs two adult working wages to be able to contemplate the sort of mortgage repayments that most people in this country are now faced with, certainly if they have purchased houses in the last three years. One might well ask how they manage and how they survive. I want to divert just a moment to refer to two or three constituent representations I have had in this area because we should not forget that it is real people and real families we are talking about. A letter which has come to me quite recently says: I wish to bring to your notice the anomalous situation which at present prevails with regard to current interest rates . . . She goes on: In April last year I undertook a housing loan with a building society for $70,000 with low-start provisions, ie repayments start 4 per cent below the current level and increasing by half a per cent each year. However in the last eleven months, because of the increases in interest rates, my repayments have increased five times, from $579 per month to $747. In the event of any lowering of interest rates my repayments will NOT be decreased. This sort of increase, for which I was not given any warning whatsoever, in such a short period of time makes a mockery of any sort of budgeting. As a divorced parent with a nine-year-old son with an income $25,264 I am at the point of having to sell at a loss as the loan repayments are becoming prohibitive. That is a quite reasonable salary. It is not the lower end of the salary range, but she is in the position where she is considering selling her house. She has sent me a copy of a Press release relating to the tax concessions which were provided in Western Australia during the time of the election there. She refers to that and she concludes by saying: The present instability in interest rates, besides doing irreparable harm to countless numbers of ordinary hard-working citizens like myself, will certainly grow into a serious political handicap as so many people are affected. She asked what could be done. I raised a similar matter in the Senate on 4 December 1985 when I incorporated in Hansard a letter I had received from a constituent in similar vein relating to a house she had purchased in December 1984 for herself and her two dependent children. She set out the way that her payments had increased-of course, her repayments would have gone up again since then-and she set out in detail her financial situation. She also, on a similar sort of salary, was faced as she saw it with the prospect of having to sell her house. All these people who have to sell their houses will be looking for rental accommodation which also is now not available or they will have to join the ever-increasing queue of people looking for public housing. Yet another letter was from a single woman who lives in Kambah and who purchased a house for $79,000, borrowed $60,000 12 months ago and the repayments on the easy start basis were to have been $505 a month. She is now paying $655 a month for her house. As the other writer said, it makes a mockery of budgeting when that sort of thing can happen. We are talking about real people's lives which are affected. In the Australian Capital Territory, of course, in addition to all this we had the complete fiasco of the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme a couple of years ago-I have dealt with that before and it has been aired several times so I shall not go into the details of that-when people were significantly affected by the collapse of the scheme and were not able to buy houses. Many of those who had been on the list at the time and who believed they would have got loans stayed on the list and 12 months later, when the scheme started off again, found that under the new rules they were no longer eligible. Can honourable senators imagine how the people who were left in that situation felt? It is not only those who own homes or those who wish to own homes who are particularly affected. The rental market is also in chaos. The investors in rental properties by and large are ordinary people who are indulging in forced savings to try to get ahead a bit. They are not the big investors, as the Government seems to think. Interest rates have affected them. They are affected by the withdrawal of the negative gearing provision and they are affected by the threatened capital gains tax. Many of those properties are now on the market which means there will be fewer rental properties available for people to purchase. If the Government does not wish to persist with those tax schemes which it is abolishing, it will need to think of some way of encouraging rental accommodation in the market-place or else there will be more and more people without housing. It is not just the wealthy people who are in the business of renting. As Senator Archer said, there are a lot of people who, for a time, come by properties. A parent may die and leave it to them. There are a number of reasons why people have a house and rent it, but now it will not be worth their while to do so. This has contributed already to the incredible demands being made on public housing. In my own electorate, over 25 per cent of the constituent contact which I receive relates to housing problems, either in terms of mortgage repayments, the need for rental accommodation and not being able to get it at a price they can afford and problems within the welfare housing area. Of course, there are those who do not fit within the means test of the welfare housing area and who cannot afford the rate which is applicable at the time because of the drying up of the market. At present Canberra has a slightly higher percentage of rental accommodation available than some other parts of Australia, and it is bad enough here. There were 143,000 applications for public rental housing at 30 June 1985. Senator Childs, the Australian Labor Party senator who spoke before me, referred to the public rental housing list. He seems not to have heard of the actual growth in that list over the last six months. He did not mention anything that happened more than three years ago. I was going to suggest that the figure had grown in that six months to 156,000 people but Senator Haines just referred to the number as 159,000 people awaiting public housing at present. Whichever figure is correct, it is alarming to know that in six months that number has been added to that list. When one talks about housing one cannot escape looking at unemployment. With the high unemployment-8 per cent-one can be certain that a very large number of those people are on the list for public housing. There is no possibility that they would be able to afford any other type of housing. Those who have been unemployed for a long time have no prospect of being able to purchase or retain a home for which they have to make mortgage repayments. The facts speak for themselves in respect of this Government's answerability in the employment area. In 1970 to 1972 the average rate of unemployment was 1.3 per cent. During the next three years, peaking in 1975 at 3.1 per cent, the average was 1.9 per cent. During the period 1976 to 1982 it rose to 5.8 per cent and in these last three years it has risen to an average of 9.1 per cent. It is presently at a rate of over 8 per cent. The Government cannot escape from its responsibility in the area of those who are unemployed and, as a consequence, the growing number of people who are looking for public housing and who are suffering. Families are not able to obtain the type of accommodation that they are entitled to be able to expect to obtain for themselves and their children. As a consequence of having to move frequently, their children are dragged from one school to another and their education is disrupted. The total consequence of unemployment and not being able to have stable housing is absolutely enormous. It puts a great strain on parents and marriages. It does not give children the start in life they are entitled to have. The Government must consider the economic policies it is pursuing and address their consequences. The end result is that they affect the lives of people in this country. I have referred to the wage that is now needed to provide shelter. It is regrettable that it is necessary for two parents to work to purchase a home. I have no objection to both mothers and fathers working. I encourage it, as long as people are, as a consequence, enjoying and enriching their lives. If they work merely to provide shelter and the pressures are totally economic, it is time the situation is looked at. We hear about the ceiling of 13.5 per cent on housing loans. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) was on television some weeks ago-I think in February-and referred to wage earners being protected by the 13.5 per cent ceiling. I received a number of telephone calls that evening and the next day. Some of my constituents were so incensed as to suggest that the Treasurer had lied. Strictly speaking, the Treasurer was correct in what he said. But to talk about a 13.5 per cent interest rate ceiling on mortgage repayments is an absolute joke to the constituents out there who want home loans to purchase houses. Some money has been available at that rate. But how much can one get now, and where from? Who can get it? The people who most need money at that rate of interest cannot get it. It is a joke to them, so much so that one person suggested to me that the Treasurer had actually lied about it. That is how far from reality the Treasurer's attitude to housing loans is. There is a crisis in housing. The situation will get worse. We are not talking down the economy. We are trying to alert the Government to the serious plight of many Australians who want to live differently from the way they live now. The Government may not feel comfortable having to acknowledge that it has to embark on economic policies which will cause interest rates to fall so that genuine people can buy homes again. The Government has to do something to encourage the provision of rental housing because-let us face it-it is better for rental housing to be provided by sources other than by government. It is much more expensive for the Government to provide it. The Government cannot ignore the fact that at least 156,000 people are on the welfare housing list at present, most of whom should not be on it. They should be able to contemplate life as owners of their own homes, able to purchase and provide for their families in the way they would want. I support the motion before the Senate. Senator JONES(Queensland)(5.23) —First, I think we should consider the clauses in the motion moved by Senator Archer. Looking at the first clause of the motion, it is quite obvious that the motion has been put forward under a false premise. Senator Archer's motion condemns the Hawke Labor Government for: plunging the housing of Australian families into the worst position in 50 years by doctrinaire and unbalanced policies . . . In considering the statement `the worst position in 50 years', it is quite easy to go through the records of this Government and the previous Government and make some comparisons which show that that statement is not the case. Clause (b) states: creating and maintaining a high interest, high tax economy that makes home ownership an unobtainable goal for many young Australian families . . . If we consider the statement made today by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in relation to lifting the ceiling on interest rates clause (b) does not hold water in relation to maintaining the high interest rate level Senator Archer has been speaking about. Clause (c) states: presiding over and causing a rapid decline in the availability of rental housing causing extreme hardship to low income families in particular . . . Clause (d) states: creating uncertainty by not releasing after six months, details concerning taxation policy . . . I will deal with those matters in a few moments. Clause (e) states: destabilising the finance market by artificial and sectoral constraints which will have long-term detrimental effects on home ownership funding. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, clause (e) shows very clearly that the Liberal Party of Australia is talking about deregulation. It argues against clause (b), which talks about high interest rates, because deregulation would cause a situation where not just good or great profits would be made by the banking institutions and lending authorities for housing, but enormous profits would be made. It seems to me that honourable senators opposite agree with some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia during the election campaign; they support the deregulation proposition. To set the record straight, particularly in relation to the first clause of the motion, we ought to consider the access to housing and compare this Government's record with the previous Government's record. In 1983 industry activity was at an all time low. The 105,000 new dwellings commenced in 1982-83 represented a 20-year low. In other words, it was the lowest level for 20 years. Access to home ownership was declining. It was declining for a number of reasons, including high interest rates-which I think one of the previous speakers spoke about-and increased housing prices, which excluded many low income householders from home ownership. It was very clear to everyone that they were the problems at that time. The Hawke Government decided that a range of initiatives should be introduced to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing for the community. Policies set by the Hawke Government were aimed at restoring confidence amongst home buyers, increasing the availability of housing finance, providing more effective assistance to first home buyers, increasing the supply of housing through the public sector and increasing the assistance available to needy private renters. To achieve these goals, a number of specific campaigns and policies were initiated by the Government. One of the actions taken by the Government was to make access to home ownership easier. The Government increased assistance to first home buyers. One of the effects of the introduction of the first home owners scheme on 1 October 1983 was that the saving eligibility criterion was removed from the home deposit assistance scheme to ensure that assistance helped people into home ownership, rather than merely rewarding them for having a good saving record. It was a worthwhile action by the Government to remove that provision and allowed for a good saving record, rather than allowing people an increase in the deposit or amount of money they needed to move into a home. The Government introduced the first home owners scheme on 1 October 1983, recognised as being the most effective housing assistance scheme ever. It is quite clear to everyone listening to this debate that the first home owners scheme provided the finance which allowed a large number of people in the community to gain the deposits they required to find their way into their first homes. There was also an increase in the funding for public housing. The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement was renegotiated to remove all the inequities of previous agreements and to ensure a guaranteed base for the level of funding. If we look at the table of figures for the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement we find that in 1980-81, $437.5m was set aside for Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement funding. In 1985-86, the Government of the day-the Hawke Government-allowed nearly 50 per cent more, or $654.4m. In other words, 50 per cent more Commonwealth money was made available under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. That 50 per cent increase certainly went a long way towards allowing the States to make an increase in the funding available for housing. If one were to look to go through the various States, one would see that during that period there was an increase in housing activity. At this stage it is worth while to run very quickly through some of the statistics for the housing industry. In 1984-85 there were 152,700 commencements, which was a record 11-year high. In other words we can compare that figure with the 1982-83 figure of 105,000 commencements. By quarter, commencements dropped to 24,500 in December 1982, 25,700 in September 1982 and 25,900 in March 1983. That compares with 36,000 a quarter in 1984-85 and 37,900 in the September quarter 1985. Strong activity is still predicted for 1985-86. A figure of 137,000 commencements is predicted by the Indicative Planning Council. If we are to set the record straight, we have to say that that figure certainly varies according to the reference at which one is looking. Other papers predict 120,000, others predict 110,000 and others 105,000. So there is some difference of opinion about whether it will be as high as 137,000 or as low as 105,000. I see that Senator Archer is nodding his head, indicating that what I am stating is correct. We should look at the area of finance. There were 323,400 loans from major lenders in 1984-85, with a total of $12.9 billion for housing. That compares with 229,000 loans in 1981-82 with a total of $6.5 billion, and 234,000 loans in 1982-83, with a total of $7.1 billion. That shows very clearly that the Government did recognise the fact that there was a problem with housing and that it undertook steps to increase the number of loans taken out from the major lenders. The Government set up the first home owners scheme and tried to create confidence within the building industry. If one compares the figures for loans in 1984 with the figures for 1982-83, it is quite obvious that the figure of 323,400 loans from major lenders in 1984-85 was a large increase. Since its inception 186,000 grants have been approved under the first home owners scheme. Over $867m was committed for that scheme and over $596m of that $867m has already been paid out. Under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, in 1985-86 the total amount from the Commonwealth, including nominated funds and grants, was $1.14 billion. This compares with the figures for 1982-83 of $260m in grants, $146m in loans and $145 million in nominated funds, making a total of $551m. That total compares with the 1985-86 total of $1.14 billion. In real terms that represents $654m in Federal funding compared with $363m in 1981-82. One could continue to go through the figures but I will not spend too much time doing that at this stage because I believe a number of speakers before me outlined some of the figures. But it is fairly important to emphasise the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made a renewed pledge on home loans and has said that the 13.5 per cent interest rate ceiling on bank home loans will stay. That is fairly important in the context of this debate. Senator Watson —It is no help if they cannot get the money. Senator JONES —Let us look at the interest rate at the moment and look at what happened with interest rates under the previous Government. The Opposition is claiming at the moment that the interest rate is too high. But it has maintained itself at 13.5 per cent. If we can hold the interest rate at that level-- Senator Watson —There is no money. Senator JONES —Let us look at the answer given by Senator Walsh today in answer to a question. He said that there is a movement in interest rates-they are starting to go down. If there is a downward movement of interest rates, some of the finance will move back across and it will be a better proposition for the lending authorities to start to lend money for housing again. I refer to an answer given to a question relating to rental housing. The question was asked by Mr Beale in the other place on 18 March 1986 and was directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr West. The Minister said: Let us look at what negative gearing, as it affected investment in the private rental accommodation market, meant. That was one of the points raised by Senator Archer when he said that we were presiding over and causing a rapid decline in the availability of rental housing. That is one of the clauses in the motion put forward by Senator Archer. The Minister, in answer to the question about negative gearing and rental accommodation, said: Let us look at what negative gearing, as it affected investment in the private rental accommodation market, meant. It simply meant that a doctor, a Qantas pilot, or whoever, could, say, borrow half a million dollars and invest it in a block of flats, chalk up an interest repayment bill of about $80,000 a year, get about $30,000 or $40,000 in rental income from it, and then write off the other $40,000 or $50,000 at 60c in the dollar against their other income as a Qantas pilot, doctor, specialist, lawyer, barrister or whatever. The fundamental point that those honourable members opposite ought to remember is that it was the ordinary wage earners of Australia who had to pay for all that. If we want to stimulate the private rental market, we will do it by legitimate means. We have announced the quarantining of negative gearing in this area. We have also simultaneously announced, for which legislation will be introduced this session, the introduction of a 4 per cent depreciation allowance for investment in new rental property and for extensions to old rental properties. It needs to be remembered that negative gearing has no effect on properties purchased prior to 17 July 1985. In other words, the rental market now available is not being decreased in the way that the Opposition claims. The negative gearing is not having the sort of effect that the Opposition claims on rental properties purchased prior to 17 July 1975. Let us look at vacancy rates. One of the claims made related to rental accommodation. If we look further at the answer given by the Minister, we should be able to get some figures on vacancy rates. In talking about rental accommodation available he said: The vacancy rate in Sydney in March 1982 was 1.7 per cent. Today Sydney is the city in conjunction with Perth where there is a fall. Sydney is tight-1.1 per cent. Let us have a look at Brisbane. Back in March 1982 Brisbane had a vacancy rate of 0.9 per cent; today, it is 4.2 per cent. The vacancy rate in Adelaide in March 1982 was one per cent; today it is 3.2 per cent. The vacancy rate in Melbourne in March 1982 was one per cent; today it is 2.2 per cent. In other words, the Minister is saying that the only place which is really affected is probably Sydney, which has been affected by the shortage of rental accommodation. I know that there is a shortage of rental accommodation there and I know that we have not caught up that shortage. I am saying, however, that negative gearing has not had the effect that honourable senators opposite claim it has had. That is clearly shown in the figures put forward by the Minister in answer to a question in the House of Representatives. I turn to interest rates, a subject on which we have spoken before. Senator Archer said that we were presiding over high interest rates, but let us look at what happened to interest rates under the former Government. The housing loan interest rate for savings banks is now 13 1/2 per cent. If we go back we see that in the December quarter of 1981-82 the interest rate for savings bank loans was 12 1/2 per cent. In the March quarter of 1981-82 interest rates rose to 13.5 per cent. Interest rates stayed that way for four consecutive quarters. We are now in the second quarter of the period of interest rates being at a peak of 13.5 per cent. In other words, what has happened is that there has been a slight movement in interest rates which has caused some problems for people who have purchased houses. However, we are not presiding over a period of high interest rates, as was claimed by Senator Archer, because the interest rate now is similar to the interest rate when his party was in power. What we have done is create some sort of confidence in the building industry. We have created a situation where, because of the allocation of money from our first home buyer's scheme, and because of the added money being given to the States for housing, a situation has been created in which the 26 trades allied with the building industry can perform with some sort of confidence, and can continue to build and keep up the supply of accommodation and employment in that area. I know-certainly everyone in the Government knows-that there are some problems in the housing industry, that the Government has to look at the housing problem. What I am saying is that in actual fact the policy we have put forward up to this point has been working well. As I said before, the Indicative Planning Council has predicted that there will be 137,000 building commencements next year. There is a discussion through a number of avenues to the effect that that figure may be reduced to 105,000 or even to as low as 100,000. It remains to be seen whether that prediction of 137,000 new commencements is achieved or whether, as is predicted by some, housing commencements will fall to 105,000 or lower. That is something at which the Government is looking, about which the Government is concerned and about which the Minister for Housing and Construction is talking to the Prime Minister. One of the things I should say in closing is that the Labor Government is concerned about housing. It is concerned about those predictions. It is concerned about the difference between the high prediction and the low prediction. The Minister for Housing and Construction, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and members of the Government certainly are discussing what is happening and trying to create a situation in which a peak in housing commencement may be achieved, rather than the lower prediction. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.45) —There would be few members of this Parliament who would have a greater knowledge of the housing industry than Senator Archer. When Senator Archer brings forward a notice of motion in relation to a matter of such gravity as housing, I believe that not only the Senate but also the Government and the whole of Australia should sit up and start taking notice. I notice that each honourable senator who has spoken for the Australian Labor Party in this debate has looked into the historical situation in relation to housing and has compared statistics under a Liberal Party Government for a certain period with those under a Labor Party Government. I believe that Senator Walsh has been particularly successful in doing this in relation to other areas, and I intend to embark on the same sort of program tonight. If we look back to less than two years ago we notice that May building approvals were at their highest levels since 1973. This was shortly after the Labor Party took office. At that time, savings banks and trading banks also were continuing to lend strongly for housing during the month of May. Private sector house building approvals were then at their highest levels since August 1973. Total public and private sector dwelling approvals were at their highest since November 1973. However, what has happened? There has been a dramatic decline. The longer the Australian Labor Party is in power, the more serious becomes the economic malaise of this country. The higher the interest rates become, the harder it seems to be for everyday Australians to secure housing at reasonable costs. As a party we were telling the Labor Party of this late last year. Both my colleague Senator Archer and the Opposition shadow Minister, Mr Beale, were warning the Government because the decline was becoming evident towards the end of last year. For example, the annual growth rate of deposits in January fell to 14.9 per cent, compared with 18.9 per cent in December 1985 and 22 per cent in July 1985. Let us look at particular groups that have been disadvantaged in society by the Government's high interest rate policy and its tight monetary policy. That is what is causing the problems. The government's over-concentration on monetary policies is causing Mr and Mrs Australia to go into bankruptcy to sell their homes. Let us look at one particularly disadvantaged group which has not been referred to to date. I refer to university students. Some 46 per cent of full time Melbourne University undergraduates are reported as having significant difficulties because of high rents. A similar percentage of students were spending more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. However, there is a further problem associated not only with the government's tight monetary policy but also with the implications of negative gearing. The standard of accommodation is becoming poorer and poorer as rents become higher and higher for the disadvantaged. Therefore, while the Australian Labor Party has its ideological blinkers on in trying to attack the capitalist sector-that sector which is providing housing-it is actually disadvantaging its base support in Australian society. Because of the Government's ideological blindness in attacking one sector, it is actually disadvantaging the poor. I believe that we now have in Australia a Labor Party which is basically ideological and which has deserted its traditional base support. I believe that this is a tragedy for any party. I believe it will not be long before even the previous supporters of the Labor Party will be looking to a new party to try to look after this particular segment. Each of the honourable senators opposite who spoke previously spent some time in attacking the Liberal's Party deregulation policies. However, under the camouflage of this sort of attack, the Labor Party, in regard to the deregulation issue, in effect is stealing a march on the Liberal Party. Its record shows that. So while the Labor Party continues to attack us openly on so-called deregulation, that party itself is stealing a march on the Liberal Party, unbeknown to the great majority of its supporters. I believe the Left should take particular note of that situation. I mentioned earlier the wonderful situation we had for housing and the growth in savings banks deposits-the traditional base from which housing loans came. I mentioned that that growth started to dissipate late last year. If we look at the situation today, the severity of the slump facing the industry is brought to our notice very vividly by the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures which show a 14.3 per cent fall in January in the home lending market and other financial institutions. So lending for new housing is now at its lowest level since the Bureau started collecting the figures in 1975. Eighteen months ago the level was the highest since 1975 and it is now the lowest since 1975 when the Bureau started collecting figures. Senator Michael Baume —That will mean that project builders will all go broke. Senator WATSON —As my colleague Senator Michael Baume said, not only are the borrowers going broke and having to sell their properties but also a lot of evidence is coming forward now about the builders specialising in low cost housing who are starting to go broke because they cannot pay these high interest rates. The situation is so critical that even the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr West, has predicted that home building could decrease in the next few months because of the decrease in savings banks deposit growth due to the lower lending for new homes. This is serious. While it is true that the Government's 13.5 per cent ceiling on home loan interest rates is affecting the housing industry, I remind honourable senators that the housing industry is at the cutting edge of monetary policy and the importance of this industry is not being acknowledged by the Government. In November the traditional sources of housing finance were beginning to dry up. They had been drained by a continued pressure on interest rates. I believe that the Government has to take steps to try to arrest this trend. It is true that the impact of the firm monetary policy is reflected by the sharp decline in trading bank deposits and advances for January so the savings banks and trading banks are starting to dry up as depositors take funds out of these traditional areas and put them where they can earn higher rates of interest. I believe that we have come to a crisis point. The Australian Bankers Association has decided to slash bank lending to home buyers by 40 per cent in the first half of 1986, the period we are in now and which has three and a half months to go. The Bankers Association has decided to slash lending to home buyers by 40 per cent because of the effects of the Government's tight monetary policy and high interest rate policy. Why does it have a high interest rate policy? Part of this high interest rate policy is due to the necessity to protect the Australian dollar, because the Australian Labor Party knows that if the dollar falls very much more it will lose office. It is not prepared to lose office, but it is prepared to make Mr and Mrs Australia suffer in terms of high interest rates and in terms of not making houses available to the people who can least afford them. I believe that the Government has abrogated its traditional base of support and I believe that it is a tragedy for all Australians. I conclude my speech to enable my colleague to continue this debate. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.55) —I thank my colleague Senator Watson for leaving me a few moments in which to make a few points. Senator Watson demonstrated ably how the latest statistics show an immense fall in housing activity, particularly housing activity financed by the major lending institutions. Those figures show an approximate 25 per cent fall in dwelling units financed in January-the latest month for which figures are available-compared with January of the previous year. This means that 6,720 fewer people gained loans to purchase homes. In money terms, $271m less was spent on the purchase of dwellings in January this year than in the previous year. We should think about how that relates to jobs for people building new dwellings. The impact of that kind of housing shock on employment is overwhelming. Those figures have been reinforced by statistics on national income and expenditure released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The national income figures for the December quarter, before the latest figures to which Senator Watson referred, showed that the gross fixed capital expenditure on dwellings fell, meaning that over the past 12 months of 1985 there was a 0.3 per cent fall in dwelling commencements in seasonally adjusted terms and in real terms. That is a real disaster and represents the failure of the Government's policy. I want to develop a little homily to the Government. One would have thought that by now the Government would have realised that it can control either the supply of money or the price of money but it cannot control both. We have heard lectures from the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who obviously has no support within his Party. He has outlined this truth, but the rest of his Party simply will not accept it. As a result he was rolled-I think that is the polite expression-when he tried to teach the facts of economic life to his Party this week. The consequence of that for home seekers is absolutely disastrous. It will mean an inevitability of the continuation of falling housing purchases and falling new buildings financed by the major lenders. The statistics are overwhelming. They show, for example, that loans to buy new dwellings fell over the 12 months to January by 30 per cent and loans for existing dwellings fell by 25 per cent, pushing the total number of housing loans down to the lowest level for three years. I remind the Senate that that was the level which existed in the middle of a recession and a major drought, at a time when one could hardly say that Australia was prospering. We have heard those opposite continually trying to blame us for that situation. Now, at a time when we are supposed to be recovering and Australia is supposed to be expanding under its dynamic management, those opposite have pushed this figure back down to the level that it was in the middle of an enormous recession produced by the worst drought we have had since World War II and a world-wide recession. This is supposed to be a successful government policy relating to housing. What a pathetic effort. The real crunch has come as a result of the Government's refusal to accept economic reality about interest rates. There has been a severe 35 per cent fall in the past 12 months in loans at the regulated end of the market-savings banks and building societies-but lending at the non-regulated, dearer end of the market has gone up by 12 per cent in the past year. One cannot borrow cheap money but one can borrow dear money, and that is a direct consequence of this Government's policies. I hope that all home seekers in Australia recognise that the drought of cheap money from the building societies, and particularly from the savings banks, is a direct consequence of governmental policy. Holding down housing interest rates only reduces the amount of money available at controlled levels, pushes people into higher cost loans and leaves home seekers worse off. There is no doubt that interest rates on cocktail loans, if I can call them that-loans where people can get only a little bit of their money at low interest rates and have to depend on the rest from the general market, financed at enormously high interest rates-will work out far higher than if the savings bank loan rates were deregulated. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The time allotted under sessional orders for the consideration of General Business having expired, the Senate will proceed to the further consideration of Government Business. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —I inform the Senate that the President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) requesting a variation in the membership of Estimates Committees A, D, E and F. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the following senators be discharged from further attendance on Estimates committees- Estimates Committee A-Senator Richardson Estimates Committee D-Senators Colston and Coates Estimates Committee E-Senator Zakharov Estimates Committee F-Senator Georges (2) That the following senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36AB, be appointed members of Estimates committees- Estimates Committee A-Senator Coates Estimates Committee D-Senators Reynolds and Cooney Estimates Committee E-Senator McIntosh Estimates Committee F-Senator Zakharov 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)(6.02) —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 purpose of this Bill is to enable coverage of all ships in the territorial sea and coastal waters of Australia by Federal marine pollution legislation. It represents a further step in the legislative process leading to the ratification by Australia of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as amended by the Protocol of 1978. The Convention and Protocol, often referred to as MARPOL 73/78, will be implemented chiefly by the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. The Bill for that Act passed through the Parliament during the Autumn sittings in 1983 with bipartisan support. It was essentially the same as one introduced by the former Government, which lapsed as a result of the dissolution of Parliament. The purpose of the MARPOL Convention is to control operational discharges of oil and other harmful substances from ships and to minimise the possibility of accidental discharges of such substances. In practical terms the aim of early Australian ratification is to prohibit discharges of oil and noxious chemicals within the Great Barrier Reef Region and other areas protected by the Convention. It will also allow Australia to enforce more stringent construction and operating standards on visiting ships, for example, segregated ballast tank and crude oil washing requirements. The Government is committed to giving effect to international conventions in the transport field and related areas involving the protection of the environment. Our policy calls for the promotion of ``. . . the conclusion, ratification and application of transport conventions under the auspices of the United Nations and its specialised agencies''. Australia has an extensive coastline and spread of territorial waters. It is fundamentally important that we be able to demonstrate to ourselves and the international community that we take our responsibility for this national and global resource seriously, and that we are committed to its protection. This is especially the case in relation to the Great Barrier Reef for which special provision is made in the MARPOL Convention itself. The MARPOL Convention represents only one aspect, though an extremely important one, of the Government's commitment to give effect to international conventions promoted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). As honourable senators will be aware, the IMO is a specialised agency of the United Nations, concerned with promoting the safety of shipping and the protection of the marine environment. Its main objective is to provide a forum for co-operation among its members and to develop appropriate legislation and practices. Australia is a foundation member of the Organization and has been active in developing many Conventions. It has recently been elected to the Council of the IMO. The Hawke Government's active participation in the Organization's work is demonstrated by Australia becoming party to the following Conventions. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 and its 1978 Protocol; the 1983 Amendment to the International Convention on Load Lines 1966; the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 and the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1973; the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 and its 1976 Protocol; the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978; the International Convention of Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979; and the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972. It is important that Australia remains in the forefront of international initiatives relating to the protection of the marine environment. This object can be achieved by supporting the Bill. In my second reading speech of 4 May 1983 on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill, I noted the jurisdictional arrangements recommended by the then Marine and Ports Council of Australia. These arrangements required the enactment of complementary Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory legislation before Australia could ratify MARPOL. Let me now turn to the Bill itself. As I have previously stated its sole object is to enable the early Australian implementation of the MARPOL Convention by extending the Federal marine pollution legislation to cover all ships in the territorial sea and the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea. This section has become necessary because of the significant and continuing delay which has occurred in the enactment of the complementary State and Territory legislation which is at present needed to enable the implementation of this Convention. I can assure the Senate that the present Bill does not infringe the rights of any State or Territory because it contains a saving provision which will ensure that the Commonwealth legislation will not apply when appropriate State or Territory legislation is in force to cover areas within the relevant jurisdiction. I must make it clear that State and Territory Ministers responsible for Transport and Marine matters have been kept informed of these developments through their membership of the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC). When ATAC met at Canberra on 10 April 1985, the Federal Minister for Transport informed Ministers that, if complementary legislation was not in place by the end of 1985, the Commonwealth would legislate to implement the Convention. This statement followed a series of requests that the Minister had made at previous meetings and in correspondence with Ministers that their legislation be enacted as quickly as possible. The matter also raised at the meetings ATAC held at Perth on 28 June 1985 and at Hobart on 6 December 1985. On those occasions my colleague again emphasised that the Federal Government was anxious to ratify the MARPOL Convention at the earliest opportunity. No objection was raised by any member of the Council at any meeting to the proposed action by the Federal Government. However, good intentions notwithstanding, by the end of 1985, no Bill relating to the implementation of the MARPOL Convention had been placed before the legislature of any State or Territory. The delay in becoming party to this Convention has placed Australia in an embarrassing situation internationally. The majority of foreign flag shipping using Australian waters is currently subject to more stringent operational controls, particularly in the Great Barrier Reef Region, than are Australian vessels. The subject matter of MARPOL, dealing as it does with measures for preventing marine pollution, is often very complex. The need to keep up with constantly changing technical standards leads to quite frequent amendments proposed by the International Maritime Organization. In order to ensure that the Australian legislation gives full effect to the Convention, it is necessary to ensure that the enabling Act remains consistent with the Convention as it is in force internationally. It thus becomes essential to amend the Federal Act from time to time. The Bill before the Senate would enable amendments made by the International Maritime Organization, agreed to by ATAC and endorsed by the Federal Government, to take effect throughout Australia until such time as the individual State and Territory Governments amend their own legislation. For this reason alone, I am confident that the principles embodied in this Bill will be readily accepted by all concerned in the development and enforcement of marine pollution legislation. Further details of the provisions of this Bill are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum which has been circulated to honourable Senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I table the explanatory notes of certain departments relating to Additional Estimates of expenditure for 1985-86. Copies of explanatory notes received today are being distributed to members of Senate Estimates committees. Other honourable senators may obtain copies from the Senate Table Office, if required. Consideration resumed. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering clause 8 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. The question is that Article 5 stand as printed. Article 5 (Rights of Minority Groups) Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.05) —Article 5, as I read it, is almost identically worded to Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I want to raise several questions. I want to ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) the meaning of the phrase `in community with other members of their own group'. Let me explain that. Article 5, as printed in the Bill of Rights, states: Persons who belong to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority have the right, in community with other members of their own group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language. I raise that query with the Minister because that, in itself, is a limiting thing, as I read it, in terms of a group. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that Article 18 of the International Covenant is very specific. It states that there should be freedom of religion et cetera, either individually or in community. If the Minister looks at each of the first three paragraphs in Article 18 he will see that they relate to the individual. I wonder at the difference. I wonder at what appears to be a conflict in that regard and I seek the Minister's explanation. But I go further and I query what appears to me to be a conflict. Article 5 is unqualified. It states: Persons who belong to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority have the right . . . to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language. When I turn to Article 13 I see that paragraph (b) of that Article states: no marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses. I just mention this as an illustration. The Minister will be very well aware that, if one is allowed to practice one's culture in a community, Aboriginal tribal leaders, for example, will have the right-which they now possess-to indicate who shall be their spouse and that becomes compulsory. I do not need to remind the Minister that, under Islamic law, parents can instruct their daughters as to whom they shall marry. This happens under certain Greek social values. There is a whole range of matters and I simply take this one as an example. It seems to me that one needs to know how we should read this Article in the first place. Do we read it as an unqualified situation or must we move to qualify it when we get to other articles? Again I am puzzled as to what is meant by the phrase `in community with other members of their own group'. I ask the Minister whether the phrase `in community' has a legal meaning? Does it mean communing with other groups or does it mean a physical grouping as the word `communing' has one meaning? Does it mean that one cannot practice if one is away from a group? Incidentally, the words `belonging to a minority' interest me. It is possible for a person to be a member of a particular culture or race and yet not belong in the full sense. I do not want to nit-pick, I want to get to an understanding-- Senator Gareth Evans —You could have fooled me. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —If the Minister does not mind, that would not be difficult. I am trying very hard to take a sensible approach. There are two kinds of rules that we can follow and I understand the Minister's very fully. How does the Minister want to play it? If in this journey the Minister can find that I have been in any way trying not to put forward sensible arguments, he is nothing loth to get on his feet and say so. But if he wants to play little games, which is his natural characteristic, let him play and let him take the consequences. How are we to do it? May we not have this confrontation now and not in future? Let us have our temper tantrums now and not in future because every now and again they have to happen. Senator Gareth Evans —Let us be gentle with each other, as the actress said to the bishop. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let us be gentle with each other? The devil can cite scripture for his purpose. After all, who was the ungentle? Senator Gareth Evans —Come on. I have an answer for you. I was waiting to get on with it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —No, you were not. You were waiting to try to be clever. Indeed, that is an appalling kind of act from someone whose intelligence should give him better judgment. Let me put that fairly and squarely. Having done that and since we must do this every now and again cyclically as a form of sedation-- Senator Gareth Evans —Stop working us all up into a lather and get on to the substantive point, and I shall be delighted to answer you. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It is a very soporific lather, if I may mix my metaphors. I come to it and I simply ask those questions I have put forward. How does one interpret the phrase, how does one relate it to another article? Since the explanatory notes direct us to Article 27, I ask why did not the explanatory notes direct us to Article 18? I am told, and I may be wrong, that the explanatory notes have some kind of status in a court appeal. Presumably, one can use them in an argument that that was the intention of what the Bill means. If that is so, how can it have a plain meaning in Article 27 and another plain but different meaning in Article 18? I invite the Minister to comment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.12) — The issue adverted to by Senator Sir John Carrick is one of which the drafters of this legislation and indeed the Government were very conscious. The right set out in Article 5 is an unusual one as compared with the others in the Bill of Rights because it is essentially collective in character. It is not an individual right. It is a collective right that is being articulated. That is the best shorthand way of describing the meaning of that expression `in community with other members of their own group'. The rights here acknowledged and identified are rights which, by their very character, are enjoyed by groups rather than by individuals. There is a contrast between group and individual right and Article 18 is one clear example of such a contrast being evident. I accept the reference to Article 18 which Senator Sir John Carrick offered as a clear contrast with the approach taken in Article 18 of the Covenant, that is, with the approach taken in Article-- Senator Harradine —You nearly had me on my feet-ABR Article 18. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that any reference to Article 18 is like ringing the bell for Pavlov's dog. Just relax; we will get to that in due course. I acknowledge that there is that distinction and that Article 5 is about collective rights and just about every other article in the Bill of Rights is about individual rights. That does create certainly the possibility of conflicts arising in the real world application of these provisions. Senator Sir John Carrick gave a good example when he referred to the marriage right in Article 13 (b) of the Bill which talks in terms of `free and full consent of the intending spouses', which may indeed be at odds with some of the cultural norms prevailing in minority communities in this country as elsewhere. How does one resolve that kind of conflict should it arise in a marriage context or religious exercise context or any one of a number of others one could readily dream up? The way in which the drafters have approached the resolution of these matters is by using the balancing device set out in sub-clause 4 (5) of the Bill itself, which is set out on page 7. It says: Where a law- (a) promotes, enhances or secures a right or freedom set out in the Bill of Rights, but infringes, or authorises the infringement of, another right or freedom set out in the Bill of Rights; or (b) promotes, enhances or secures . . . a right or freedom set out in the Bill . . . but, in relation to another person, infringes, or authorises the infringement of, a right or freedom set out in the Bill of Rights. In other words, to paraphrase all that, where there is some conflict of rights that emerges from contrasting positions of the Bill: it is the intention of the Parliament that the law shall not be determined to be in conflict with the Bill of Rights unless such a determination would further the objects of this Act, and in particular the paramount objectives referred to in paragraph 3 (d), to a greater extent than a determination that the law is not in conflict with the Bill of Rights. What all that means is that when there is a conflict, one goes back to the objectives clause 3 (d) of the Bill, and looks at the values or class of rights which are given paramount importance by the operation of 3 (d). It will be seen in reading 3 (d) that the list is as follows: to promote, enhance and secure as paramount objectives, the freedom and dignity of the human person, equality of opportunity for all persons and full and free participation by all Australians in public affairs and public debate. What is being done there, and it is being done by reference to values which are apparent in the Covenant itself-that is the language that appears in the preamble to the Covenant-is to identify the three most basic rights of all. I refer to those going to freedom and dignity of the human person, that is to say, the human person as an individual, then after that equality rights, and then after that the democratic rights of full and free participation. Senator Harradine —That is the heirarchy. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is the hierarchy and there are other rights as well which are not here identified. There are not here identified in this list the collective rights in Article 5 that we are talking about. What that all means is that where one has a conflict between the collective right in Article 5 and some claim of individual right as in the marriage case, to take the most classic example, the full and free consent clause, the claim of individual right is squarely identified as paramount. The collective claim of right would have to be subsumed, subordinated, to the individual claim of right. That might be a slightly circuitous journey, to use Senator Sir John Carrick's familiar metaphor, but it is nonetheless a journey with a clear end and there are clear signposts, I suggest, along the way. The problem he has identified, and it is a real one, in the drafting of this part of the Bill, has been squarely addressed and has, I believe, been resolved. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.18) —The point I wish to raise is general but is the first one that has come to my attention. In the Covenant itself there are a number of prohibitions as well as a number of rights which are designated. To refer to this clause, if one looks for example, at Article 20 in the Covenant, one finds that there is a prohibition on the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred. Are these types of prohibition, particularly on the generation of religious and racial hatred which are fairly obviously a counter to the operations of a right-the right being here a collective thing which seems to me is more clearly designated as an individual right one holds in common with others of the group-in terms of the wording the Government has chosen to use from Article 27 meant to pick up that prohibition which exists in clause 20 of the Covenant? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.19) —I do not think that we had any intention of picking that up through Article 27. The way in which this question of prohibitions is dealt with is explained in paragraph 39 of the explanatory memorandum. It is there stated that in the context of Article 20 of the Covenant, which deals with propaganda for war and incitement to racial and religious hatred, that is being deliberately excluded from our draft of a Bill of Rights for the reason that it is something that is far more appropriately addressed by particular legislation-legislation which, in terms, would arguably be consistent with the overarching statements of right. What one is, in effect, talking about is a curious kind of limitation on a right, rather than a statement of the right itself. The problem of legislation prohibiting incitement to war and incitement to race hatred is peculiarly difficult because, as we have acknowledged many times across the chamber, it squarely raises the issue of the dimensions of freedom of speech and the propriety and sense of imposing that kind of limitation on freedom of speech. I suspect that it is an issue of principle that was rather fudged by the drafters of the Covenant. It may have been one of those areas-there are not too many; there may be one or two elsewhere in the Covenant-where, in all the sorts of compromises that were arrived at to get a clear articulation in the Covenant of rights, this was one of the trade-offs that occurred to get some specific reference to the legitimacy of these kinds of provisions. The other conceptual reason, I suppose, and perhaps the more immediately obvious one, is that what we are talking about here is some kind of provisions regulating the conduct of individuals rather than the conduct of governments itself. Senator Macklin —I am not sure. We are talking about governments and government instrumentalities. We presume that they will not engage in that, but if one makes a presumption that we shall never deny a right, we would not even be having a Bill, would we? Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand the point that Senator Macklin is making. Many of these things can be perpetrated by governments. But the instruction in Article 20 is that any advocacy of religious hatred, or whatever, shall be prohibited by law-the implication being that a government's responsibility here is not just one of not doing something itself but, rather, of acting in a positive way to restrain individuals and organisations from so acting; and, as such, that sits again outside the basic framework of the Bill of Rights, which is directed to setting restraints on government rather than urging a government to do something that itself constitutes a restraint. For all those reasons, and not least also because of the delicacy of the policy issue involved here, it was thought better to address this issue in separate legislation. To the extent that we had an obligation under the Covenant to so act, it was an obligation which could be more appropriately met in a separate piece of legislation, such as the Racial Discrimination Act, with a possible amendment to that, if, on balance, we decided to go down that particular track. Whether we should go down the track is an issue that continues to be under review by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). I wrestled with it for a couple of years, I must confess, and I ended up leaving it in the too hard basket, and I suspect that my successor is doing the same, because there are many arguments on both sides of the fence, including the argument that legislation of this kind may be counterproductive in terms of generating semi-martyrdom for those whom one is seeking to restrain. They are the variety of policy issues and conceptual reasons why that does not appear. Article 5 is not intended to cover that track. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.24) —I thank the Minister for that explanation. It is just that when I was looking at the extent of this right for people to profess and practise their own religion, it seemed to me that in using their own language or enjoying their own culture people are up against matters such as racial defamation. It seems to run counter to the profession that a person will actually have a right to enjoy his own culture when in fact the Government is leaving people alone to engage in the circumscribing of that right by racial defamation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.25) — With the utmost respect, I think it is a large step to move from the language of Article 5, which talks about the right of people in community with others to enjoy their own culture and to profess and practise their own religion or use their own language, and to say that this amounts to some kind of tacit encouragement for such groups to engage-I quote from Article 20-in: . . . advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. I understand the thought processes that seem to have worked their way around Senator Macklin's mind, but I suggest that he is drawing a long bow on that one. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.26) —Following upon the Minister's explanation to me, I want to follow on from what I said previously. We go one step further if we need to publish the 32 Articles of this Bill. Not only have we got to draw attention to Article 3 (2) and to publish as an addendum the International Covenant, but now, according to the Minister, we must say that in reading the clauses people, and particularly Aborigines who want to know something about marriage, must go back to the Bill itself, not the articles, look at clause 4 (5) and then go back to Article 3. If they do all those things, they may understand what Article 5 and the Article on marriage may mean. With the best good will in the world, this document becomes an impossibility. It is no good the Minister telling us that one can derive all these nuances and refinements by this treasure hunt that we go on. A Bill of Rights is surely supposed to have a plain meaning. It is supposed to be something which stands up on its own values, and which can be read in plain words and understood. Now here we are just dealing with one of a multitude of problems. Our multicultural society and, indeed, our Aboriginal society have enough difficulties in any case in understanding our laws and the English language, and suddenly we are confronting them with the fact that plain meanings for them mean nothing at all. As I say, on this understanding now, they will have to move away from the articles themselves and not only go back to the Covenant, and understand when they read the Covenant that there is an apparent conflict between Article 27 and Article 18, but then be advised that they must go back and look at the clauses of the Bill itself. All of this, as the Minister said the other day, is for presentational purposes. With great respect, we cannot have an effective presentation if the plain meaning is not available, if the presentation itself is not the true meaning. I ask again: How does the Minister obviate that? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.28) — Senator Sir John Carrick's argument would have more force if the Bill of Rights were full of prohibitions, if it contained a set of regulations of behaviour that people needed to know about in order to know what they could do and could not do. But that is not what the Bill of Rights is about. The Bill of Rights is a statement of rights that need to be respected by governments, and, as such, it is an instruction to governments. The other role that it plays is to create opportunities for individuals who fear that their rights may have been infringed. As such, it is sufficient that the broad general thrust of what the document is about be readily understandable. If an individual wants to take advantage of it and go down the various legal paths that are open by way of enforcement, obviously then it is a matter of coming to grips with these niceties and journeys of the kind that we have been through. But it is a matter of distinguishing once again between the dual objectives of this legislation, as with most other pieces of legislation, of, on the one hand, conveying on its face the broad thrust of what it is about in intelligible language-and I suggest that this Bill does it a lot better than most others ever enacted that affect people's rights-and, on the other hand, giving detailed and precise instructions to those who have to apply and make effective the law. I suggest that the provisions I have mentioned do that very well. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition requesting changes in the membership of Estimates Committees. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the following senators be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committees- Estimates Committee B-Senator Messner Estimates Committee D-Senator Peter Baume (2) That the following senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36ab, be appointed members of Estimates Committees- Estimates Committee B-Senator Peter Baume Estimates Committee D-Senator Newman The PRESIDENT —Order! The question is: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(6.31) —I raise this evening a matter about which I believe this Government should be completely ashamed, and as a consequence of this matter I believe that the Australian public should be absolutely disgusted with the performance of the Government in this particular area. It is my view that the Labor Government has now elevated the suppression of information to its number one priority. I say that because of a refusal by a Minister, the details of which I will elaborate shortly, to provide me with certain information. I believe Labor is committing two sins: Firstly, it is evading parliamentary scrutiny and it is doing this by committing a second sin, namely, refusing information to senators and members and thereby effectively restricting the capacity of senators and members to do their job for the taxpayer. The situation is simply this: I asked for a simple list of community employment program projects in my State of South Australia. In the past I have been given such a list and I was seeking to continue the assessment of that program that I commenced early last year. I have not used this information irresponsibly. I have not picked out the worst of the schemes and sought headlines from them. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the first page of a study I did on the CEP scheme, which is virtually a foreword, which I believe amply demonstrates my view with respect to how such information should be used. Leave granted. The document read as follows- As a consequence of being the youngest Senator I felt compelled in my maiden speech to address the disillusionment of Australia's young people. The prospect of unemployment contributes in no small way to this disillusionment. As liberals we believe that a person's opportunities should be limited only by his or her competence, ambitions and willingness to work. Harsh economic reality has caused many of today's youth to perceive these ideals as unrealistic. Unemployment is one, if not the most important problem faced in Australia today. Schemes to provide jobs and experience to the unemployed are a feature of our political horizon. It is essential that they provide opportunities to individuals that are more than band-aid, short term relief. I have undertaken this detailed analysis of the CEP scheme in South Australia so that as a Federal Parliamentarian I will be able to make an informed contribution to discussions about Federally funded initiatives and responsibilities in this area. All too often it is tempting for politicians and commentators alike to take the path that leads to the quick headline and the superficial judgment rather than the informed evaluation of the objects and operation of a government programme. This analysis is merely an initial step, designed to provide a preliminary overview of the programme in South Australia. It is my hope that it will contribute to a wider, informed appreciation of the operation of the CEP and the needs of the unemployed. Senator VANSTONE —If people take the time to read that statement they will note that, as a consequence of being the youngest senator, I felt compelled in my maiden speech to address the disillusionment of Australia's young people. The prospect of unemployment contributes in no small way to that disillusionment. Unemployment is one of the most important problems, if not the most important problem, faced in Australia today. People reading the incorporated statement will see also that I was seeking to make an informed contribution to discussions about federally funded initiatives and responsibilities in this area. I said in that statement: All too often it is tempting for politicians and commentators alike to take the path that leads to the quick headline and the superficial judgment rather than the informed evaluation of the objects and operation of a government program. In that light I sought updated information of a type that I had been given in the past. I was refused that information, so I asked why I was refused that information. The answer I was given by the Minister's office was that, because there has been a flood of requests for this information, it was not going to be given. To not provide the information seems an extraordinary response to a flood of requests. I understand that in a number of places resources are limited, but I would have thought that a Minister who had a Bill before parliament relating to a program in his portfolio would have taken care to see that that relevant information was available to interested senators and members so that they could do a proper job in scrutinising the legislation, and do a proper job in reporting to their electorates and in the comments they may choose to make in parliament. I received a letter from the Job Creation and Youth Programs Division of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, which gave me the same answer as I got from the Minister's Office. That letter states: The Department has received a number of requests similar to your own from Senators and Members. These requests are placing considerable demands on available staff and ADP resources. Accordingly, I have been asked to convey to you that requests for CEP information not being sought through either formal parliamentary questions- and we all know how long they take to get answered- or under the provisions of the Freedom of Information legislation be directed through the Minister's Office . . . As I have already explained, I have been given a `no' from the Minister's Office. I work back through those and say that it is an absolute disgrace if members of parliament have to seek information to contribute to a debate through freedom of information legislation. I cannot begin to describe the situation we have to come to if that is the case. As for that information being sought through formal parliamentary questions, as I have said, if the information is going to be available in a reasonable time anyway through a formal parliamentary question why can it not be given instantly? There seems to be no logic in any of those reasons. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter I have referred to. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE Senator A. E. Vanstone Senator for South Australia Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600. Dear Senator Vanstone I refer to your recent request for information related to projects approved under the Community Employment Program. The Department has received a number of requests similar to your own from Senators and Members. These requests are placing considerable demands on available staff and ADP resources. Accordingly, I have been asked to convey to you that requests for CEP information not being sought through either formal Parliamentary questions or under the provisions of the Freedom of Information legislation be directed through the Minister's office in the first instance. I have already conveyed your recent requests for CEP information to the Minister's Office for determination. You may be assured that every effort will be made to provide relevant information to you as soon as a decision on your request is conveyed to the Department. Yours sincerely NICK SCHOUTEN Acting First Assistant Secretary Job Creation and Youth Programs Division 18 March 1986 Senator VANSTONE —I have already mentioned that the Community Employment Bill is before the Parliament. It is with respect to that Bill that I would have thought members would be seeking information. There is another side to it. I would have thought that the Department would want the information I have sought, that it would need the simple list I had sought of CEP projects in my State. When I asked whether the Department has this information I was told that to produce a simple list of CEP projects in my State needed a special program. I was told I could be given, and I was given, a summary by electorates in my State. I stress that it is a summary. What nebulous, non-specific generalities are contained in that is a matter for another day, but I put it to the Senate that these general totals are totals within which all manner of mismanagement can be hidden. Incredible levels of ineptitude can be hidden in these generalities. It simply is not good enough to be debating a matter in Parliament and not have the specifics. I would have thought the same would have applied to the Department which has the control and management of this program. There is an additional point. When I was told that a special program would have to be developed in order to produce this simple list that I was asking for, I pointed out that I had had this simple list before, so perhaps the program had already been developed. What did I find, to my surprise? I found that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has had consultants in who had reconfigured the data base. As a consequence of the data base being reconfigured there definitely will need to be a new program before someone can have this particular information. That does not sit all that happily with the knowledge that if I am prepared to pay for this under the freedom of information provision, I can have it. None of the answers I have been given sits happily with the other. I submit to the Senate that perhaps the consultants have done a lousy job. Perhaps the Minister has not prepared the appropriate information to allow parliamentary debate and scrutiny to be properly carried out. If he has not done that, obviously he has not provided himself with sufficient information to carry out his duties. Perhaps the Minister is deliberately not making the details available. Perhaps he is deliberately trying to prevent proper parliamentary scrutiny. I suggest that is what is happening. Would one not think that a simple list of CEP projects, State by State, was not too much to ask for? I do not think it is too much to ask for. It is an absolute disgrace the way this Government carries on about its belief in freedom of information yet seeks, by the restriction of information to senators and members, to evade parliamentary scrutiny. I make a further point: Not only do I think that the Government's restrictions are a shameful attempt to protect its mismanagement of the CEP from parliamentary scrutiny, but also, at a time when this Government is attempting to push through a Bill of Rights, it is a gross act of cynical hypocrisy to deny members and senators the right to the basic information they need to do their job for the taxpayer. It is my view that, to Labor, open government means an open go for self-promotion and a closed door to parliamentary scrutiny. I have with me a portion of a speech that I understand Senator Gareth Evans, who is with us tonight, made in October 1984. I would like to read to the Senate a portion of that speech. I quote: More importantly, our commitment to more open Government has percolated through the public service, which is now at all levels more willing than before to share information with the community and with the media. Why are members and senators not included in that list? Do Senator Evans and the Government really believe in freedom of information if, when there is legislation before this House-which, incidentally the coalition supports and which, presumably, the Government does not feel under threat about-members and senators wanting to participate in the debate on the legislation are told by the Minister's office that they cannot have a simple list of CEP projects in their States? It is an absolute disgrace. Senator Evans should be ashamed of his fellow Minister. He should be ashamed of his Government. All Australians, I am quite sure, are as ashamed as he should be. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(6.42) —The matter I raise tonight concerns the question of the seabed boundary between Australia and East Timor. Negotiations between Australia and Indonesia on this boundary began in 1979-an act which was tantamount to Australia recognising de jure, Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. Honourable senators will be aware that several sets of negotiations since then have failed to establish an agreement. Despite recent proposals for a joint development zone to exploit possible oil resources, the actual boundary line remains a key issue and will be important in defining the working arrangements for a joint zone. The new Law of the Sea Convention would appear to favour Indonesia's claim to a line roughly mid-way between Australia and East Timor. If so, it may well be that Australia will, after concluding negotiations, get no more than it already has. However, I do not wish to speculate on possible outcomes of the negotiations. I wish instead to focus on the legitimacy of the negotiations in the first place. The question I raise is whether the status of East Timor at the United Nations has any bearing on the seabed negotiations being conducted by Australia and Indonesia. As honourable senators are aware, East Timor remains on the agenda of the United Nations. Only a minority of countries have openly granted de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation. The gist of two Security Council resolutions and numerous General Assembly resolutions since 1975 is that Indonesia engaged in acts of aggression, the unlawful use of force against East Timor and assorted other breaches of the UN Charter. Now, we all know that Indonesia has chosen to ignore all of these resolutions with the obviously false claim that the East Timorese decided themselves to join Indonesia. The question for Australia is: What are our obligations to the UN Charter in the light of the forced annexation of East Timor? Let me remind honourable senators that Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter provides that: All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Most of us have heard that before and we all know that many members of the UN have breached that article. The article is a guiding principle for conduct by members, but it does not suggest how countries should respond to breaches of the Charter. However, there are United Nations resolutions since the declaration of the Charter which appear to provide members with a position to take in response to illegal annexations such as that of East Timor. For example, I understand that Australia agreed to and, in fact, sponsored a Declaration on Principles on International Law in 1970. That resolution, No. 2625, was unanimously adopted on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the coming into force of the UN Charter. Among its provisions is the following: The territory of a state shall not be the object of acquisition by another state resulting from the threat or use of force. The resolution continues, and I want to emphasise this: No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognised as legal. Again in 1974, Australia was among member states of the United Nations which unanimously agreed to resolution No. 3314 on the definition of aggression. Article 5, paragraph 3, of this resolution provides that: No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression shall be recognised as legal. Do we take seriously our commitment to these resolutions or do we ignore them when it is convenient? I would like the Government to answer these questions: Would not the Government agree that these resolutions, to which we are a party, spell out how we should implement and defend the United Nations Charter? Would the Government agree that these resolutions are tantamount either to international treaty law or, at least, customary international law? Having voted for these resolutions, is Australia under an international obligation not to recognise Indonesia's illegal acquisition of East Timor? I also refer to Article 301 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. This article provides that: In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention, States Parties shall refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of International law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. As far as Indonesia's claims to the sea and continental shelf areas surrounding East Timor are concerned, Jakarta cannot claim to have refrained from the threat or use of force. In denying Timorese self-determination, Jakarta has acted in breach of other principles of law embodied in the UN Charter. I ask the Government: Does not our recognition of Indonesia's right to negotiate the Timor seabed boundary, essentially make us a party to Indonesia's breach of the letter and spirit of Article 301 of the Law of the Sea Convention? Australia has a long and honourable record at the forefront of calls for just conduct between nations. The United Nations is an organisation designed to promote that process. In the absence of internationally agreed means of enforcing resolutions of disputes, reliance must be placed on countries adhering to principles they purport to uphold. It appears that Australia will continue to negotiate with Indonesia over the East Timor seabed boundary. But, if these negotiations are in breach of the UN Charter and customary international law-and that appears to be the case-it makes a complete mockery of our oft-repeated commitment to the effectiveness of the United Nations. It makes a mockery of our calls for respect for international laws. If we choose to put aside our declared principles when they become inconvenient, then all we are really doing is ensuring that our declarations of support for just conduct between nations are dishonest or meaningless. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.49) — Thank you for the call, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator McIntosh's speech contained a number of misunderstandings, to put it at its most charitable, which it is important for me, on behalf of the Government, to immediately correct, lest those misapprehensions and misunderstandings spread more widely. At the outset, I should make the point that it is neither accurate nor helpful to the national interest for Senator McIntosh to suggest that the Law of the Sea Convention somehow not only bears upon the present boundary negotiations with Indonesia on the Timor Gap area, but makes inevitable the acceptance of a geographical midline as the necessary outcome of those negotiations. I simply say that the Law of the Sea Convention does nothing of the kind and Australia has a very strenuously maintained position to the contrary. But, of course, the central thrust of his speech was the allegation that somehow Australia is in breach of international law by virtue of negotiating with Indonesia over the Timor Gap insofar as this involves us in giving recognition to a state acquired by threat or by the use of force. I will just make a few points about that general allegation. Senator McIntosh draws primary nourishment from the United Nations General Assembly declaration of 1970, the so-called friendly relations declaration which states-he quoted it accurately: No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognised as legal. I make it plain that the legal status of this declaration, which is not a treaty in any sense, has long been very hotly contested. It is our understanding that there is no binding international legal obligation not to recognise the acquisition of territory that was acquired by force. In international law, the legality of the original acquisition of territory by a state must be distinguished from subsequent dealings between third states and the state acquiring new territory. It is the sovereign right of each state to determine what dealings it will have with states acquiring, by whatever means, new territory and to determine whether or not to recognise sovereignty over such a territory. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated in the House on 22 August 1985, in an answer to Mr Peacock, Australia has recognised Indonesia's sovereignty over East Timor since February 1979. Of course, that statement was accompanied by a recognition, again by Mr Hawke which has been expressed by Government representatives on many occasions, of our concern at the way in which East Timor was incorporated. The recognition does not modify in any way the continuing concern at that historical fact. Let me go on to say that it is perfectly consistent with Australia's recognition of Indonesia's sovereignty over East Timor to engage in negotiations with Indonesia now on the Timor Gap. To engage in such negotiations does not as a matter of international law make Australia a party to the initial acquisition by Indonesia of East Timor any more than Australia's dealings with other sovereign states make Australia a party to the means they used to acquire territory in the first place; nor does it affect the legality of the negotiations; nor does it signify approval of the original acquisition of territory. Again, I make the point that the Prime Minister said in his statement of 22 August 1985 that the Government has expressed to Indonesia its concern at the way in which East Timor was incorporated. I finally make the point that Senator McIntosh has also referred to Article 301 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. That Article states: In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention, States Parties shall refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. Article 301 prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of another state in the context of implementation of the Convention, which of course is not in issue here. It does not affect the legality of dealings between other states and the state which has acquired territory by force. Senator Kilgariff —Is a joint management possible, Minister? Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course joint management and a joint development zone are possible and that is the subject matter of the present negotiations. The concept which seems to underlie Senator McIntosh's approach to this is that there must inevitably be a single line solution. Senator McIntosh —It makes us a party to the incorporation. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept that and I think there has been enough nonsense espoused on this subject without Senator McIntosh adding more to it on this occasion. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.55) —In the light of yesterday's disappointing proposals for a form of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory, I want to point out two major specific problems within the Department of Territories. Unless these problems are cleaned up and cleaned up promptly and properly, there is not much hope for good self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. The matter has taken on a new urgency because the Government's proposal has so many strings tied to the new Australian Capital Territory council. Indeed, I have heard somebody say that it has as many strings as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics puts around its satellites. Those strings, whether they be the power to disallow or override council laws on all matters, or the total control of major revenue sources such as lease management or the power to dismiss the council, are all held by various Ministers and hence in practice by senior bureaucrats within the Department. One major incapacity of the Department of Territories relates to industrial relations matters. We had the recent example of Commissioner Caesar telling the management of the ACTION bus service to lift its game. The problem is of a more systemic nature. It goes right throughout the Department as far as I can see. Certainly the Department maintained its form in this area when it handed in its industrial democracy plan to the Public Service Board some time after the deadline last October. The unions with which it was supposed to consult had in fact not been consulted. The so-called democracy plan was claimed by at least one of those unions to be a real joke. It said basically that because the Department was a big one and covered people in many unions, consultation was really hard. However, it did provide an assurance that the Department's procedures are really democratic. That assurance cannot be taken at face value. The Australian Capital Territory Health Authority has just recently come under the Department's umbrella. Last December the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority Ordinance was gazetted. Industrial democracy guidelines issued by the Government should have led to some consultation with the unions beforehand. Again, that did not happen. What is more, even after the transfer of authority, no one bothered to contact the unions. They have only recently found out about the ordinance. Its industrial relations provisions are based on concepts which became obsolete about 10 years ago. For instance, no regard is given to the Merit Protection and Review Agency for appeals processes, or to the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. It seems that there is a real problem in this area. How can people without even a basic awareness of the Government's legislation and policy be allowed a completely free rein over matters of this importance? Unless the Government does something constructive in this area, the Australian Capital Territory health system will continue to be plagued by completely avoidable disputes. As a first step the Government must lay down some guidelines on the handling of industrial relations matters within the Authority. The buried report of the Molony task force on Australian Capital Territory health services raised this as a major source of tension within the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission, the Authority's predecessor. There is absolutely no evidence that the task force, which did so much excellent work on this matter, has been in any way heeded. The process has all the hallmarks of a bureaucracy which is trying to carry out a snow job. The Government should also force the Authority to carve into its central administration. This would free staff to cover those areas where there is face to face service to patients. There is an enormous overburden in this area. There is no point in setting up a body which sees the provision of health services as a secondary rather than a primary concern. This has been claimed by various employees. I want to go further with this matter of industrial relations. On 3 May 1984 in Estimates Committee F Senator Reid asked about the aftermath of a $35,000 consultancy for developing safety legislation and overhauling the quaintly styled Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. She was told that the consultancy had not actually commenced and that its completion was likely to be early in the following financial year. There has not been any substantive changes to the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951 since those Estimates Committee sittings. This is certainly a very poor reflection on the Department of Territories and its ability to set priorities within the constraints imposed by its so-called limited resources. There are frequent complaints about the Department's inability to police work-safety requirements in relation to machinery and scaffolding, for instance. If the Department cannot really see to it that those requirements are carried out in practice, and that may be a reasonable management decision, given the lack of staff available, it ought at least to bring the compensation question to a just conclusion. The Department has absolutely no excuse for remaining idle on all fronts in a matter of such fundamental importance. It is noteworthy that industrial relations matters are specifically excluded from the powers of the proposed new Australian Capital Territory Council. Therefore, this situation may continue. The situation is not quite clear in relation to the industrial safety questions. Schedule 2 of the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill lists the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951-with the exception of section 27 that deals with Rules of Court-as a Council law. It does not list the Scaffolding and Lifts Ordinance 1957. If this means that the Department is to retain control of industrial safety standards, workers in the Australian Capital Territory, will be waiting some time to get their conditions brought into the 1980s. On past indications, even when that happens there will be quite a deal of catching up to be done. A second major problem in the Department of Territories is in relation to record keeping. Indeed, I have had quite a problem in this area-particularly in the area associated with the non-Australian Capital Territory functions of the Department. In 1982 the Auditor-General raised a number of deficiencies in this area. Resources were apparently applied to remedy the situation. The long saga of the answer to question on notice No. 240, which I placed on the Senate Notice Paper on 22 April last year, makes me wonder just how much in fact has been rectified. In order to put the matter into context, I need to relate some of the history. It will become clear that the Department's answer is not at all internally consistent; nor does it tally with the information which has been released at other times. I was hoping that the Department would correct the obvious deficiency in its answer without any prompting. As that has not happened, I am forced to raise the issue to get the matter out into the open. I trust that the Department can provide us with a completely accurate answer and an explanation of how some of the more obvious errors have happened. If the Department is unable to carry out this corrective work in a satisfactory manner the matter will have to be taken further by the Senate. The opening of this episode came in April 1984 when the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands decided that they wanted to become Australian citizens. On 3 April the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, asked a question without notice dealing with the number of public servants and other people going to the islands as observers of the self-determination process. The Canberra Times of 29 September 1984 ran an item in which the Leader of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, Mr Leedman, was reported to have called for an urgent review of the administration of the then Department of Territories and Local Government. He is reported as saying: Up to a dozen critical people, including the Secretary of the Department, Mr John Enfield, are being diverted to duties connected with Christmas Island and Cocos Islands, and their positions are not being adequately filled by replacements. Later in the article it is reported: Sources within the Department have estimated that the Secretary has spent almost half of his time on Cocos and Christmas Islands issue this year and Mr Enfield is scheduled to spend six weeks attending the Cocos Islands debate in the United Nations, and is then going to Paris to attend the Metropolis `84 Conference. On 2 October 1984 Mr Gordon Walsh, also of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, placed on the Assembly's Notice Paper a question dealing with departmental and other trips to Cocos, Christmas and Norfolk Islands. I seek leave to have a copy of the question incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The question read as follows- 212 MR WALSH: To ask Mr Leedman- (1) How many officers of the Department of Territories and Local Government have undertaken official visits to- (a) Cocos Island; (b) Norfolk Island; (c) Christmas Island; during the year 1983-84 and 1984-85; (2) Did any of the officers undertake more than one official visit during the above period; if so, how many. (3) Has the Department paid the travel expenses and/or fares of any person other than officers of the Department of Territories and Local Government to undertake visits to the abovementioned Islands and, if so, what were the names of the persons so funded and which Departments and/or organisations did they represent. (4) How many occasions has the present Minister for Territories and Local Government during his term of office visited the above Islands. (5) How many members of Ministerial staff accompanied the Minister on each occasion. Senator VIGOR —It was soon made clear to Mr Gordon Walsh that he would never receive an answer. On 22 April I placed on the Senate Notice Paper a question dealing with trips to these same islands. I seek leave to have the question incorporated in Hansard. Senator Gareth Evans —On the condition that your speech is finite. Senator VIGOR —I assure you it will be. Leave granted. The question read as follows- For each 6-monthly period since January 1982: (a) how many officers of the Department of Territories, or its predecessors, have undertaken official visits to (i) Cocos Island, (ii) Norfolk Island, or (iii) Christmas Island, and what was the purpose of each such visit, which officers travelled and what was the expense borne by the Department; (b) how many trips to each of these islands were undertaken by the responsible Minister and, on each occasion, how many members of Ministerial staff also travelled, and what was the total cost to the Department of the stay on the island by all concerned; and (c) has any other person had fares, travel expenses or both paid by the Department of Territories, or its predecessors, in relation to any visit to any of the islands; if so, what was the cost of each visit, in what capacity did the person or persons travel and what was the purpose of the visit. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. In the Supplementary Estimates for 1984-85 the Department of Territories sought an extra $30,000 for travel and subsistence. The explanatory notes said that $21,000 of this was for the cost incurred as a result of the Secretary's attendance at the United Nations in respect of self-determination for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The requirement was unforeseen when the 1984-85 Budget estimate was prepared. An additional sum of $328,000 was also sought for the operation of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island Air Charter. This was put down to the cost of chartering larger aircraft than was originally estimated, mainly associated with implementing the new administrative arrangements on Christmas Island. During the sitting of Estimates Committee F on 18 April 1985 I asked for further information about this additional expenditure. That was provided in May 1985-reasonably promptly-as a written reply to questions asked during the Estimates Committee. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Answer: As already advised to the Committee the additional flights were due to a general increase in demand for both freight and passenger services greater than that predicted at the time the tender for the air charter was let. Demand also increased as a result of the normalisation of Christmas Island and the departure of many of its residents under the voluntary redundancy scheme. Between 1 July 1984 and 15 January 1985 there were 38 flights on the air charter route to Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island, of which eight were additional flights (four F-1000, two F-4000, one C-130 and one B-727). On six occasions, the F-4000 normally used was replaced by a larger B-727. The C-130 was used solely for urgent freight of large equipment. On the remaining 37 flights, of 2,708 passengers, none was a Minister or a member of ministerial staff (VIP aircraft were used for Ministerial visits), and 152 were officers of Commonwealth Departments and Authorities and were on official business associated with the Territories Administration as follows: Attorney-General's Department... 1 Department of Aviation... 17 Department of Education... 1 Department of Employment and Industrial Relations... 3 Department of Health... 8 Department of Housing and Construction... 26 Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs... 3 Department of Local Government and Administrative Services... 2 Department of Social Security... 4 Department of Territories... 33 Department of Transport... 1 Auditor-General's Office... 3 Australian Electoral Commission... 1 Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service... 5 Australian Survey Office... 2 Bureau of Meteorology... 3 Capital Territory Health Commission... 1 Cocos (Keeling) Islands Administration*... 24 Christmas Island Administration*... 10 Commonwealth Grants Commission... 2 Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)... 2 For the 152 officials travelling over the period, the total cost of return air fares ex-Perth (at $760 each return fare) was $115,520. Based on the fixed accommodation rates in each Territory and known lengths of stay (excluding long-term appointees), and on an approximation of travellers allowances payable, the cost of accommodation totalled $54,040, making a total cost of fares and accommodation ex-Perth for officials travelling between 1 July 1984 and 15 January 1985, $169,560. The air charter is run on a break-even basis, with revenue returning to the Commonwealth. At 15 January 1985 revenue exceeded expenditure by $30,000. Accommodation costs are paid to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Co-operative Society and, since 1 October 1984, the Christmas Island Service Corporation, and assist the financial viability of these bodies in the Territories. * These figures include appointees to schools, hospitals and other bodies in the Territories, visiting magistrates and similar categories; they do not include family members. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The interesting point is that 152 officers of the Commonwealth Department and authorities flew either to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands or to Christmas Island during the period from 1 July 1984 to 15 January 1985. This was at an overall estimated cost of $169,560. In this time 33 officers of the Department of Territories apparently travelled to the Islands. I say `apparently' because this does not match the list provided in response to my question on notice which lists 32 officers. The discrepancy is a minor one. However, it does reveal deficiencies in what the Department does. If those deficiencies are because of the way in which records are kept I believe that there is a major problem. That is what I am about to show. If it is just simply a matter of a clerical mistake, that is understandable. However, there is a heck of a lot of clerical mistakes shown a little later in regard to this area. How anyone can be certain that the money is being spent properly and in the manner reported to the Parliament is beyond me when one takes account of some of the answers I got a bit later. In fact, on 26 June 1985, Mr Gordon Walsh, Chairman of Committees of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, wrote to the Auditor-General asking whether proper records were maintained and whether the appropriate controls and procedures were followed. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of his letter. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Mr J. V. Monaghan Auditor-General Auditor-General's Department GPO Box 707 Canberra, ACT. 2601 Dear Mr Monaghan I forward for your information the attached copy of a letter from Mr J. D. Enfield, Secretary, Department of Territories, which was received by the ACT House of Assembly on 18 June 1985. In particular, I draw to your attention the claim made by Mr Enfield: `Even if it were proper for the Department to pursue this matter a very considerable diversion of resources would be involved in the compilation of all the information requested in Mr Walsh's Question No. 212 of 2 October 1984'. In view of this response, could you please advise whether under relevant regulatory legislation of sections of the Audit Act, Finance Regulations, Finance Directions and Crimes Act, proper records were maintained and the appropriate controls and procedures followed. I am also enclosing a copy of Question No. 212 of 2 October 1984. Yours sincerely GORDON WALSH, M.H.A. Senator VIGOR —This happened eight days after the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly had unanimously expressed disquiet and even anger at the peremptory tone with which Mr Gordon Walsh's question on notice was dismissed in a letter from the Secretary to the Department of Territories to the House of Assembly. The matter resurfaced in another letter from Mr Enfield to Mr Brian O'Donovan, who was conducting the Inquiry into the Community Housing Expansion Program in the Australian Capital Territory. That letter basically pointed how busy the Secretary had been on island matters and how the Department was suffering from inadequate staff resources. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Senator Gareth Evans —How much more of this is there? Senator VIGOR —About five minutes. It is a sad saga. I have to build up a picture to make the point. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 31 July 1985 Mr B. J. O' Donovan, Inquiry into the A.C.T. Community Housing Expansion Program, 9th Floor, Electricity House, London Circuit, CANBERRA ACT 2601 Dear Mr O'Donovan, I write in response to your advertisement in the Canberra Times of 29 July inviting submissions to the Inquiry into the ACT Community Housing Expansion Program. I am writing to you separately about other programs administered by the Department which involve grants to the community. The purpose of this letter is to give you background information which may be of assistance. The attachment sets out in detail the matters that have occupied the attention of the senior management of this Department, including me, over the past two years. A summary and overview follows. At the change of Government in March 1983, the Department was at a low ebb. This was a result of a combination of stringent staff ceilings and severe restraint in government outlays in the ACT for some years. Mr Uren took office in March 1983 with a commitment to change and innovation, particularly in relation to the availability of land and housing in the ACT, the Commonwealth's role in relation to Local Government, the introduction of self-government to the ACT, and the administration of the External Territories. His working style necessarily involved officers at the most senior level since, rather than giving general guidelines and seeking the development of policy options, he was disposed to articulate a policy position, frequently orally, and direct its implementation. The Department found itself moving on a number of fronts at once. The Minister took a variety of initiatives in relation to land and housing in the ACT, of which the Community Housing Expansion Program was one. There was a very substantial increase in the servicing of land through the NCDC and by the private sector, which became involved directly in innovative land servicing projects. This imposed a severe load throughout the Department. Policies in the housing area were significantly altered without commensurate staff increases. In mid-1984 a substantial over-commitment of funds occurred in the Commissioner for Housing Loans Scheme; senior management became very closely involved in the investigations and remedial action which followed. The establishment of the Office of Local Government was time-consuming and demanding of staff at the most senior level. The definition of its role and responsibilities and the agreement of other Ministers to them took considerable time and effort as did the development of an organisational structure and the recruitment action necessary to staff it. The demands continued with the development of new programs and through the Minister's close personal involvement in local government and planning matters. Self-Government absorbed a considerable amount of senior officers' time. While the Task Force, under Mr Craig, was largely autonomous, the Department provided resources, at a most senior level, to the secretariat. Other senior officers and I were also closely involved. Since the receipt of the Report of the Task Force by the Government a considerable amount of work has been done within the Department at senior level on further options for the structure of self-government. The Grants Commission inquiry and the consequential Interdepartmental Committee on ACT Finances were both demanding of senior officers' time. Developments in the External Territories, particularly the Indian Ocean Territories, placed heavy demands on the Department and took up much of my time. The Cocos/Malay community on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands sought to participate in an Act of Self Determination, which took place under the observation of a visiting United Nations Mission in April 1984. The result was a subject of debate in the United Nations Fourth Committee in November 1984 and in the United Nations General Assembly in December 1984. I presented Australia's position before the Fourth Committee. The Commonwealth's move to acquire the remaining land of Mr J. Clunies-Ross was challenged in the High Court. The land on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands leased by the Commonwealth to the Co-operative was transferred to the Cocos people in September 1984. New programs for housing and economic development in the Islands were put in place. All this placed heavy demands on me and senior staff. Between December 1983 and May 1985 I made five visits to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. At the same time, Christmas Island was going through a substantial restructuring. The workforce of the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island (PMCI) was reduced, through voluntary redundancy, from 1300 to 800. The operations of PMCI were substantially restructured, considerable social change took place on the Island, and steps were taken to ``normalise'' conditions on the Island with those on the mainland. Settlement of some 600 Christmas Islanders on the mainland was achieved without problems, or adverse publicity, through co-operative efforts among Commonwealth departments and Western Australian State departments and voluntary bodies. This Department has a principal co-ordinating role. This Minister placed a very high priority on successful resolution of problems on Christmas Island. In a minute of 28 May 1984 to me he said: ``I am aware of the various resource constraints on the capacity of the Territories Division. I regard Christmas Island matters, at least until 1 October, as the departmental priority.'' Between April 1984 and May 1985 I made five visits to Christmas Island. Inquiries of one kind or another have imposed a very heavy load on the Department-in establishing the inquiries, servicing them, making submissions to them, presenting oral evidence, and responding to their reports. All of this has involved officers at the most senior level. Industrial relations problems, particularly the ongoing dispute with the Federal Firefighters' Union have absorbed a large amount of my time and that of other senior officers. The growth in economic activity in Canberra over the past few years has brought in its train additional loads on the Department not only at the operational level and in routine matters, such as garbage collection, but in individual projects which involved senior management directly. Examples are the Canberra National Convention Centre, the redevelopment of the Hotel Canberra, the redevelopment of Civic-including parking strategies and the development of Section 38-and the sale of the Belconnen Mall. In both 1983/84 and 1984/85 the staff increases provided to the Department fell well below our assessment of essential needs. This resulted in the breakdown of various Departmental operations and attracted widespread criticism. In late 1984 I arranged for a detailed analysis of the work load and staff levels in the Department. In December 1984 I put a proposal to the Secretary of the Department of Finance for an immediate increase of 67 staff units, foreshadowing a bid for 1985/86 of 318.5. Four of the 67 positions were provided for 1984/85. The number to be provided in 1985/86 budget has yet to be announced but every indication is that it will be substantially less than my assessed requirement. In summary, the Department was under severe stress, with a range of policy initiatives and other demands occupying the attention of senior managers, almost to the exclusion of routine work. Coupled with that was the inadequacy of staffing resources to meet the loads on the Department. The attached media statements from the period of March 1983 to December 1984 convey the sense of the pace of change. I should be happy to expand on the foregoing orally should you wish. Yours sincerely, J. D. ENFIELD Senator VIGOR —I prompted the Department about the question on notice during the proceedings of Estimates Committee F on 13 September. I offered the use of my staff to assist if there was a problem with resources. An officer of the Department said: `We certainly are preparing an answer and we hope that it will be available shortly'. What happened after that is not entirely clear. Nothing was forthcoming by the time the Senate rose on 6 December last year. I understand that at least one draft answer was rejected as being totally unsuitable. I understand also that at some point in the process more effort was going into excuses as to why the project could not be done than into preparing an answer. It has certainly come as a surprise to me that the Department's records are so higgledy-piggledy that the question, which simply asked for a list of the names and dates of travel of people to the islands, which should have been in one file, took so much time to answer. No wonder the Auditor-General keeps making references to the inadequacies of the accounting procedures in various parts of the Department. The Department of Territories then came back and said that the answer it had given me cost $9,000. That was a gratuitous remark which was not asked for in the question. The Department went on to say that the question took eight person weeks to complete. I presume that the $9,000 includes the inflated 88 per cent of on-costs. If not, it suggests that very senior personnel were deeply involved in doing this work, because $9,000 is a ridiculous cost for an answer to that question. It should have been a routine clerical task. Even if the on-cost figure is included, we must still have had high level officers involved in producing the answer. Perhaps that is because the Department's turnover rate at the lower levels is so high as to preclude basic clerical work being done by junior officers-I do not know. Senator Kilgariff —Maybe there are none left. Senator VIGOR — Yes. I presume that the Department has included the time spent on the minutes suggesting that an answer not be provided and the time spent on revising the rejected draft or drafts. Perhaps it even included the effort put into dealing with the question asked in the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly and the public controversy surrounding the Department's attitude. It is evident that no one bothered to proof read the reply, even cursorily, despite the fact that it cost $9,000. For instance-this is where I am really disturbed-there are two incompatible attempts at listing the officers who went to Christmas Island between July and December 1985. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the relevant extract from page 83 of the Senate Hansard of 11 February. Leave granted. The document read as follows- For period July 1985 to December 1985 G. Beal ESB ... 5.8.85 14.8.85 Recruitment matters ... Fares and TA A. Martin ESB ... 5.8.85 14.8.85 Recruitment matters ... Fares and TA Q. L. Naylor A/g CC9 ET& LD 8.8.85 17.8.85 Attend the PMCI 1985 Shipping Conference and Marketing... Fares and TA N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET& LD 24.9.85 27.9.85 Member of the Working Party on future of Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island... Fares and TA I. Coe CC9 L & LPB ... 7.10.85 16.10.85 Assisting the Working Party on future of Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island ... Fares and TA J. Rankin A/g CC10 ESB ... 14.10.85 28.10.85 Arbitration hearings ... Fares and TA Q. Naylor A/g CC9 ET& LD ... 8.10.85 11.10.85 Attend meetings of the Abbotts Booby Expert Panel Monitoring Study ... Fares and TA For period July 1985 to December 1985 S. Darwin IOTB ... 24.7.85 8.8.85 Housing ... Fares and TA W. Harris A/g Secretary ... 4.9.85 7.9.85 Minister ... Fare one way and TA N. Quinn FAS ET& L ... 23.9.85 27.9.85 Working party on future of Christmas Island ... Fares and TA I. Coe L & LP ... 8.10.85 28.10.85 As above ... Fares and TA J. Rankin ESB ... 14.10.85 28.10.85 Industrial relations matters ... Fares and TA N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET& LD 5.11.85 8.11.85 Discussions on CI Assembly future of mining operation ... Fares and TA J. Emerton CC10 IOTB ... 5.11.85 8.11.85 Air Charter matters ... Fares and TA M. Cornwell CC10 H of A ... 5.11.85 12.11.85 CI Assembly ... Fares and TA C. Chalmers to 2 TS ... 12.11.85 3.12.85 Inspect pressure vessels ... Fares and TA M. Cornwell CC10 H of A ... 5.12.85 21.12.85 CI Assembly ... Fares and TA Senator VIGOR —The very least that can be said is that the Department has difficulty in establishing just when people went away. The extract refers to an Acting Secretary accompanying a Minister to Christmas Island between 4 and 7 September 1985. However, in the table of ministerial visits on page 90 of the Hansard there is no ministerial trip in September 1985, let alone one to Christmas Island. I hope that we can get some clarification on that matter. There is also the matter of an officer who is listed as going to Christmas Island between 15 April and 2 May last year on a `normalisation exercise' for which both fares and travelling allowance were paid. Simultaneously that very same officer is listed as travelling to Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands and being absent from 16 April to 2 May on a ministerial visit for which only travel allowance is applied. What is correct? Both of those statements cannot be correct. Is it possible that neither is correct? The Parliament deserves a more adequate explanation of what happened. It also deserves an explanation of why the list shows that 21 officers travelled to Christmas Island between 1 July 1984 and 15 January 1985 and 11 officers to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in that period, when the Department has said elsewhere that it paid for 33 officers to travel in that period. Furthermore, I note that Mr Gordon Walsh of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly has on notice a question on whether a senior public servant had been prevented from boarding an aircraft scheduled for a Cocos (Keeling) Islands flight. If that has happened, I believe that the Department has an obligation to provide an explanation. I believe that it should tell us what inquiries followed and what disciplinary action may have followed. The Senate will have to deal with the level of trips to the island at the Estimates Committee hearings. The escalation of costs for travel and sustenance in the budget of the Department of Territories is a matter for another time, thank heavens. We need to investigate the whole matter. I seek information from the Department, whenever it will be available, to explain the discrepancies in its answer and the reason why it put in the gratuitous claim of $9,000 cost. The amounts of money involved are considerable. The $9,000-although I do not believe that it can be justified-is a very small amount of money, compared with what can be saved for the public of Australia by proper management practices in the Department. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(7.17) —During Question Time today Senator Jessop asked me, in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), a question regarding the general revenue sharing arrangements with local government. In my reply I said that I knew of no steps which the Government was contemplating to change the relationship of State government personal income tax sharing arrangements with local government. I have now been advised by the Minister that the Government has held consultations with the States and local government to ensure that their views are fully taken into account and consideration before the Government takes decisions on the recommendations of the report of the Self Inquiry into Local Government Finance. I am further advised that these consultations have been very productive and useful. The Minister is aware of the need to progress quickly the Government's consideration of the report so as to avoid uncertainty about the future form of the program. The Government will begin the progress for consideration of the submissions on the Self report next week and an announcement will be made as soon as possible. I am further advised that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when addressing a meeting of local government councillors from the Burke electorate on 28 February this year, indicated that it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation in the autumn session. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(7.18) —Tonight I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate a matter that is of grave concern to the Torres Strait Island and Aboriginal communities of northern Queensland in the northern most part of my electorate. We have been told often that the Australian Labor Party supports Aboriginals and land rights. We have often been told by those opposite that the National Party of Australia oppresses Islanders and Aboriginals, but in reality we find that the Deputy Leader of the Queensland Labor Party, Mr Burns, is carrying out a vilification of the Islander and Aboriginal leaders in what is nothing more than a cowardly attack from his privileged position in the Queensland Parliament. We have become used to Mr Burns using his privileged position to attack fishermen, cattlemen, Aboriginals and Islanders, and many other battlers who are trying to do something for their communities. This time I believe that Mr Burns has scraped the bottom of the barrel with an attack on two of the most respected men in the islands-Mr George Mye and Mr Gastano Lui-and Mr Eric Derrall, a former member of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. George Mye has served his people faithfully and well for 30 years. He has been elected Chairman of the Island Community Council, he is an elected leader of Darnley Island and he is a member of the Aboriginal Development Co-operative, which is a Commonwealth statutory authority, which I believe pays him a salary of about $30,000 a year. Although Mr Burns has claimed that that salary is paid by the Queensland Government, it is paid by the Federal Government. I think history will show that Mr George Mye has not been afraid to stand up to the former head of the Department who, to be polite, has fallen from grace in his later years. Because George Mye stood up to the former head of the Department and had a paternalistic attitude towards the Aboriginals and Islanders-that is to say the least-he and the residents of Darnley Island have had to pay the price. I have been to Darnley Island and I have driven over it. It is the second biggest island in the Torres Straits and it has the second biggest population, yet it is the only island not to have its own airstrip. Its water supply comes from a Southern Cross windmill, pumped through a polythene pipe, and it is completely inadequate for the 300 people on the island. Darnley Island is one of the few islands that do not have fish freezers, so the Islanders cannot earn a living by catching and sending fish to the mainland for sale. Darnley Island is the only island that was not given council chambers; it has had to build its own. George Mye and the Darnley people have paid the penalty for standing up and fighting for an independent way of life. The former departmental head, although no longer in the department, is continuing to feed Mr Burns misinformation so that he can continue to malign the Aboriginal and Islander leaders. Mr Burns has said that George Mye is a storekeeper who sells between $14,000 and $18,000 worth of goods a fortnight and exploits the residents of Darnley. Mr George Mye does not have a monopoly of the island's stores. The Island Industries Board also has a store on Darnley Island. The Islanders can trade with whichever store they like, so it is rubbish for Mr Burns to say that the Islanders are being exploited. It is obvious to me that the Australian Labor Party does not want to see a successful Islander or Aboriginal. On the contrary, Mr Mye placed his store on the island because the Islanders were paying too high a price for their goods. I believe that even the Australian Labor Party would recognise that competition keeps the price down. One of Mr Burns's other misinformed allegations is that Mr Mye received a free house on Thursday Island from the Queensland Government. That house on Thursday Island belonged to Mr George Mye's brother who died some time ago. The allegation that George Mye refuses to let the IIB store sell cold drinks is just as untrue and petty as the rest of Mr Burns's allegations. It would be an insult to the judgment of all island chairmen who continue to elect Mr Mye every three years as their leader that they would elect a person who would not fight for their cause or who would even cheat them. I come now to what I believe is Mr Burns's greatest insult. Mr Burns said that Mr Mye moved a female resident friend into the medical aid post. The innuendo in that statement does not need to be explained in the Senate. Mr Mye lives in a close community on the island. He is a married family man. He is a religious man and he is a Christian. The truth is that Mr Mye allowed the resident island nurse to board at the medical aid post because there was no other suitable house or accommodation available to her. Mr Burns has claimed that Darnley Island has been given special treatment by the Queensland Government, but nothing could be further from the truth. Darnley Island has been neglected. Senator Kilgariff —By the State Government or the Federal Government? Senator BOSWELL —It has been neglected because George Mye stood up for what he believed in, and this former departmental head has made him suffer for it. Mr Burns then attacks Gastano Lui, the son of one of the most respected families on the island, for receiving a $30,000 job from the Queensland Government. But the Queensland Government did not give that job to Mr Lui. That job was given to Mr Lui by the Island Community Council which is made up of all the chairmen from the 17 islands. They voted for Mr Lui to be given that job. What the Queensland Government is doing in its self-management program is replacing white people with black people. The Aboriginals and Islanders are electing their own leaders and their own management. The Deputy Leader of the Queensland Labor Party thinks it is all right for whites to get paid but he obviously believes that the indigenous people do not deserve equal pay for equal work, and that is a proposition that the National Party of Australia can never support. We believe in equal pay for equal work. The most unkind remark in Mr Burns's attack on the Aboriginal and Islander people of Queensland was made when he suggested that Mr Eric Derrall got $10,000 as some sort of favour. Mr Eric Derrall was the first full-blood Aboriginal to enter any Australian Parliament. He was a National Party candidate and a National Party parliamentarian and we are all very proud of him. He has had very little education and he has worked tirelessly for his people as Chairman of the Aboriginal Community Council, which is a full time job with no remuneration. Only air fares and expenses are paid. Eric Derrall is a one-legged man who has had virtually no schooling. He won a seat in the State Parliament and represented a large proportion of Aboriginals and Islanders. He was a true representative of the people. Mr Burns and the Labor Party should applaud and not malign people such as Mr Derrall. The attack on these three fine men is nothing more than a disgrace and a shame. These men have given all that they have had to their communities. They stood up to the former Under Secretary for the benefit of their people and they have been abused for their efforts in a white man's parliament. They are proud Aboriginals and Islanders living miles from anywhere on remote islands or settlements with no communications through which to defend themselves. I say to the Senate that Mr Burns's attack was an act of cowardice because he used the Parliament as the place to vent his venom, aided and abetted by the former Under Secretary of that Department. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! If I heard the honourable senator correctly, he made some comments about Mr Burns and the word `cowardice' was used. If it was I ask the honourable senator to withdraw that word under standing order 418. Senator BOSWELL —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek your indulgence. Is the word `cowardice' unparliamentary? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I rule that it is unparliamentary when an honourable senator is referring to a member of another parliament. Senator BOSWELL —Mr Acting Deputy President, in deference to you, I withdraw. I call on the Deputy Leader of the Queensland Opposition to go to the Torres Straits and repeat what he said in the Queensland State Parliament. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(7.28) —I wish to refer to the Palm Sunday peace marches to be held this coming weekend in Australia's major cities, especially in Adelaide in my own electorate. I will march on Sunday under the Liberal banner `Peace through Security' and I have called on individual Liberals in South Australia to join me. The State Executive of the Liberal Party in South Australia has endorsed my call and the State President of the Party, my colleague Senator Robert Hill, together with other parliamentarians and Party leaders, will march with us. The heads of the three major churches-Catholic, Anglican and Uniting-have also decided to march. I refer respectfully to Archbishop Faulkner, Archbishop Rayner and Dr Briggs. About 10,000 Christians are expected to march. Although in the past many participating Christians have been taken for a ride by the Left, I believe that this year they can march with good conscience. At last, in the International Year of Peace, the objectives of the march have been determined to allow genuine participation by all groups actively concerned for peace. The left wing slogans of earlier years have been rejected and it is important for those who reject the minority left wing views to consolidate this victory. For too long the Liberal-National coalition policies on peace through security have remained locked up in the drawers of Parliament House offices. We will actively move to communicate our policies in the market-place. We will stand up for our views and sell them responsibly throughout the community. The Peace March next Sunday is too good an opportunity to waste. Liberals should no longer abandon this forum to the Left. After all, it has always been the masses of Christian groups which have given both numbers and credibility to the March. Liberals have an uncompromising stand for peace, which is clearly distinct from minority left-wing groups. I believe that 80 per cent of Australians would identify themselves with this stand. On Sunday the Liberals marching with me will carry `Peace through Security' banners and distribute our `Peace' pamphlet which summarises our clear policies. We want the Australian public to know very clearly our genuine commitment to peace, our support for multilateral disarmament, for peace through the Australian-American alliance, our support for the policy of deterrence, the importance of the Australian-American bases for arms control verification, our call for an international comprehensive test ban and the strengthening of the non-proliferation treaty. We want significant, verifiable arms reductions on both sides. We are committed to peace, we believe peace will be secured by these sound policies, and we are ready to stand up and be counted. Finally, I have referred to the Liberal- National parties coalition's peace pamphlet. With the advice and encouragement of my colleagues, I have been responsible for writing and producing this pamphlet. It is necessarily brief and in summary form. The official statement of coalition policy is of course the disarmament and arms control policy that was released in May 1985 by the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. I seek leave to incorporate the text of this pamphlet in Hansard. Leave granted. The pamphlet read as follows: PEACE: NINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS How can Australians prevent nuclear war? Is it wrong to keep nuclear weapons for defence? Do the bases we share with the United States help world peace? These are questions that concern all Australians. Nobody has all the answers, but the Liberal Party believes it has the best policies to promote peace and national security. This sheet takes a brief look at some of the questions young people are asking about peace and disarmament. 1. Is it wrong to have nuclear weapons for defence? Nuclear weapons were first developed by the United States in the knowledge that Nazi Germany was preparing to make and use atomic weapons during World War II. They were used in 1945 to stop a war which, had it continued, would have cost hundreds of thousands more lives. Today, nuclear weapons are a last resort kept to prevent aggressive countries starting war. It would be wrong to leave people undefended and without this ultimate protection. 2. Can we do anything to prevent nuclear war? Yes. Until we get rid of nuclear weapons, the best way to make sure a country doesn't start a nuclear war is by making it clear that if it uses nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons would be used against it in return. This `deterrence' helps ensure peace and stability while a way is found to get rid of all nuclear weapons. 3. Are there too many nuclear weapons? Yes. That's why Australia supports the nuclear powers holding talks to reduce the number of nuclear weapons or to get rid of them altogether. The problem is to make sure that disarmament takes place on all sides-`multilaterally'-because if you disarm too fast or by yourself-`unilaterally'-the other side might decide to take advantage of your weakness. One way of doing this is to ensure that a disarmament agreement is `verifiable' so that no country can cheat. 4. Would getting out of the Australia-New Zealand-United States alliance (called ANZUS) help disarmament? No. Australia and the United States have been strong allies ever since World War II. We share a common commitment to freedom, democracy and peace. Our neighbours in South East Asia and the Pacific and our allies in Europe see our alliance as ensuring stability in the region. It is totally against Australia's defence interests to undermine the continuing strength of the Australian-American alliance. If Australia were to reject the United States it would upset the global balance of power and produce uncertainty in the Pacific region. It would also remove Australia's right to talk frankly with the United States on peace and disarmament issues. 5. Are the bases targets for Soviet nuclear bombs? Possibly. But in the event of a major nuclear war, the whole of Australia would be at risk. Even without the bases, there is no guarantee that Australian cities would not be safe from attack. It is also unlikely that Australia could escape the consequences of a global nuclear war. One of these consequences could be a `nuclear winter'. Some scientists believe that nuclear explosions would cause enormous amounts of dust and smoke to be thrown into the atmosphere where it would blot out the sun causing temperatures to plummet and plants, animals and eventually people, to die. 6. Do visits by nuclear ships and planes pose any danger to Australians? No. Nuclear weapons are never armed until just before being used. Unarmed nuclear weapons cannot explode, whether by fire, external deterioration or enemy attack. The presence of nuclear planes and ships at the start of any war would also make no difference to the enemy's decision on targets. Blocking access to US ships and planes would simply mean the US could not effectively balance and deter Soviet ships in our region. 7. Do the bases we share with the US help peace? Yes. In fact if we were to shut them down there would be a greater likelihood of war in any crisis between the superpowers. The two bases at Pine Gap and Nurrungar receive satellite signals which allow the US to monitor the nuclear forces and activities of the Soviet Union. They are crucial for arms control. If those facilities did not exist here, the US wouldn't enter agreements with the Soviet Union because it would be unable to make sure the Soviets were keeping their part of the bargain. The bases also allow the US to avoid rash decisions in any crisis. The third base, at North West Cape in Western Australia, acts as a channel of communication with US submarines, which are the most important part of the US deterrent forces. The Soviets know that even if they attacked the US, the US could command its submarines to respond, so they are deterred from starting a war. 8. Does Australian uranium mining mean more nuclear bombs? No. Australia has the tightest safeguards in the world to ensure our uranium makes electricity, not bombs. Our exports strengthen the group of nations committed to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Many countries depend on nuclear power for electricity. And those nations that are determined to use uranium to make nuclear weapons, can do so without Australian uranium. Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle also enables it to play a direct role in reducing the risks of the misuse of uranium. 9. Is there any hope for the future? Yes. The good news is that by ensuring the balance of nuclear deterrence, there has not been a major war in the West for 40 years. Nuclear deterrence, and the stability and balance it brings, provides a breathing space for enemies to break down barriers and work for peaceful co-operation and disarmament. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(7.33) —On 11 February I asked Senator Walsh, as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), a question relating to a community employment program swimming pool project in Footscray, a suburb of Melbourne, and in Mr Willis's electorate. I raised further matters concerning the project on the adjournment debate on 13 February. The Hansard reference is pages 327-330. I shall not go over the detail again, other than to remind the Senate that the project involved a community employment program grant of $1.974m, plus a contribution of $850,000 from the ratepayers of Footscray. The project was due to be completed by August 1985. It is nowhere near completion even now, despite all the original CEP grant-and more-already having been spent. Last week Senator Walsh provided Mr Willis's response to the issues of concern that I had raised on 11 and 13 February. That response is contained in Hansard of 13 March, pages 973 and 974. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his response. It is very lengthy and it contains some welcome information. I note with interest his personal involvement in seeking resolution of the problems bedevilling the project, including his chairing a meeting on 5 March of the major parties involved-a somewhat surprising thing to do but nevertheless welcome. I welcome his statement that an independent audit be undertaken by a private firm of chartered accountants and that the State Public Works Department carry out a feasibility study. I also welcome Mr Willis's agreement to my earlier request that no funds over and above those already agreed will be made available until the results of the financial audit and the feasibility study are available. However, beyond these welcome announcements, the Minister's response is gravely deficient. It avoids the real issues, and raises far more questions than it answers. Indeed, it increases even more the concern I have already expressed about the project. That concern goes to the heart of the whole administration and operation of the Hawke Government's CEP program. Let me detail some of the questions which remain unanswered, and which the public interest demands be answered. I might say, in passing, that I advised Senator Walsh and Mr Willis that I would be raising some of these questions tonight. How did the project come to be approved as a CEP project in the first place? It is not a typical CEP-type project. Was Mr Willis, or his then State Government counterpart, Mr Simmonds, consulted about the proposal before CEP approval was given, and did either of them have any part in reaching, or making, the final decision? How much additional CEP funding has been approved since the original grant of $1.974m? When was it approved, for what specific purposes, and how much for each specific purpose in addition to the information already provided by the Minister? Can the project realistically be completed under the existing CEP guidelines and, if so, at what cost? That question has not been answered. My discussions with the Town Clerk of the city of Footscray and with the project manager indicate that the project cannot be completed under existing guidelines. Was there any original feasibility study? Why is it necessary to have a feasibility study undertaken at this time, when something of the order of $2.5m has already been spent? What has been the cost of the 29,972 man hours lost through workers compensation, sick leave, unpaid absenteeism, bereavement leave, inclement weather, industrial action, and removal of asbestos? What proportion of total available man hours of work to date does this staggering 29,972 hours comprise. The project, according to the Minister, was approved to employ 124 people over 12 months. How many people have actually been employed during the approximately 18 months the project has now been going? What was the length of employment of these people? Were they all long-term unemployed people under the CEP guidelines? If not, which other types of people have also been employed? From what sources were their wages paid? For what purposes has the $200,000 expended by the Footscray Council been used? What is the additional $241,000 provided `in kind' by the Footscray Council and mentioned in the report to Council by Trojan Owen and Associates on 25 February 1986? The Minister says that the total CEP grant to date is $2.419m. The Trojan Owen report, the report of the project managers, says the figure is $2.697m. What is the reason for this discrepancy of more than $250,000? How much has been paid to Trojan Owen in fees since 17 December 1985? Why, when the Minister tabled his response to me on this point last week, did he provide figures that were not far short of three months out of date, because he gave me figures only to 17 December? What is the total amount of fees to be paid? Will Trojan Owen receive any additional payments other than fees and, if so, what? What previous experience by Trojan Owen did the Footscray Council rely on before appointing Trojan Owen as a project manager for a project costing close to $3m, without tender? Who are the directors of the Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd? Do they receive any remuneration as directors? Will the Minister arrange to have provided copies of all correspondence relating to the establishment of the Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd? In particular, will he provide material to indicate who it was who advised establishing the company in the first place? When the company was being established, was it known that the establishment would lead to significant extra costs for workers compensation, payroll tax and so on-a cost which has already escalated by in advance of $300,000 as detailed by Mr Willis? What reports on the project have been provided to CEP officers? Will the Minister provide copies of these reports? Government senators interjecting- Senator SHORT —I cannot hear all the comments being made by Senator Evans, but he is obviously taking this in a much more flippant way than the ratepayers of Footscray and people concerned with the expenditure already of $1 billion of taxpayers' money in CEP projects over the last three years and probably another $1 billion over the next three years. I would have thought that it is a matter of some concern. In which way is a State building award more suitable for a project of this nature than the municipal award-which was said to be the reason for the extraordinary establishment of a private company? What is the legal authority for local government bodies such as Footscray City Council establishing private companies such as Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd? What were the establishment costs in purchasing Elate Pty Ltd and in subsequently changing it to Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd? Are any long service leave payments being made to any employees engaged on the project? Under the CEP guidelines, is the sponsoring organisation required to be able to execute the work to be carried out? Was the Footscray Council able to meet this requirement? As is obvious from this list of questions, I am not satisfied with the responses given to me so far by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I am deeply concerned about this project. If the concerns I have are justified, we should all be deeply concerned about the community employment program in its entirety. The community employment program is designed with the totally desirable objective of providing employment and work experience to long term unemployed people. Surely no one can argue against this objective. But given the enormous amounts of money going into the CEP, it is obligatory on the Government to ensure that the funds are actually going to the unemployed and are being spent efficiently. The Government has these obligations equally to the Australian taxpayers, who provide the funds, and to the unemployed who receive them or are supposed to receive them. The Footscray swimming pool project casts grave doubts on whether either of these obligations is being met. I will await the outcome of the financial audit and the feasibility study with considerable interest. It is imperative that they be completed quickly, yet thoroughly. It is also imperative that they be made public. I call upon the Minister to ensure that this will be the case. I am concerned about rumours I have heard that one or other of them, the audit or the feasibility study, may not be made public. Failure to make them public will only add to the concerns and the suspicions which the people of Footscray and I already hold. This concern of the ratepayers of Footscray was clearly evidenced last weekend when, in a by-election for the Footscray City Council, the endorsed Australian Labor Party candidate was resoundingly defeated by the ratepayers' candidate with a swing of some 10 per cent. If ever the Minister needed a reason to come clean with the people of Footscray and with this Parliament, surely last Saturday's by-election result has given him that. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(7.43) —I want to raise a matter very briefly, in view of the hour and the time that this adjournment debate has taken already. I have been appalled by a dispute between a parent and a Tasmanian private school about that parent's 13-year-old child's non-attendance at after-school sport practice. Apparently she has not attended such practice, partly because of personal wishes and partly because of conflicting music tuition. I will not go into the details of this case. There has been long correspondence between the school and the parent involving the School Council and the legal representatives of the school. I will not mention any names because I am concerned that the matter has escalated so much already and what worries me is the inevitable effect on the child concerned, who is still attending the school, but who is being expelled, the expulsion to take place at the end of the current school term. It must be dreadful for her to be experiencing that with the potential attitude of the principal and staff of the school. Incidentally, the school has insisted that the other two children of the family also be expelled at the end of this term, even though it is the behaviour of the first child that is disapproved of and is the central point at issue. I want to generalise the issue rather than deal specifically with this particular case, because I want to ask: What is the authority of a school-in this case a private school-over a student outside of normal school hours? It raises fundamental questions about the rights of the child and the rights of the parent or parents concerned. It raises questions about whether any government, State or Federal, has any sanction which could be applied to a school which exercises its powers unreasonably. Here we have a case of making certain activities compulsory, apparently outside of normal school time. Terms such as `absent without leave' have been used-it almost sounds like the armed services-and indications have been given of supporting principles of `coercion into experience' as being fundamental to this particular school and of the activities concerned being `essential' to the creation of `school spirit'. I would certainly be interested in the reaction of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), but I would also be interested in the reaction of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who represents the Attorney-General in this chamber and who is here tonight. Perhaps it is a matter that is appropriate for the parents to raise with the Human Rights Commission. I acknowledge that one can argue that if a parent chooses to send his or her child to a private school, he or she should have to put up with the rules, restrictions and restrictive attitudes that go along with that-and, apparently, the ability of the school to expel without a reason which most people would judge to be sufficient. But overall, I think it is unfair to the child concerned in such a case, who did not personally make the choice to attend the school in the first place and may or may not be making the choice to continue there. The sending of children to a private school is not an activity that I endorse, but I am concerned that in this situation a child is caught up in such appalling attitudes that have resulted in this unfortunate circumstance. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.48) — As I have spoken before in this debate, Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to wind up the debate. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a peculiarly refined and exquisite form of torture to require a Minister who has been sitting almost non-stop in this chamber for the last two weeks to listen to an adjournment debate that has been going on for an hour and 20 minutes on the last sitting day of a sitting fortnight. But, such is life. All that I can say in relation to Senator Vanstone and Senator Short, as they both raised questions with respect to the administration of community employment programs-Senator Short raised the particular Footscray matter which seems to have become an obsession of his, and Senator Vanstone raised a question of principle about the operation of freedom of information legislation in relation to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-is that I shall refer both of their speeches to the Minister concerned for an appropriate response. I replied earlier to Senator McIntosh's contribution on Indonesia. The less said about that, perhaps the better. Senator Vigor's extended contribution on the subject of various alleged iniquities within the Department of Territories is something, again, that can be appropriately looked at by the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who may or may not care to make a reply. Senator Boswell's contribution on the ins and outs of Queensland politics was a forgettable intervention in this debate. Certainly I have forgotten whatever it is that he was on about. It did not seem to require a Federal Government response. Senator Teague's contribution on the subject of the Liberal's newly-found commitment to the peace movement was one of the more implausible contributions that we have heard in this chamber for some time. But I do not doubt Senator Teague's sincerity. If this is evidence of a change of heart and a new found sensitivity on the part of the Liberals to peace issues it is much to be encouraged. I simply reiterate for the record that, whatever the responses of some individuals within the Liberal Party of Australia may be on these issues, it simply does not remain believable that this Party, with its history of committing Australia to the Vietnam War as it did and, as recently as last year, its statement from its then Leader, Mr Peacock, favouring the installation and the storage of nuclear weapons in this country-with this kind of track record-could possibly be serious about peace and disarmament issues. To the extent that Senator Teague personally is, I wish him the best of luck in converting his manifestly unconvinced and unpersuaded colleagues. Finally, Senator Coates raised a question about the possible rights of a student in Tasmania. I think the best course is for me simply to refer to Senator Coates's speech and the issues of principle he raised to both the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and I undertake so to do. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.51 p.m. till 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 April 1986 The following papers were tabled: Australian National University Act-Statute No. 185-Termination of Academic Appointment. Public Service Act-Determinations 1986 Nos 5, 6, 9. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1986 No. 2-Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Offices-Managing Director, Australian Trade Commission and others, dated 14 February 1986. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determination made under the Health Services Ordinance, dated 10 March 1986. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1985-Part II, Part III (other than sections 45, 63, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 116 and 131), Part IV, Part VI (other than section 162) and Part VII (other than sub-section 165 (2))-31 March 1986 (Gazette No. S 120, 19 March 1986). Navigation Act 1912-Amendments of section 6 made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-17 March 1986 (Gazette No. S 114, 14 March 1986).