Thursday, 17 April 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Bill of Rights Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crowley (from 38 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 we oppose utterly the proposed Bill of Rights because the Bill will Transfer to government powers not given nor intended to be given by the Constitution Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this and any future Government Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political Star Chamber with unjustifiable power Abrogate Common Law and common liberty Set the State above the individual Restrict Rights to those specified by the Bill We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject a Bill of Rights in this or any other form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 30 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 we deplore the proposed Bill of Rights because it adversely affects areas of the liberty and freedom of Australians. It will operate against: The States and our Federal system of Government Criminal Justice The Police Education Families Employer/Employee relations It will remove the power of the people through Parliament, by giving power to a new more powerful Human Rights Commission which is not elected, but can act as a Star Chamber. We do most earnestly wish to keep our system of Common Law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 133 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the taxation proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' are anti-business, They will destroy incentive, by penalising business growth; they will cost Australians jobs and contribute to higher welfare payments. Such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Tax Proposals be rejected. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners most humbly pray: (i) that the Hawke Labor Government pass on the full benefits of lower international oil prices on March 1st, 1986; and (II) that the Hawke Labor Government does not increase or extend fuel taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from six citizens). To the Honourable President, Honourable Senators, and those assembled: The petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia being residents of South Australia respectfully showeth: that the humble petitioners respectfully seek a delay in the new funding arrangements planned for April this year for Subsidised Child Care Centres in Australia; and express total opposition to the cuts in child care which are beginning to have a deleterious effect on children's services in South Australia. Your Petitioners therefore pray and urge the instigation of: 1. Urgent discussions with State Governments, peak bodies representing children's services, and the A.C.T.U. 2. That such discussions ensure that funding mechanisms are fully explored and ensure more appropriate funding guidelines. 3. That such discussions examine regulations for the quality assurance of children's services. 4. That such discussions be mindful of the need to retain high quality children's services and trained personnel to work in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crowley (from 60 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights will do nothing to advance the rights of Australians, because it is dangerously ambiguous and will cause confusion within the legal system; it endangers our Federal system; and, it is to be administered in an authoritarian manner inconsistent with the present legal rights of all Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and all cognate Bills. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the Government's decision on the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Senators Chipp (from nine citizens) and Lewis (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned petitioners respectfully showeth: That the Uluru-Mt Olgas road is a hazardous graded dirt road, which is entirely inadequate to carry the large volume of tourist traffic which is utilising the road at present. It poses a danger to the drivers and passengers of the vehicles using the road. It has caused extensive damage to the vehicles using the road. These factors have led members of the Bus Proprietors Association (NT) to cease operating tours to the Olgas (part of the Uluru National Park), which is resulting in disappointment for thousands of tourists many of whom have travelled from overseas to see central Australia. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urges the Federal Government to recognise its responsibility for Uluru National Park, over which the Commonwealth retains control, and makes urgent financial provision to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for the construction of a sealed road from Ayers Rock to the Olgas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 95 citizens). Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That there be laid on the table the document entitled `Living by our Wits'. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to repeal Part VI of the Navigation Act 1912, so as to remove the obligation for ships to obtain a licence or a permit to engage in the coasting trade, and to repeal other sections of the Act which relate only to the coasting trade. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the claim by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) at Question Time on 16 April 1986 that the cost of forward foreign exchange cover by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to protect itself from the $12.8m loss it has suffered in the 1985-86 financial year ``may well have been more than the $12.8m''; (b) notes that most of the ABC's television programs purchases are from the United Kingdom and that the cost of cover relating to the 53 per cent fall in the Australian dollar against the pound sterling over the past 15 months would have cost approximately 5 per cent, according to leading foreign exchange dealers in Sydney; (c) recognises that the average cost of covering the ABC's $US risk over this period would have averaged about 7 per cent, so indicating that the cost of forward cover by the ABC for the period of the 1985-86 financial year up to January 1986, when the Department of Finance eventually allowed the ABC to take forward cover, would have represented about 3 per cent exposure; and (d) calls on the Minister for Finance to apologise to the Senate for his misleading and inaccurate response to Senator Michael Baume's Question without Notice on this matter on 16 April 1986. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —I seek leave to make a statement about invalidity retirement from Commonwealth employment. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Honourable Senators may be aware that last year I established a working party to report to me on the causes and incidence of invalidity retirement from Commonwealth employment. I expect to have that report soon but in the meantime I have recently discussed with officials a number of matters that have been considered by the working party and I have found some cause for concern. In particular I am concerned that the rate of invalidity retirement, which has been relatively stable for a few years following a dramatic upsurge in the late 1970's, show signs of increasing again. Moreover, there are marked differences between States and between employing organisations in the rates of invalidity retirement that cannot be readily explained. It is particularly evident in relation to Victoria which has consistently higher rates than apply in other States. I wish to advise Senators that I have in the last few days asked the Commonwealth's Acting Commissioner for Superannuation to undertake immediately a random sample survey of persons now receiving invalidity pensions under the Scheme to enable me to reach conclusions on the extent to which invalidity pensioners are earning incomes from employment. This step is preparatory to Government's consideration of a range of steps that might be taken to contain the rate of invalidity retirement and to make the invalidity side of this scheme operate in a more uniform and acceptable fashion. I am now foreshadowing that a number of measures will be adopted to achieve this goal; some will be simply administrative in nature and others will require minor changes in legislation. Departments and Authorities concerned will be asked to put together the administrative measures as quickly as possible. For example, the Acting Commissioner has agreed that the information his Office provides to persons being retired on invalidity pensions will be expressed more specifically in two ways. All new pensioners are currently advised that their fitness for re-employment may be reviewed from time to time. In future those persons whose incapacity has been identified by the Commonwealth medical officer as being such that their health may later recover will be explicitly advised that they will be listed for early medical review. Also, it will be made clear to all new pensioners that if they change residential locality after retirement, this will not ordinarily constitute grounds for refusing an offer of re-employment in their former locality unless the change of locality occurred primarily for medical reasons which are still relevant. An example of the matters that would involve changes to legislation is a proposal to allow trial periods of re-employment of invalidity pensioners who may have been found restored to fitness or whose fitness is being assessed. Under current legislation, there is a cumbersome procedure to prevent pensioners who have re-entered Commonwealth employment on a temporary basis from drawing both pension and salary. This procedure could in some circumstances produce an unintended result for the person concerned and act as a disincentive to re-employment trials. The proposed new arrangements would permit temporary suspension of pension, in part or in whole as appropriate, with automatic restoration if the employment trial fails. It will have attractions for both employers and pensioners. Other measures that have been recommended as providing a positive approach to the basic problem go to means of improving occupational health in the Australian Public Service and Commonwealth employment, and increasing the emphasis placed on rehabilitation. This approach is in keeping with advice received from other sources such as the RSI Task Force. The overall aim is to reduce the rate and cost of ill health retirements mainly through improvements in the invalidity retirement processes and in the procedures for handling invalidity pensioners whose health becomes restored. The ACTU has made valuable contributions to the deliberations of the working party and I will be discussing with them a number of issues that remain to be resolved, prior to formulating proposals for other measures that would require legislative amendments. I will keep Honourable Senators informed of the progress of these considerations. Senator WALSH —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.07) —This rather curious document is a very short one and touches on the investigations which the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) apparently has been undertaking with regard to the invalidity of pensioners. It is rather curious on several grounds: Firstly, there is a Bill in the House of Representatives at the moment which seeks to amend the superannuation legislation, which touches upon a particular case about a Mr Bewley-a rather celebrated case in this place-and which is connected specifically to the issues raised in this statement. More particularly though this statement speaks of dramatic upsurges in invalidity being used or misused by pensioners of the Commonwealth. The Minister has set up a task force to investigate certain abuses he has identified. That task force apparently has been operating for some time, but we have not heard much about it. Suddenly we find emerging this paper which tells us only of some particular cases that the task force is examining. It gives us very little information to go on as to what the Government intends to do. It does not give us specific Government decisions, but is designed as a cosmetic exercise to draw attention somehow to the obvious shortcomings which all of us have known about for some time. The most significant point, of course, is that this is an issue which has been raised in the last few days by the Coalition Waste Watch Committee and suddenly we have this puny statement from the Minister for Finance. This puny statement, which obviously has resulted from Opposition pressure, shows that the Government is devoid of ideas. Certainly it has been acting in a most incompetent manner in not chasing up these matters at an earlier stage. Clearly, the Opposition should be commended, particularly Senator Michael Baume as Chairman of the Waste Watch Committee, for bringing these matters to the attention of the Government. We are obviously making ground if we can make the Government react so quickly. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.09) —If it is true that the Coalition Waste Watch Committee has alerted the public, and presumably the Government, to the scandal that has been going on in regard to workers compensation in the Public Service, the Committee is providing a valuable service to the Australian community. There is no doubt that this is a scandal of immense proportions. The fact that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) had to be prompted as to what paper he was presenting to the Senate would seem to indicate that the Government is not treating the matter with the urgency it warrants. Workers compensation generally, in both the public and private sectors, is one of the greatest problems facing our economy today. It is not uncommon in the private sector for workers compensation claims to be equal to the dividends which companies are paying out to their shareholders. It is an enormous on-cost particularly with small business. If they had not been forced to watch workers compensation claims very closely many more would have gone bankrupt. Of course, there are not the same pressures on the Government to watch workers compensation claims. The Government can sit back and pay the Bill. The only thing to suffer is the taxpayer's money. Let us look at some of the figures. For example, last year one in nine Federal public servants got workers compensation; one in 12 were given permanent incapacity status under workers compensation. Total Federal payout on compensation was $157m. That is an enormous amount of money. Last year there was a 29 per cent rise in the number of Federal public servants claiming compensation. Under work care in Victoria the Government hopes that private sector claims will be reduced by 10 per cent. Here we see the private sector forced to watch workers compensation very carefully. Judging from the presentation of this paper by the Minister the Government now will be trying to do something about it in the public sector. However, it is a scandal that it has been allowed to get to the state it has got to. It is a scandal that this Government has not bothered about this enormous payout before. As far as the Australian Democrats are concerned we believe it is the Waste Watch Committee that has alerted the public to this. We commend it for its work in this particular instance. We hope that the Government, belatedly, will do something about the rort that obviously is going on. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(10.12) —I am flabbergasted by Senator Siddons's contribution to this debate. Obviously he did not read the statement that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) put down. The statement has nothing whatsoever to do with workers compensation. It is about invalidity retirement. It is not a workers compensation matter at all. All of Senator Siddons's comments were irrelevant to the ministerial statement. Those comments for a start provoked me to make a brief contribution to this matter. If there is some sort of workers compensation rort, of course there should be some action. However, we are talking about invalidity and not workers compensation. They are entirely different. Senator Siddons —I dispute that this is entirely different. They are very closely related. Senator COATES —I suggest that Senator Siddons read the statement and then he will see. References by members of the Opposition as well apparently were provoked by some concern about workers compensation. Again, the statement was about the Commonwealth superannuation scheme and invalidity retirement. I do not know whether there is a case for a crackdown on invalidity retirement at all. When looking at the Public Service Board figures for those people employed under the Public Service Act I was surprised to see that the figure is as low as it is. Something like 170,000 full time servants are employed under the Public Service Act. The number of invalidity retirements in the last full year for which I saw figures was 776. That figure actually is less than 0.5 per cent of the total work force. Of course, one has to acknowledge that there would be more if the staff of statutory authorities which are outside the Public Service Act were taken into account. The number would be higher. Taking into account some of the occupations involved in those statutory authorities one would expect that the proportion might be higher. However, if one looks at the number employed under the Public Service Act it can be seen that the invalidity retirement rate actually has decreased over the last four years. Therefore, one can only be amazed at the reaction of the Opposition and, in particular, of the Australian Democrats to this matter. Of course, one would object if the system were being rorted and one would understand if the Minister were concerned. I would certainly regret it if genuine invalidity cases were deterred from applying because of a supposed crackdown which the Opposition and the Australian Democrats seem to think should occur. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.15) —I thank Senator Siddons for his kind remarks on this matter and I would like to stress the total relevance of the points he made on this paper. I also thank Senator Messner for his kind remarks about the Waste Watch Committee. The relevance of the statements of Senator Siddons on this matter is clear and unequivocal. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard page 77 of the annual report of the Commissioner for Superannuation for 1984-85. Leave granted. The page read as follows- Significant Statistics for 1984-85 Contributors in force at 30 June 1984... 315,879 Total contributions received in 1984-85... $315.4m Exits during 1984-85 Age retirement 60 and over... 2,609 Early retirement under 60 - voluntary... 994 - involuntary... 520 Invalidity... 3,001 Death... 561 Resignation and other... 18,258 Total... 25,943 Pensions in force at 30 June 1985 Former contributors... 54,251 Spouses... 17,977 Children... 2,137 Total... 74,635 Average adult pension per annum at 30 June 1985... $10,452 Annual pension liability at 30 June 1985 (excluding the pension increase first payable in July 1985)... $761.6m Eligible termination payments (1 August 1984 to 30 June 1985)-ie. coming within the scope of new taxation PAYE arrangements... 21,900 Retirement rates per 100 contributors Age/voluntary early age... 1.14 Invalidity... 0.95 Invalidity retirement rates per 100 contributors by State Victoria... 1.41 Tasmania... 1.31 South Australia... 1.19 Western Australia... 0.94 Queensland... 0.92 Northern Territory... 0.85 Australian Capital Territory... 0.71 New South Wales... 0.62 Overseas... 1.76 Average age at exit Age pensioners... 62.2 years Invalidity pensioners - Without BCC applying... 53.2 years - With BCC applying... 52.4 years Average length of contributory service Age pensioners... 21.8 years Invalidity pensioners - Without BCC applying... 19.1 years - With BCC applying... 11.4 years Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Senate. That report reveals that the exits from the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust during 1984-85 amounted to a total of 25,943. The relevant figures, however, are these: The number of exits during 1985 relating to age retirement of 60 and over-in other words, people who served out their time-was 2,609. The number of invalidity retirements during that year was 3,001. More people retired from the Commonwealth Public Service as a result of invalidity than from reaching retirement age. Senator Coates opposite said it had nothing to do with invalidity. Senator Coates —I said it has nothing to do with compensation. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —With compensation. How does he think people end up getting invalided out unless there is something wrong with them? The lack of logic opposite is bad enough, but the attempt to deceive this place is even worse. The facts are clear and incontestable in this report. That is why there is a clear relevance, as Senator Siddons pointed out, between compensation, injury and in other words, invalidity, if it will help Senator Coates- Senator Coates —Invalidity is caused not only by work. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Indeed. I am interested that Senator Coates interjects in that way because I have to point out that something like one-third of those people who left from invalidity, according to this report, left, in fact, because of mental disorders. Senator Puplick —Senator Coates reminds you of that. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the honourable senator for his interjection. Indeed so. The point I would like to make is that there is evidence of a large scale ramp in these figures. For example, why is it that the invalidity rate in Victoria per 100 contributors is 1.41 per cent, more than double that of the 0.62 per cent in New South Wales? Senator Georges —The climate. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Georges said, it may be the climate. Obviously that may be an element because I notice in Queensland the figure is much higher than New South Wales-it is 0.92 per cent. I thank Senator Georges for his interjection. The reality is that these figures demonstrate and have demonstrated for some time that there is something clearly wrong. It has taken the Waste Watch Committee to get this Government off its tail to do something about it. I am grateful that the Australian Democrats have very courteously expressed their support for the activities of the Waste Watch Committee and the Opposition in drawing to the attention of the Government something that should have been exercising the Government's mind for a long time. I hope that this is more than an attempt to paper the cracks with an insubstantial bit of paper, and that the Government will do something about this scandal. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.19) —I am stirred to make a couple of comments on this matter of workers compensation and insurance in general. Senator Puplick —It has nothing to do with workers compensation. Senator GEORGES —Nevertheless, workers compensation is a type of insurance which the employer pays to cover his employees if there happens to be some accident or if they happen to suffer some illness or some invalidity. We will eventually have to face up to the problem of all insurance, especially third party liability insurance, which comes into this particular area, and if the processes which are being followed at present are allowed to develop, we will be involved in a catastrophe. We could debate workers compensation at length. Perhaps we ought to debate workers compensation, third party legislation and public liability risk. If we were to debate those three matters together, we would find that we will have to take a national approach to all insurance matters. We cannot avoid it, because in many areas of insurance the people who benefit most are certainly not the victims, but those who are engaged in the various litigation that takes place, which is lengthy and costly, and the legal profession benefits in a way similar to that in which doctors seem to benefit by public support. But here is a level of public support to the legal profession. I am glad that Senator Cooney has come into the chamber because, as a member of the legal profession, he will agree with me. One only has to see what is happening in the United States of America. Because of the tremendous cost of insurance there, employers are now opting out from insuring, public utilities are opting out from insurance, and various hospitals and institutions are opting out, to the extent that no one is prepared to participate. The costs are escalating. When we consider this matter of compensation, let us consider it overall. The Waste Watch Committee ought to spread its concern to encompass the general wastage to the community of these increasing, escalating and perhaps even disastrous costs that are emerging. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.23) —Mr President, in light of the importance of this matter, I seek leave to continue my remarks so that the debate can be resumed at another time. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Before I come to the next item, the Discovery of Formal Business, I wish to state that at a Standing Orders Committee meeting last night consideration was given to streamlining some of the procedures of the Senate. Amongst other matters, it was agreed that each day, instead of the Chair inquiring separately whether each notice of motion is formal or not formal, the Chair will ask the question: `Are there any formal notices of motion?' Any honourable senator who has a notice which it is agreed can be voted on without debate may rise and indicate to the Chair the number of that notice. The Chair will then ask whether there is any objection and, if not, I will then call on the senator to move his motion. With the concurrence of the Senate, I propose to adopt this procedure henceforth. Motion (by Senator Hill) agreed to: That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs: (a) the role of the Parliament in relation to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities and the National Companies and Securities Commission; and (b) the role of the Parliament in relation to the operation and effectiveness of companies and securities legislation. Senator HILL(South Australia) —I seek leave to have a short tabling statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities was established by agreement between the State and Federal Governments in December 1978. It was established as part of a co-operative scheme designed to provide for regulation of the companies and securities industries. Consequently each government which is party to the Formal Agreement establishing the scheme is represented in the Council by its Minister of State responsible for the laws relating to company and the regulation of the securities industry. The objectives of the co-operative scheme as outlined in the Formal agreement are to promote (i) uniformity in law and administration; (ii) commercial certainty; (iii) a reduction in business costs; (iv) greater efficiency of the capital markets; and (v) greater investor confidence through the provision of suitable investor protections. Consequently, the Agreement provides that `the administration of company law and the regulation of the securities industry within each State and Territory in accordance with the scheme established under this agreement shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be carried out by the entities and personnel of the State or Territory administration but those entities and personnel shall in the performance of those functions, be subject to direction by the National Commission'. The National Commission is, of course, the National Commission on Companies and Securities which was established by Commonwealth legislation and, subject to the direction of the Ministerial Council, has responsibility for the `entire area of policy and administration with respect to company law and the regulation of the Securities industry'. However, this arrangement has been the subject of considerable criticism by both practitioners and parliamentarians. In April of last year, the Confederation of Australian Industry commented `After five years, the experiment in co-operative federalism in the form of the National Companies and Securities Scheme appears to have failed. The Scheme has not brought commercial certainty, nor has it brought about a significant reduction in business costs. The final defect of the Scheme concerns the nature of the Scheme itself. The Ministerial Council . . . has undermined the principle of ministerial responsibility. The collective responsibility of the Ministerial Council means that no individual minister is responsible to the electors. In addition, the requirement that legislation amendments be approved by a simple majority of ministers has slowed down the legislative process, and sometimes has resulted in only `common denominator' proposals being advanced. (Source: Report by Confederation of Australian Industry, `Business Regulation-Areas for Reform', April 1985, at pp. 28-29) The Australian Financial Review noted that this comment was `symptomatic of a general dissatisfaction with the present Federal States Consortium.' In recent years this shortcoming has been the subject of Parliamentary criticism on both sides of the House. Apart from myself in recent years, Senators Durack and Peter Rae, among others, expressed concern about the possibility that the Parliament was being asked to `rubber-stamp' legislation which was initiated under the co-operative scheme. Senator Peter Rae in particular objected to the idea that the Parliament might be placed `in a position of being a mere cypher for giving imprimatur in legislative form to the decisions of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities.' For the Australian Democrats, Senator Jack Evans accepted `that there is a very real hazard in the delegation of such powers to a ministerial council, which has no responsibility to any parliament in this country.' And the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, commented in 1984 that the co-operative scheme was `an almost wholly unsatisfactory way of responding to the very real needs of the Australian business community'. Senator Gareth Evans also suggested that one way to resolve some of the difficulties arising out of the co-operative scheme might be to refer to a Senate Committee. The Chairman of the Committee, Senator Tate, has recently similarly expressed his frustrations with the inability of the Senate properly to consider such legislation. The object of the present motion is to address some of these widely expressed concerns by referring to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee the question of what role the Parliament should play in relation to legislation. This reference will enable the Committee to address issues such as: (a) Role of the Parliament in relation to the Ministerial Council * Capacity/incapacity of the Parliament and its Committees to make amendments to legislation approved by the Ministerial Council. * Capacity/incapacity of persons and organisations affected by co-operative scheme legislation to influence legislation being enacted by Parliament. (b) Role of the Parliament in relation to the NCSC * Accountability/lack of accountability of the NCSC to the Parliament through the relevant Commonwealth Minister. * Exercise of discretionary power by the NCSC; capacity of the NCSC to modify the terms of legislation (e.g. see Companies Act 1981 a.215c and Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980 s.58); possibility of a rule-making power subject to parliamentary disallowance. The object is not to review the efficiency or desirability of any particular provision enacted under the co-operative scheme. It is to examine the constitutionality in the broadest sense of that term of the scheme itself: to examine the structure of the scheme and to determine whether or not the operation of such a co-operative scheme is compatible with the notion of parliamentary control, ministerial responsibility and ministerial accountability to the Parliament. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to provide for the election of members of the House of Representatives by proportional representation and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Macklin, and read a first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.24) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Australia has a well earned reputation among western liberal democratic countries for leading the way in the adoption of advanced electoral procedures. But the many excellent features of Australian electoral systems also make it easy to overlook some serious defects. Although most of the requirements for representative and responsible government are in place, there is substantial evidence of the failure of our electoral systems to provide the parliament that voters desire. Figures for the 1984 House of Representatives elections show that 4,101,769 or 47.3% of all those who voted formally-marked first preferences for candidates who were not elected. For every 10 people who voted for candidates who were elected, there were 9 who did not. This is despite the clear intent of sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth that the composition of each House should be determined by all the people. The test of any electoral legislation must that this intention is put into an acceptable practical form. In recent times most of our effort has been devoted to determining who shall vote and to keeping the ratio of electors to politicians in some sort of uniformity. The real purpose of democratic elections, however, to enable the greatest possible number of people to be represented in government, appears to be entirely overlooked. Unless the elector's vote helps to elect a candidate of his choice, that vote is wasted and the voter is disenfranchised. It is surprising, therefore, that almost no-one expresses any concern that nearly half the voters in single member electorates fail to gain political representatives of their choice. This is despite the fact that of the last ten House of Representatives elections, only those of 1972 and 1974 gave parties seats in reasonable agreement with their voting support. The present single member electorate system exacerbates this situation for a variety of reasons. First, with only one seat to be filled from each electorate, it is inescapable that only one group of voters in each electorate can have the representation they want. While it is suggested that each local member represents and works for all the voters in his electorate whether they voted for him or her, I believe that representatives and constituents will find new opportunities under proportional representation to enhance that relationship. Representatives will be able to serve their electorate better if the electorate in question is based on a large community of shared life and interest. The availability to electors of several members in an electorate could give greater likelihood of a person being able to contact a member with specialised knowledge of a given problem or with adequate sympathy for a particular point of view, or willingness to give proper attention to a constituent. It is well known that some members are more attentive than others to the needs of their electorate and that some members, for example, Ministers, are unable to give as much time for constituent problems as others. I also believe that the scope of members to act together on issues affecting their area regardless of personal loyalty would be greatly enlarged to the benefit of the entire country. The fact that many seats are `safe' for one or other of the parties also encourages governments to favour some electorates and to neglect others. Obviously, it is more important for a government to build up goodwill by spending money in marginal electorates than in those that are safe, especially those that are safe for its opponents. Under proportional representation, a party seeking to win government would need to win seats in every electorate. A further advantage of proportional representation is that gerrymandering is virtually impossible. The difficulty of gerrymandering successfully increases with the number of seats per electorate and is an important reason for recommending that each electorate should retain at least five members. It has been argued that gerrymandering can be largely eliminated by fair electoral distribution. While the impartial distribution of electoral boundaries for single member electorates is fair to the parties there is no possibility of finding one that is fair to voters. The main criticisms of quota-preferential systems relate to the alleged tendency of such systems to lead to instability and to place individuals or small parties in positions where they can wield disproportionate influence in Parliament. This criticism is made despite the fact that relatively few candidates outside the major parties have been elected under the Tasmanian Hare-Clark system, the longest-running proportional representation system in the world, even though the quota in its 7 member electorates is only 12.5%. It has also been suggested that proportional representation would make coalition almost inevitable and single party government unlikely. Whether coalition governments are desirable or not, the fact that Australia has had coalition federal government for about 35 of the past 50 years, shows that they are not prevented by a single member district system. We can be sure, however, that a coalition formed within a quota-preferential system would be consistent with opinion in the community and, therefore, likely to have more real strength than a single party government lacking popular support. Replacement of the present single member electorate systems for the House of Representatives by a quota-preferential system would have both immediate and longer-term effects. From the first election the proportion of voters directly represented by candidates of their choice would be much higher. Along with this, the winning of seats by parties would be closely related to the voters for the parties. It would probably take more time for parties, members, candidates and voters to adjust fully to the new situation. The full benefit to the parties and ultimately to the community, would be realised only when some of the practices associated with the present system were dropped. In particular, it would be necessary for the parties to learn that substantial benefits for them could result from encouraging voters to choose freely within, as well as between, parties. The present system and the practice of single endorsement that goes with it inevitably mean that there are occasions when substantial numbers of potential party supporters are unhappy about the candidates endorsed by their parties. With a multi-member system any errors of judgment by those responsible for pre-selection need not have catastrophic consequences for the parties. If the voters were offered a choice between several candidates of each party, they would indicate clearly which of the candidates they preferred, thus, among other things, providing the parties with valuable information. From the national point of view, the most important benefit would be that Parliament would consist of people whom the voters would recognise as those they had chosen. On this basis, we might realistically expect a trend towards replacement of the present widespread distrust of the parliamentary system by respect for elected politicians and confidence in the institution of Parliament. Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, nominating senators to replace Senator Missen on certain committees. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That Senator Puplick be appointed a member of the Standing Committee of Privileges. (2) That Senator Newman, having been duly nominated in accordance with resolution of the Senate of 25 May 1982, be appointed a member of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. (3) That Senator Archer be appointed a member of the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority. Consideration of House of Representatives message resumed from 15 April. Amendments recommended by Governor- General and agreed to by House of Representatives- (1) Clause 2, page 1, line 9, omit `5 December 1985', insert `a day to be fixed by Proclamation'. (2) Clause 3, page 2, line 8, omit `5 December 1985', insert `the day fixed by Proclamation under sub-section 2 (1)'. Amendments agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 16 April. Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a third time. Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had made the amendments requested by the Senate. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 April, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.34) —in reply- As I recall, I was in the middle of replying in the second reading debate on the Trade Practices Revision Bill. I think I was in the process of making two particular points when the debate was interrupted. The first was that the Bill had not been, as was asserted by a number of speakers opposite, rushed in some rude and abrupt way through the Parliament without a proper opportunity for consultation with the people affected in industry or anybody else. As I have had occasion to say previously, this is a very long-standing debate that has been going on about the trade practices legislation. It goes back to the Green Paper at the beginning of 1984. It has been the subject of enormously wide ranging industry representations. Legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives as early as 9 October 1985, with passage taking place on 19 November last year. Amendments were introduced into the House but they were essentially of a minor kind. The nature of those amendments was to take account of criticisms levelled by the Law Council of Australia. It was a responsive approach that was being adopted by the Government, and one that demands applause rather than the churlish criticism we had during the course of the second reading debate. The Bill that is now before us, although resubmitted to the Parliament, of course, after it was split into two parts, is nonetheless essentially the same as that which has been in the public domain in precisely this legislative form since October 1985-some seven months. It has already been extensively debated, of course, in both Houses. The other point that I was concerned to make in my second reading reply-a number of other specific matters can be picked up during the Committee stage-was in response to Senator Macklin's rather extraordinary conspiracy theory about the way in which the procedures have been handled in this matter. We have had a suggestion from him that the character of the identification of this Bill as a money Bill is misconceived; it is the product of some active campaign of deception; it is designed in some fashion to limit the capacity of the Senate to amend the Bill; and, generally speaking, some unholy precedent is being set for which everybody involved should be profoundly ashamed. I think that that would characterise the essence of Senator Macklin's contribution. I say simply that there is no foundation whatsoever for a theory of the kind that Senator Macklin has erected. The description of this Bill as a money Bill, one requiring a message from the Governor-General and so on, is a product of an abundance of caution-one might even be tempted to say a superabundance of caution-on the part of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, which has taken the view that this is a money Bill by virtue of that clause which extends the operation of section 170 of the principal Act, clause 73 of the Bill now before us. Senator Macklin —There was no message on 170. Senator GARETH EVANS —Whether or not there was a message, historically on section 170, I do not know, but I am advised that the operation of section 170 dealing with legal and financial assistance is being extended by clause 73 to make assistance available to parties to proceedings under section 163a-that is, the declarations provision-to the extent that it did extend the operation of section 170 in that way, it has the potential for increased funding for legal and financial assistance. It has been the consistent view, I am told, again, by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, that any provision dealing with entitlements to legal aid involves appropriations. This is not a new view, I am further told, in that the previous Trade Practices Amendment Bill was also transmitted to the Senate by a message received sort of formula. Senator Macklin —But not in 170, to which you refer. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not in a position to respond to the allegation of selectivity in the approach to this matter. It may be that the superabundance of caution which has been demonstrated on this occasion has not been precisely reflected on every single previous instance. All I know is that I queried the description of this Bill in these terms. I was told that, for better or worse, that was the view that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel took. There was no question of any political input into this decision. It was just one that was made on entirely technical grounds. It would not seem that anything much follows from that decision having been made in those terms. The capacity of the Senate to amend legislation of this kind is limited only by the Constitution in respect of those money Bills which have to do with appropriations for the ordinary annual services of the Government. It is not the case that this Bill, on any view-even the most superabundantly cautious-could possibly be so described. In fact, my understanding is that the only Bills that are so described as a matter of course are the Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 3) each year and the Supply Bill (No. 1). As such, there would not seem to be any incapacity at all on the part of the Senate to amend this in any way that it saw fit. Of course I hope that it will not do so, but in terms of the technical capacity to do so, there does not seem to be any such limit. One of the characteristics of a really good conspiracy theory is that it never dies. Every conclusive answer given to allegations made counts simply as further proof of the deviousness and dexterity of the conspirators in question. I do not know whether anything that I have said will satisfy Senator Macklin in this respect. All I can say, once again, is that I assure him absolutely and unequivocally that there is no hint of deviousness in the mind of the political perpetrators of this legislation, that is, the members of the Government. To the extent that there is any desire to treat the Bill in some way that is not terribly obvious to the rest of us, the responsibility for that decision should not be regarded as something to be sheeted home to the Government. It is a product of an abundance of caution-and quite proper caution-on the part of Parliamentary Counsel. I hope with those remarks we can now proceed to the second reading division on this very important piece of legislation. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Aulich, T. Haines, J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Chipp, D. L. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Colston M. A. Walters, M. S. Sibraa, K. W. Townley, M. Reynolds, M. Lewis, A. W. R. Maguire, G. R. Chaney, F. M. (Senator Button did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Missen.) Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 16-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 17 (Misuse of market power). Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.51) —I move: Page 7, paragraph 17 (b), after proposed new sub-section 46 (7), add the following sub-section: `(8) For the purposes of sub-section (7), an inference may be drawn from the conduct of a corporation only in the absence of any other reasonable explanation for the conduct.'. When we were debating the Trade Practices Amendment Bill this matter was raised at the Committee stage. At that time I moved an amendment to add additional words to the end of proposed new sub-section 46 (7). What we are proposing in essence with the amendment now circulated is the same as we proposed, with some slight changes, in that previous debate. But instead of adding words to the end of sub-clause (7) we are now proposing that there be a separate sub-clause (8). I go over again the reasons for the amendment. First of all the Opposition is concerned about section 46 as a whole. We made our reasons for that clear in the previous debate. In essence, we are concerned about the concern that has been expressed by a wide range of organisations in the community, not just by business organisations but organisations such as the Law Council of Australia, which are very concerned about section 46 and in particular about section 46 (7). We share that concern in relation to section 46 (7). In our view and in the view of organisations such as the Law Council of Australia it is not clear that the predatory purpose inference in proposed new sub-section 46 (7) will be taken only in the cases referred to in section 46. If we are not clear on that point-if there is an uncertainty about the meaning of section 46 and in particular sub-section (7)-we are putting into law a dangerous clause. It will be unclear, confusing and difficult. Therefore, we are proposing that there be a clarification of sub-section (7) in the form of sub-section (8) to make it clear that predatory purpose, as mentioned in section 46 (7), can be inferred only from conduct inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conclusion. As I recall, in the earlier debate on this matter the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, in response to my raising of this point, said that he agreed with the spirit of what the Opposition was proposing, but that he would not agree to the actual proposed amendment because he felt that in some ways that would cut across the common law and across the ability of the courts to make judgmental decisions in these areas. On further consideration it seems to the Opposition that that is not a reasonable argument against the proposal that we are making to insert into the Trade Practices Act a new sub-section to make quite clear what we all seem to agree is the intent and purpose of section 46 (7) but which is not clear in section 46 (7) itself. To remove that potential danger of uncertainty and confusion for the clients of this Bill when it is passed, namely the business community generally, we think it is very important that that clarification be made. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.56) — This amendment is in very similar terms to the amendment to proposed new sub-section 46 (7) that Senator Short moved on a previous occasion. I have already given him a full Government response to that. We had a debate about it in this place on 13 March at pages 1032 to 1033 of Hansard. I had also given a similar response in shorter compass to Senator Michael Baume earlier in the debate on that same day, which appears at page 950 of Hansard. I do not think under the circumstances that it is necessary to go over the arguments again. The change of language that is involved in this new formulation of the provision does not appear on my reading of it in the last couple of minutes-that is as much notice as we have had of this further exercise-to be significantly different and it is not claimed to be significantly different by its mover. I will quickly summarise the points in opposition that we would make without going into elaborate detail. In the first place this provision would make proof more difficult than is the case at the moment. Any conduct having possible competitive implications could not be relied upon, and that would result in the enforcement of section 46 being made extremely difficult. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has conceded that there have been difficulties in establishing that corporations have had the anti-competitive purpose required under section 41. Insofar as helping to remove those difficulties, we believe that this sort of provision would very much accentuate them. The particular point that we make most strongly is that it does, notwithstanding suggestions to the contrary from Senator Short, impose more restrictions than is the case under the existing common law rules. The common law does allow a court to draw inferences as to purpose or intent from objective conduct as distinct from relying solely on direct evidence of subjective intent. The amendment would really only permit inferences to be drawn from objective conduct which is susceptible of only one possible interpretation. So this amendment very dramatically limits the field of available evidence which the court can have regard to in making a decision as to whether there has been the necessary anti-competitive purpose. The amendment would remove the court's ability to balance out the probabilities of possible different interpretations of the reasons behind the conduct from which the inference has been drawn. I know that Senator Short says it is still possible for the court to somehow make an on balance judgment on the basis of the evidence before it, but I genuinely believe that the way in which he has constructed his amendment so dramatically narrows the focus of permissible matters to which the courts can have regard that that is simply not so. If we are talking about objective evidence as distinct from subjective intent directly before the courts, the way in which this amendment is cast, limiting as it does the scope of that evidence to that which is susceptible of no other reasonable explanation, I think makes it impossible for the court to perform the kind of on-balance judgment which in practice we believe is necessary if this is to be a useful provision at all. Therefore, for those reasons, which I spelt out at more length in my earlier contribution to this debate, I urge the Senate to oppose the amendment. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.01) —I am not sure whether the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), like the rest of us, is feeling a little tired, but his was not a particularly inspired response to Senator Short's amendment. The other alternative is that maybe it is not as bad as Senator Evans is trying to make us believe. Frankly I cannot see a great deal of harm in the way the clause is now proposed to be worded. Certainly there was some concern back on 13 March about the wording that was proposed but it seems to be neither a particularly harmful amendment nor one that in fact is going to achieve much at all. Senator Gareth Evans —You misunderstood. It is devastating in its impact. Senator HAINES —If it is so devastating perhaps when Senator Evans was standing up making his speech about it he could have sounded a little more convinced and been a little more convincing. Senator Gareth Evans —You told me you were going to oppose it, you dope. Senator HAINES —I beg your pardon. Senator Gareth Evans —You told me you were going to oppose it. You told me that you were not impressed by the arguments advanced in this place. Senator HAINES —I was even less impressed by Senator Evans's arguments opposing it. If my state of mind guarantees the enthusiasm of the Minister's speech heaven help the rest of the business with which we deal in this place. Of course, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has raised the question of inference and has raised it quite justifiably. Since I am in a cranky mood today, and was in a cranky mood to start with before the Minister stood up and burbled on, I am moved, shall we say, to support the wretched amendment in order to get on with something more important. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.04) — With respect, that was one of the most stupid and comprehensively dopey speeches I have ever heard in this place. If we are going to be reduced in a debate of this kind to the banal proposition that the strength of one's commitment to a particular change to legislation is based on one's assessment of the enthusiasm with which a particular speech is made addressing the issue we might as well pack our bags, walk out and leave it to the clowns of this Parliament-the Hodgmans of the Senate, if we have any-to conduct our debates for us. If Senator Haines is unable to appreciate the significance of the change that is being made to the practical effectiveness of section 46, by a provision in these terms limiting the capacity, as it would, of the courts to have regard to a variety of pieces of evidence which put together can properly lead it to produce a conclusion that there has been the necessary anti-competitive conduct; if she cannot appreciate the extent to which the courts' range of focus would be narrowed by a provision in these terms; if she cannot appreciate the extent to which particular categories of evidence would be excluded from the courts' consideration she has abandoned any credible claim to represent the interests of any particular small business community which she claims to represent, because this is a clause of enormous significance to that community in particular. It has been gutted and filleted in its practical operation in the past because of the enormous ability litigants have had, and the courts have had too, in satisfying the language, the criteria that have to be satisfied in this particular clause. If she cannot appreciate the extent to which that gutting and filleting of proposed new sub-section 46 would be further accomplished by this particular innocuous-looking but in fact quite significant amendment that is being moved by Senator Short she really ought to reconsider whether she is appropriately representing the interests of those she wants to represent in this place. I urge Senator Haines to look carefully at the merits of this-about which she had no difficulty in the last debate on this Bill and about which she had no apparent difficulty in the discussion we had 10 minutes before this debate commenced. I urge her to have another look at it and re-examine the merits of the particular proposal. I do not mind a debate being conducted on the merits but it does reach the height of absolute absurdity when one is having responses made on some assessment of the way in which a particular amendment is addressed by a spokesman for another party. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.05) —The Opposition certainly will be supporting Senator Short's amendment to clause 17 of the Bill which, indeed, he moved on behalf of the Opposition. That little further outburst from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has not helped to clarify the position. The Government has proposed and has achieved, unfortunately with the support of the Australian Democrats, an amendment to the existing section 46 of the Act regarding the proof of a predatory purpose. The Opposition, when we debated this matter during debate on the Trade Practices Amendment Bill some weeks ago, opposed that effort by the Government because we were concerned that it was doing more and going further than simply restating the ordinary common law rules about proof of any purpose. The Government's proposed addition to section 46 of the principal Act reads: ``(7) Without in any way limiting the manner in which the purpose of a person may be established for the purposes of any other provision of this Act, a corporation may be taken to have taken advantage of its power for a purpose referred to in sub-section (1) notwithstanding that the existence of that purpose is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the corporation or of any other person or from other relevant circumstances.''. We pointed out that in fact the law of evidence has always enabled inferences to be drawn from conduct as to purpose or intention or state of mind or object or whatever and that on the face of it this addition to section 46 did not seem to be making any difference to the ordinary existing rules of evidence. If the Government had come in here and said `yes, that is right, it does not make any difference to it' we probably would have accepted its assurance-bearing in mind the new rules of statutory interpretations where a Minister's statement as to what a particular clause was intended to mean could be quoted in court. However, the Government did not do that. Indeed, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in answers he has given to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills-we have had this debate and I do not want to go over it again-made it perfectly clear that the Government's object was to change the existing rules of evidence in relation to this matter. For that reason our concern then was very much excited and we moved to delete this clause because we could not see that there should be any change in the existing rules of evidence which are adequate to cover the situation. The Government has seen fit to include this proposed new sub-section. Therefore, it has intended to make some change. In those circumstances a very serious question does arise which has been pointed out by the business law section of the Law Council of Australia in comments which it has made. Those comments are freely available, no doubt even to the Minister representing the Attorney-General in this place. Under that heading of `Business Law' the Law Council document, which was issued some time ago, states: To the extent that a court has always been entitled to infer purpose from conduct the new 46 (7) only repeats the common law and is consequently unnecessary. If the new 46 (7) is to be included it must clearly establish that the requisite predatory purpose cannot be inferred merely from the inevitable consequences of genuinely competitive conduct. That is what the real concern is. The document continues: For example, profitable but low pricing by existing efficient competitors which prevents less efficient competitors from entering the markets should not be interpreted as an abuse of market power. I think that the Australian Democrats would agree with that as well. However, once one passes this amendment that raises the question of whether as the Law Council says `profitable but low pricing by existing efficient competitors' may then be said by virtue of existing section 46 (7) to prove or establish a predatory purpose. So the Law Council suggested-and this is what Senator Short's amendment seeks to do-that we make it clear that the predatory purpose may be inferred only from conduct which is inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conclusion. The Law Council suggested that the amendment would overcome what is clearly the intention of the Government in bringing in new sub-section 46 (7). It is intended to change the rules. It will raise serious questions, and in fact, place an evidentiary burden of proof on defendants in these cases. That seems to be what this Government intends; and this is what the Opposition believes the Democrats are concerned about. In the light of the fact that the amendment to sub-section 46 (7) has been passed, we believe it is imperative that the further amendment Senator Short has moved should be added to clear up that particular question, which may well be an unintended consequence on the new additional 46 (7). Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.11) —I rise because, like Senator Haines, I am a member of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I must say that I thought the point she raised did not merit the sort of response that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) representing the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) gave her, particularly in the context of the Committee's report, which surely merits some more coherent and proper response. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, for example, having got a response from the Attorney-General on this matter, said very clearly: While the Committee recognises that it is always open to a court to draw inferences from conduct it suggests that new sub-section 46 (7) goes beyond this accepted principle in permitting inferences to be drawn from the effects of the corporation's conduct. It then concludes: . . . some doubt remains whether this is an appropriate case for imposing an evidential burden on the defendant and whether, if it is, the corporation should face the task not merely of rebutting inferences drawn from its own conduct but also of adducing evidence to counter inferences drawn from the conduct of others. Accordingly the Committee continues to draw clause 16 to the attention of the Senate in the hope of promoting a fuller consideration . . . For a Committee which the Senate recognises is under the `control' at least in nominal terms, of the Government-it has a majority on that Committee with the Chairman-- Senator Haines —It has never behaved in a partisan way. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. It has never, as Senator Haines said, behaved as if it were under the control of the Government. I take that point. The fact is that this Committee is clearly expressing its concern about this matter. It is a Committee, which in nominal terms, has a Government dominance. To that extent I think the Committee's views should be taken very seriously indeed and should be responded to appropriately. I must say that I am concerned that Senator Haines was not responded to appropriately. I am even more concerned about the consequences of changes which would emerge if this sub-section were amended. This is where I must say I am totally at odds with the Government because in response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee the Attorney- General made this extraordinary claim in which he said immense danger would be involved in omitting sub-section 46 (7). Perhaps we could hear from the Minister whether this danger exists in the mind of the Attorney-General-whether it is a guilty one or not-and whether it would exist in the event of Senator Short's amendment being passed. I object strongly to the way the Attorney-General endeavoured to stand over this place by making this remark to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. He argued that: to amend clause 16 at this stage to omit proposed new sub-section 46 (7) might have- `particularly serious consequences, since an amendment to remove from the Bill provisions already introduced into Parliament would almost certainly lead courts to the construction that the omissions were deliberately designed to negate what they would have provided for. The courts would, because of this, hold that `corporate purpose' could not be inferred and could only be proved by direct unequivocal evidence emanating from the highest level of management. This would make s.46 unworkable for all practical purposes . . .' Either my friends and colleagues who are lawyers are all incompetent or else this is a disgraceful attempt improperly to stand over this place, to say that we have to proceed with this because the consequences of not proceeding with it will render this unworkable for all practical purposes. We have heard that kind of bunk from the bureaucracy in the past. When we were in government we used to get it, that if we did not fix something up or go down the track that the bureaucracy had set, we would destroy the legislation. Quite frankly, I refuse to be stood over in that way and I hope that the Senate refuses to be stood over in that way. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee certainly took a position where it refused to be stood over. It said: If the Government were, for example, to introduce a Bill containing a clause stating `Thou shalt not murder' and the Bill were to be amended in the course of its passage to omit the clause, it would be appropriate for a court to conclude that the Parliament did not wish murder to be made the subject of a penal sanction. However, in the present case the mere omission of new sub-section 46 (7) should leave the common law, and the power of the courts to draw inferences from conduct, untouched, rather than having the positive and contrary effect argued for by the Attorney-General of negating all possibility of drawing such inferences. This is the important point; the common law remains untouched. I admit that I find it extraordinary that any government would seek to pressurise this place with this kind of arrant nonsense. Perhaps the Government can deny that it is arrant nonsense. I would be interested to hear its argument. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee report continues: If the Attorney-General were correct as to the effect of the omission of proposed new sub-section 46 (7) this would, as a general proposition, enable the Executive to fetter to a considerable extent the Parliament's freedom to action in relation to legislation. In a case where a court did consider it appropriate to refer to the legislative history of a Bill under section 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 one would imagine that all that would be necessary to prevent the court adopting the construction advanced by the Attorney-General would be a clear statement in the course of debate by the parties opposing the amendment of their reasons for doing so. The rejection of an amendment which is, for example, considered unnecessary given the current state of the law could hardly be construed as an attempt to alter that current state of the law in the contrary direction. There, I think, we have a clear and proper statement. I would be grateful if the Minister representing the Attorney-General would indicate why this extraordinary attempt to stand over this chamber was made, whether, in fact, he stands by this remarkable advice from the Attorney-General and whether it was authorised by the Government. I would suggest that to remove any suggestion of this nonsense from the Attorney-General's Department-the Attorney-General has to take responsibility for it-and to make sure that it is not allowed to remain around this place, obviously the simplest and proper solution is to accept Senator Short's very sensible amendment. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.19) —I wish just to respond to a couple of points that Senator Gareth Evans made in his response to my earlier remarks because it seems to me that what he has done is put forward a completely internally contradictory argument. To do so I need to refer to the previous debate we had in this place on 13 March. The basic reason for the amendment that the Opposition has moved today is really as a result of the concern widely expressed by a wide range of organisations-very reputable bodies throughout the whole of the business community-about the meaning of proposed new section 46. Amongst those many representations, perhaps the one that puts it most clearly is that of the Law Council of Australia. In a media release of 11 February, it stated: Section 46 is to be changed to prohibit corporations from engaging in competitive behaviour in a market where the corporation has a substantial degree of market power. The amendment should clearly establish that the predatory purpose of a corporation cannot be inferred merely from the inevitable consequences of genuinely competitive conduct. For example, profitable but low pricing by existing efficient manufacturers which prevents less efficient competitors from entering the market should not be interpreted as an abuse of market power. The Act should make it clear that predatory purpose can be inferred only from conduct inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conclusion. On the basis of that argument, which the Opposition accepts, we have moved this amendment today. In the same debate on 13 March, I stated-as reported at page 946 of Hansard-amongst other things-- Senator Gareth Evans —Where were you first quoting from? Senator SHORT —The quotation I have just given was from a media release of the Law Council of Australia of 11 February. I also read it into the Hansard on 13 March. The Minister will find it on page 949. In the same debate-here I refer to page 946 of Hansard-I stated: . . . it worries me- that is in relation to section 46- that this clause is interpretable in more than one way . . . the many submissions that have been put to us all;- that is, the Government as well as the Opposition and the Democrats- that is, the claim that the amendments proposed to section 46, and to section 84,- let us restrict it to section 46 at this stage- will have the effect of stifling entrepreneurial activity and limiting competitive behaviour. I then stated: I ask Senator Evans for a clear statement that nothing in the proposed section is intended to affect normal vigorous competition and that the proposed section is intended to protect competition, not individual competitors. The Minister said, for which I thanked him: Yes, I am perfectly happy to give the Senate such an assurance. The whole philosophy of this legislation is to promote vigorous competition. The purpose of this clause is to protect the competitive process. It is not to protect individual competitors who may find themselves put to the wall by a proper and vigorous exercise of competitive forces in the market-place. Senator Short offered a very apt description of how legislation of this sort should be construed and I am happy to give the assurance in the terms in which he sought it. That statement made by the Minister, really supporting what I think our amendment is trying to do, was also very supportive of the concern that the Democrats have had with this legislation and that we have had with this legislation-that is, that the interests of small business be protected as well as those of large business, and that the Act should not be amended in a way which is disadvantageous to small business. The life-blood of small business is the competitive process and entrepreneurship. The Minister is saying that the Act should be interpreted in such a way as to support those things, yet he does not seem to be prepared to accept my amendment, and in fact, in response to Senator Haines's comments, the Minister said that my amendment would be disastrous. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either this amendment fundamentally changes what the Government has told us is the spirit of section 46-namely, to promote entrepreneurship and vigorous competition-or it does not. We have accepted in good faith the Minister's argument that it is a competitive clause and not an anti-competitive clause. I cannot understand his refusal to accept this amendment. It seems to me that he is being totally inconsistent and contradictory in his two arguments. For that reason, I feel even more strongly than I have felt all along that it is essential that this sub-section goes into the Act to make it absolutely clear what we are talking about. If the Minister does not put that sub-section in, he will perpetuate the confusion, uncertainty and the lack of business confidence that the business community, large and small, is telling us it has with the Act as it is presently drafted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.25) — Let me give some examples of the way in which the effect of section 46 might be effectively undermined were Senator Short's amendment to be passed. In giving such examples and in making that argument I do not wish to be accused again by Senator Michael Baume of engaging in standover tactics, any more than I think that description is appropriate of Mr Lionel Bowen's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. If one, in a reasoned way, points to havoc that would be caused to a particular legislative scheme by some amendment, that is simply engaging in rational argument; it is not engaging in standover tactics. I have made it clear all along that I am perfectly happy to engage in rational argument on this matter. If my response to Senator Haines was a little vehement earlier on, it was because I believed that she was endeavouring to conduct the argument on a basis that had no regard to the merits of the argument but, rather, the merits of the theatre with which the argument was presented. Anyway, let us get past that and back to the merits. Let me give the Senate some examples. Take for example the situation where a supplier is exercising complete control of a particular market, supplying 100 per cent. Take a situation where somebody tries to get into that particular market as a competing supplier, and take a situation where what is happening, objectively able to be established, is that a dramatic price reduction is made by the first 100 per cent supplier already in the market. Assume that on the basis of that dramatic price reduction the intending market entrant comes along and initiates a section 46 action saying that this is an example of effectively predatory conduct under section 46. As the amendment stands, the court would be obliged, in the absence of clear evidence of subjective intent by the existing supplier, the 100 per cent occupant of the market, to have regard to the objective evidence of the spectacular price drop and would listen to any explanations that might be put in evidence by that particular supplier as to reasons for making that price drop other than to drive out the intending entrant. The court would weigh and balance those explanations and make up its mind as to whether or not this was a predatory exercise justifying section 46 sanctions. That is the way the existing common law would work, and with the direct encouragement that the existing section 46 (7) gives to the court to look at objective evidence and to weigh and balance it, that is the way in which the argument would proceed. However, if Senator Short's amendment were to be passed, it would only be necessary for the existing market controller to put in evidence some other, on the face of it, reasonable explanation for it to then be impossible for the court to find in favour of the intending market entrant. It would only be necessary for the existing controller of that market to say: `Well, in the interest of good corporate relations with my existing buyers, I thought it was about time that we rearranged our price schedule and dropped our prices by 25 per cent. There has been a bit of recession running in the community at large. A lot of my purchasers are clearly pretty strapped for cash flow at the moment. Our profitability has been pretty good for the last four or five years'-that is not surprising since the firm has been the sole controller of that particular market-`We felt it would be a gesture of good corporate relations which would ensure the better profitability of our purchasers'. Let us assume that that is the explanation that is given. I think that would satisfy Senator Short's description of a reasonable explanation for the conduct. I query whether on all the evidence before the court, it is at the end of the day the explanation that the court would accept. It would be a matter of the court weighing and balancing that explanation against the clear evidence of the imminent market entry by the new competitor and the evidence of the knowledge that the existing supplier had of that, perhaps some other evidence of previous patterns of business reaction to threats of new entrants and so on. Instead of being able to weigh and balance all of those considerations, as the existing clause would enable a court to do, the mere tendering of a `reasonable explanation' in terms of Senator Short's amendment would make it impossible for the court to go through that balancing act and make that finding. Look at the way in which the language is expressed. An inference may be drawn from the conduct of a corporation only in the absence of any other reasonable explanation for the conduct. This is why, Senator Haines, I expressed a degree of anxiety about the apparently cavalier indifference-not perhaps indifference-or the view earlier expressed by the Democrats, that this was just words and it did not make any difference to the way in which this section was intended to operate. It does make a difference-potentially one heck of a difference-to the practical utility of this section by those whom we are trying to construct it for. Senator Durack —Why don't you then go back and leave out section 46 (7) altogether? Then you would not raise this question. Senator GARETH EVANS —Perhaps that is something that will have to be considered by the Government. The difficulty has been, though, in the absence of proposed new section 46 (7), making it clear to the courts that they were not confined to purely subjective evidence. If we went back to that situation, we would create a situation which was identified by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee as one of uncertainty properly demanding legislative clarification. All we sought to do so far as proposed section 46 (7) was concerned was introduce that degree of legislative clarification. It was not intended to change the way in which the existing common law operated and in which traditionally, as we have kept saying throughout this debate, the courts have been able to have regard, in the absence of compelling subjective evidence, to objective evidence in order to establish purpose. That is all we are trying to do. That is why it has been put in there, and that is why there is still an argument for keeping it there in a way that does not distort the common law rules, as Senator Short's amendment would do, but rather preserves them intact. Finally, I would like to reply to Senator Michael Baume's concern about the onus of proof issues that are involved. Might I just say, because I do not think this point has been directly addressed in reply before, that we do not see proposed section 46 (7) as in any way reversing the onus of proof. It is a permissive provision only. The court may draw an inference. Moreover, the sub-section is directed only to the way in which the purpose of the corporation may be proved. It is seeking to negative the possible needs for there to be, in the absence of such a provision, direct evidence of purpose coming from the corporation itself. I think that is the only point I want to make. We can go into that in more detail. It is not an onus of proof provision; it is an evidentiary provision, identifying in a clear-cut way the kinds of evidence to which the court can have regard, making it clear that it is not necessary for there to be direct subjective intent evidence but that there can be objective evidence. Senator Haines —You mean that around the other way, don't you? You keep on using objective and subjective. I think you are using them around the wrong way. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think so. Senator Haines —You keep saying that the courts in the past have been looking at subjective evidence and now they are going to be allowed to look at objective evidence. Senator GARETH EVANS —There has been a view around, from the one or two cases in which this section has been run and the way the courts then responded to it and certainly in the way that litigants have regarded it, for better or worse, that what one needed to get a section 46 action going was some direct evidence of the state of mind of the particular alleged predator; that is, subjective evidence. That has been the argument. There has been the fear that in order for a section 46 action to proceed one really had to have that kind of evidence, that if corporations, if they were not silly enough to put their proposition on paper or set it in a speech somewhere that they were going to drive out this intending newcomer and one was just left with evidence of dramatic price reductions or some other behaviour of that kind, one could not get to first base. That was the kind of concern-that if one had only objective evidence of actual behaviour and no subjective evidence of actual intent in that very direct way, one was lost. That is why, with a bit of urging from various committees and so on that looked at this, we tried to clarify it in order to give section 46 some legs. I ask the Australian Democrats to think again; I ask Senator Short to think again. I think we are trying to achieve the same result. We want this to be a vigorous competition-preserving piece of legislation. We do not see this as in any way undermining that objective. We are concerned that section 46 operates sensibly, that the courts be able to have regard to all the evidence that is relevant, to balance, to weigh up in the ordinary way, and make a decision at the end of the day whether or not there has been this kind of predatory purpose. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.36) —I thank the Minister for dealing with the matter of reverse onus. However, I would like to point out that element of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report that seems to me to be worthy of comment. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) suggested in his response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee that below average cost pricing would not of itself-and I think the Minister went to the point of describing how someone engaging in below average cost pricing could get out of a situation under Senator Short's amendment-be sufficient to enable an inference as to purpose to be drawn. In other words, he was saying: `Look, this legislation is pretty reasonable. It would not just have to be below average cost pricing to require the court to draw an inference'. The point is that the explanatory memorandum appears to be in some conflict with what the Minister says on this matter. The explanatory memorandum says: . . . where a corporation with the requisite market power is, in the absence of countervailing evidence that its pricing was not aimed at destroying actual or potential competition, selling at below average variable cost there may be grounds for inferring that it is taking advantage of its power for a prescribed purpose. Despite the Minister's assurance, the explanatory memorandum clearly says that in the absence of countervailing evidence there may be grounds for inferring that it has taken advantage of its power for a proscribed purpose. It seems to me that a pretty substantial burden is being passed on to a corporation in terms of providing the countervailing evidence. It seems to me that Senator's Short's amendment that this inference may be drawn only in the absence of other reasonable explanations of conduct will simply help the court-quite properly, I think-in making certain that the wishes of the Attorney-General, that these things would not of themselves be sufficient to enable an inference of purpose to be drawn, are met. It seems to me that, in effect, Senator Short's amendment assists the Attorney-General's interpretation of this matter which appears to be in some kind of conflict with the much more direct proposition which is put in the explanatory memorandum. I must say that while I take the point that we are talking here about an evidentiary burden rather than a totally reverse onus, it still is the general view of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee that such evidentiary burdens should be kept to a strict minimum unless absolutely necessary. I must say that I cannot see in this case why this general rule should be avoided. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.40) —I think that Senator Durack, who is in charge of the carriage of the Trade Practices Revision Bill for the Opposition, will say a couple of words after me. I just want to make a couple of points in response to what the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, said. Firstly, he said several times in his last remarks that the whole purpose of what the Government was doing with section 46 was to clarify intent. The point I make and the point the Opposition makes is it may have been his intention to clarify intent but it has not happened. The members of the community who will have to live with this Act are confused. They are asking the Minister to do what he said he was going to do, which was to clarify intent. In the minds of the business community the Minister has not achieved that. My second point is that I cannot see any reason in the comments that the Minister has made as to why the courts will not still have to exercise a subjective judgment of the type the Minister is saying they ought to have the right to exercise. Of course they will still have to weigh things in the balance at the end. The inclusion of sub-section (8) in proposed new section 46 will not lessen the requirement on them to make a judgment. That is what the legal process is about. I can see no reason why this proposal would actually restrict the courts in the exercising of their final judgment. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.41) —I suggest to the Minister that we postpone further consideration of this clause for the time being. It seems as though there is fairly basic agreement between all of us in relation to what we want to achieve. I have been looking at what Senator Gareth Evans said in this place when we dealt with the same issue in the previous Bill. I think that some of the problems have arisen from statements that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has made in answers to the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills rather than anything Senator Gareth Evans said when he was speaking on the previous occasion on behalf of the Attorney-General. I do not know what Senator Haines might think, but I think it might be helpful if we were to postpone further consideration of this clause to see whether we can get some agreed wording among the three of us in the quiet deliberations that might be possible outside this chamber, in view of the rather passionate emotions that seem to be running at times. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.43) —I am certainly happy to accede to that suggestion. I think that most of the emotion has now drained out and we are back to having a reasonable debate. Senator Haines —Yes, we are all warm and friendly. Isn't that nice? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator must acknowledge that there was a degree of provocation. I do not want to try to quantify that. While acceding to that suggestion, might I just respond to one of the points that Senator Michael Baume made, because it might be useful if it is in our minds when we are thinking about this matter. The first point I make is really to repeat something that I said on 13 March when we were last debating this issue. It is really picking up the theme that Senator Durack has indicated. I acknowledged when I earlier spoke that I did not see that a court would be likely to find against a defendant unless the evidence was pretty strongly biased toward a finding of predatory intent and the objective circumstances were such that the force of the evidence was pretty overwhelming. I maintain that point of view. As a practical matter, I do not see it as either desirable or likely that a court would reach an adverse finding on a section 46 litigation unless the evidence really did stack up in a pretty compelling way. I am just concerned to ensure that we do not have a situation created, as I think it would be created by Senator Short's amendment in its present language, where an essentially technical approach to the litigation could defeat what, on the merits, was stacking up pretty overwhelmingly as a case of predatory purpose. I do not really want to get into what the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) might have said or what he might be construed as having said in reply to the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I think it is more constructive just to focus on what the section really is about and what the Government's intent is all about. Clause 55 of the explanatory memorandum is an accurate statement of our approach to this question. Let me just put the point in another way before I sit down. On the whole question of drawing inferences from the effects of conduct, it would not be appropriate for a court to be drawing adverse inferences from effects which are highly ambiguous in their character and which could be construed as having a number of different explanations of which predatory purpose was simply one. But-I think this is the sort of thing that some of these other commentaries and responses are getting at-if a corporation, for example, which had previously been pricing its goods at a profitable level suddenly cut its prices so that it did not even recoup its average variable cost, and this happened at the same time as a potential competitor entered the market and there was no other compellingly reasonable explanation for such conduct, all that this proposed new section would provide, as it now stands, is that the court on the material before it could then, under proposed new section 46 (7), draw an inference as to the corporation's purpose. That really is a pretty long way from drawing an inference from a mere effect. Everything depends on the context. Everything depends, I strongly argue, on the balance of evidence. There are various degrees of reasonableness with which explanations can be put forward. In a price cut situation, even though, on the face of it, there might be other reasonable explanations of the behaviour in question, if one started getting into a domain of actually under cutting one's own average variable costs, there would need to be a pretty compellingly reasonable alternative explanation before a court under those circumstances found otherwise than that there was a breach. Senator Michael Baume —You might have a marginal cost approach. That is quite justifiable. Senator GARETH EVANS —One might. This is a matter for proper argument in the circumstances of the particular case. I repeat that all we are concerned to do is to ensure that an argument of that kind is not defeated merely by someone coming in and saying: `Here it is. I have got a reasonable alternative explanation; therefore, under Senator Short's charter on section 46 (8), you can no longer possibly weigh in balance my explanation against the other explanation and find against me'. That is what I am concerned to avoid. I am not sure whether it is a matter of finding other language to express these concepts or whether we already have good language in proposed new section 46 (7) that needs only to be better explained. I guess that is something that we can usefully talk about outside the chamber and come back to it. So, after all of that, I accede to Senator Durack's request and hope that Senator Haines might be minded to do so as well. Consideration of clause postponed. Proposed new clauses 17a and 17b. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.48) —The two amendments I propose to move deal with clause 17. The CHAIRMAN —Order! They are not really dealing with clause 17. You are proposing to insert two new clauses after clause 17. We have postponed further consideration of clause 17. Senator HAINES —My amendments deal with the same point in the Trade Practices Revision Bill. We rehearsed our arguments at some length on 13 March. I certainly do not want to take up the time of the Senate in going through it all again. Suffice it to say that the first amendment is an extension of the ambit of section 46 of the principal Act to fall in line with a request that was made to us by the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association so that dealings with regard to suppliers, agents or distributors would also be included. I do not intend to go back over the arguments. That amendment was resoundingly defeated in this place a month or so ago. I was more disappointed with the response that this chamber gave on 13 March when we moved the second of the amendments that we are bringing forward; that is, to add a new clause 17b after new clause 17a. This was taken directly from the Green Paper. It was a recommendation with regard to additional protection for small business and it was supported by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, but it did not receive any support from either side of the chamber. As I said, we were disappointed about that. I will not put the arguments again. That was an informal agreement that we made here. I will move the amendments and watch them disappear again, as happened last time. The CHAIRMAN —Are you seeking leave to move both amendments together? Senator HAINES —Yes. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator HAINES —I move: (1) Page 7, after clause 17, add the following new clause: ``17a. The Principal Act is amended by adding after section 46 the following section: `Unconscionable conduct `46a. A corporation that is in a position substantially to control a market for goods or services shall not engage in unconscionable conduct in its dealings with its suppliers, agents or distributors.'.''. (2) Page 7, after new clause 17a, insert the following new clause: ``17b. Section 49 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting sub-section (1) and substituting the following sub-section: `(1) A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, discriminate between purchasers or proposed purchasers of goods of like grade and quality in relation to- (a) the prices charged or to be charged for the goods; (b) any discounts, allowances, rebates or credits given or allowed or to be given or allowed in relation to the supply of the goods; (c) the provision or proposed provision of services in respect of the goods; or (d) the making of payments for services provided or to be provided in respect of the goods, if the discrimination is of such magnitude or is of such a recurring or systematic character that it has or is likely to have the effect of lessening competition in a market for goods, being a market in which the corporation supplies, or those purchasers or proposed purchasers supply, goods.'; (b) by omitting from paragraph (2) (a) `to the purchasers; or' and substituting `or are to be supplied to the purchasers or proposed purchasers;'; (c) by inserting after paragraph (2) (b) the following word and paragraph: `; or (c) the purchasers or proposed purchasers who do not or would not receive the benefit of the discrimination are or would be able to purchase goods of like grade and quality from a competitor of the supplier on terms in relation to the matters to which the discrimination relates no less favourable than the terms in relation to those matters available to the purchasers or proposed purchasers who receive or would receive the benefit of the discrimination.'; and (d) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: `(6) In this section, `proposed purchaser', in relation to goods, means a person who has entered into negotiations with respect to the purchase of the goods.'.''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.50) — Since Senator Haines has put the amendments on the record again, lest there be any belief that we are cavalierly disposing of them, it is necessary-- Senator Haines —I did not even intend to imply that. Anybody who wants to can refer to the Hansard of 13 March. We debated it at length at that stage. Senator GARETH EVANS —So Senator Haines does not want me to explain again the reasons why we are rejecting them? Senator Haines —Why don't you refer to the page number in the Hansard? That will do. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a very good idea. It will save everyone a lot of time. The debate took place on 13 March, at pages 1033 to 1039 of the Senate Hansard. Senator Haines —Does that include my comments and those of the Opposition, or just yours? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, not even I can continue talking for three pages without interruption, under the Standing Orders of this place. Senator Haines —You have tried, I am sure. Senator GARETH EVANS —I may try, but I do not succeed. I do not think it is necessary to repeat any of that. The reasons why we oppose the amendments are set out on those pages. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.52) —On behalf of the Opposition I simply adopt the comments I made on the previous occasion. I agree that we do not need to re-debate the matter. I raise one matter in this regard because I do not seem to have had circulated a compendium of the Australian Democrats' amendments under the new Bill. The Clerk has very kindly worked out a compendium of the Opposition amendments under the new Bill, with the appropriate references to clauses in the new Bill. Can we clarify whether such a document is available for the Democrats' amendments? Senator Haines —For my working benefit I ran up one for myself which slotted in your amendments and ours. If you like, Senator, I am more than happy to let you have a copy. Senator DURACK —I am not even sure whether I have all the Democrats' amendments regarding various aspects of the Bill. Perhaps we could organise that. Proposed new clauses negatived. Clauses 18 to 20-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 21. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.53) —I am in much the same state of confusion as my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Durack. As I recall it, this clause deals with the evidential burden of proof, the reverse onus of proof, and was the subject of some concern expressed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Correct me, Mr Chairman, if I am wrong in that regard because I will proceed as if I were correct. The CHAIRMAN —You are correct. Senator HAINES —That makes me feel much more comfortable. Senator Durack —Mr Chairman, could I raise the fact that the Opposition is opposed to clause 21 in its entirety. It may be preferable to deal with that issue before the Democrats' amendment. The CHAIRMAN —I am afraid that that course of action cannot be followed. The problem is that unless the Democrats agreed, if your motion is carried, there will be no discussion on the desirability of the Democrats' amendment. If the other course is followed, both can be discussed. Are the Democrats prepared for the clause to be put to a vote before moving their amendments? Senator HAINES —If Senator Durack looks at the sheet he has just been given, he will find that I have listed after our two amendments to that clause that the Opposition is opposing clause 21 outright. That was acknowledged in my working paper. We will certainly not oppose clause 21 outright. So if Senator Durack wants to get his bit out of the way-- The CHAIRMAN —I think we should stick to the normal procedure. You should move your amendments and when they are disposed of, the question as to whether the clause should stand as printed can be voted on. Senator HAINES —I move: (3) Page 10, clause 21, proposed new sub-section 51A (2), lines 30 to 32, leave out the proposed sub-section, insert the following sub-section: ``(2) For the purposes of the application of sub-section (1) in relation to a proceeding concerning a representation made by a corporation with respect to any future matter, the corporation shall, unless it adduces evidence to the contrary, be deemed not to have had reasonable grounds for making the representation.''. I refer the Committee to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report on the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee raised some considerable objections to the reversal of the onus of proof and argued that an absolute reversal of that kind was something that it found objectionable, while it was not as concerned if it referred only to the evidential burden. The substance of the amendment that we have put before the Committee today is to amend the legislation so that it fulfils the Scrutiny of Bills Committee recommendation with regard to the evidential onus of proof being as far as the change goes, rather than having an absolute reversal of that onus. It is something that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee raises on a regular basis when governments try to reverse the onus of proof in this manner. It is something that the Senate in the past has objected to. I hope that either the Opposition or the Government will see its way clear to support this amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.56) — Senator Haines will no doubt be pleased to know-maybe we should have started this morning with this amendment-that the Government accepts Senator Haines's proposal for the reasons that she has expressed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.57) —The Opposition also supports this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.57) —I move: (4) Page 10, clause 21, proposed new sub-section 51a (3), line 33, leave out ``shall not be taken'', insert: ``shall be deemed not''. We had a rather entertaining discussion about the reason for changing the wording in this clause when we were debating the previous legislation. It emanates from the fact that some judges, who shall remain nameless at this point, have a tendency to read legislation in a literal manner that perhaps was not intended when the legislation was drafted. There was some concern about discrepancy of terminology in proposed new sub-section 51a (3). Deeming provisions had been discussed in a number of places and a change in terminology sprang up in one part. It was felt that it might be an idea to bring consistency to bear in the wording, in order that we do not have judges with immense flights of fancy inferring that the change in the wording from other parts of the section had an overtone that was never intended. As far as I am aware, the suggestion that we are making in this amendment will be accepted both by the Government and the Opposition. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.59) —I cannot honestly remember any previous discussion of this or any other clause which would remotely justify the description of entertaining. Be that as it may, it is the case that the Government will accept this amendment. I am advised that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel considers that the existing sub-section (3) is adequate and that this amendment does not change the meaning of sub-section (3). However, as the Australian Democrats appear to be worried about this point, the amendment will be supported. On the grounds of clarification, if nothing else, we will be happy to accept it. Amendment agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.00) —At the moment we are considering clause 21 itself. To some extent that clause has been improved by the amendments to which the Committee has agreed. However, the Opposition is strongly opposed to this clause being retained in the Bill at all. Our opposition is based on some very trenchant criticism of the Bill which was made by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee in its seventeenth report to the Senate in December last year. Those criticisms are contained under the heading `Clause 21: Reversal of onus of proof'. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee is very alert to that matter and has drawn attention to it for the reasons that it always does in these cases. It quotes comments from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on the matter. The Committee's report says: The Committee drew the clause to the attention of the Senate . . . in that by imposing the persuasive onus of proof on the defendant it might be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights. That has been somewhat modified by the amendment that has just been agreed to the Bill. However our concern about this clause goes further than that particular question which arises under proposed new sub-section 51a (2). The reason why this amendment has been made at all is said to be as a result of a decision that was given in the Federal Court in the Mastertouch case. The effect of that decision was that it was thought that statements or predictions about the future do not come within the wording of sub-section 59 (2) of the Trade Practices Act. The decision of Mr Justice Franki in the Mastertouch case has been virtually reversed by a number of subsequent decisions of the courts. Sub-section 51a (1) says: . . . where a corporation makes a representation with respect to any future matter . . . and the corporation does not have reasonable grounds for making the representation, the representation shall be taken to be misleading. It has always been the case that representations about the future as such do not amount to representations on which action can be taken, but of course if that representation about the future is not one which the person making that representation believes to be the case, that itself is actionable because it is a false representation about the person's state of mind. Again, we have the situation where this particular amendment is raising the very serious question of whether it is intended that there should be an alteration of the common law rules about representation so that in fact representations about future matters rather than representations of existing fact may themselves be actionable regardless of the representor's state of mind. Whether he was honest or dishonest would seem to be irrelevant. That is one of the most serious questions which arise under this new section. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee-or perhaps it was the Attorney-General-noted that there had been some further decisions in relation to this matter which apparently added to the concern caused by the Mastertouch decision. In fact, there have been further decisions on this matter which indicate that the actual decision in Mastertouch has not been adopted in subsequent cases. In the case of Jones v. Glenhoun Holdings Pty Ltd, a statement as to the expected return of the video franchise was held to be misleading. In that case the judge, Mr Justice Neaves, found that the statements would be misleading if the person making them did not believe that the forecast or prediction would be satisfied or if he believed that it was recklessly different. In the case of Reardon v. Aquajet Holdings (SA) Pty Ltd., the judge in that case, Mr Justice Fisher, held that the statement as to expected future earnings was misleading. He said that in the circumstances the statements were all misleading in that any person reading the advertisements would be led into the error of believing that there were sound reasons for anticipating that he would earn the stated remuneration. As a result of the decisions of judges Neaves and Fisher, it seems that we now have a proper understanding of the meaning of `misrepresentation' and a proper interpretation application of the Trade Practices Act. Clause 21, in the terms in which it appears in the Bill, raises all sorts of new and additional problems. It may well be that the earlier decision in the Mastertouch case was wrong and indeed the view referred to in the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, that of Mr Justice Keely, may not have been followed as a result of the subsequent decisions to which I have referred. It may be quite unnecessary to do anything about the Mastertouch case. Even if it were felt that something should be done about that case, there are some very trenchant criticisms that can be made of the way in which the Government proposes to go about this with its proposed new section 51a. I have already raised the matter of whether it is intended to be worded in the way it is; whether it is intended to make any difference to the existing common law as to what may be held to be a misrepresentation. It refers to a person who makes representations about the future. Where it says `representations with respect to any future matter' and `the corporation does not have reasonable grounds for making representation', it may suggest that it is not intended to make any change. On the other hand, it may be that we are back to the same sort of problem as we had with clause 46, which we have been debating recently. As a result of the wording, it may well be that representations which turn out to be true would be caught by the provision, because even though it is a representation on a future matter and the person did not at the time have reasonable grounds for making a representation, it just says `the representation shall be taken to be misleading'. In fact it may not end up to be a misrepresentation, but on that definition it would have that effect. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.15) —I raised a couple of matters in the second reading debate, but I will not go over them now because the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) is well aware of them and said at that time that it would be more appropriate to respond to them in the Committee stage. I must say that to an extent the discussion of the case of Thompson v. Mastertouch TV Services Pty Ltd reminds me a little of the discussions at great length about whether section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act was meaningful or not. It is curious now to see that section resurrected as meaningful in a different environment, when it was thought not to be meaningful. One faces the risk when in government of introducing legislation in some kind of kneejerk reaction to the view that the courts are not holding a view that one would like them to hold, but the legislation may trespass on people's personal rights and liberties quite unnecessarily, because there is only a temporary problem emerging within the legal system relating to interpretation. For example, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in correspondence to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, referred to a particular case and pointed out that one judge had held the view that even if the defendant were an incurable optimist who believed that incomes could be earned in circumstances where most other people with the same knowledge would not have had the same belief, in his opinion the statements did not contravene section 59 (2). That clearly leads us to discuss the meaning of the words `recklessly indifferent'. It seems to me quite proper that the courts should establish what is recklessly indifferent. In the Mastertouch case, for example, on which the Government is relying for its assertions that something drastic such as a reverse onus of proof has to be introduced-or a more modest position, after the Australian Democrats moved their amendment which we supported, that an evidential burden be imposed-the judge in that case said that unless it could be shown that the defendant did not believe that the forecast or prediction would be satisfied or was recklessly indifferent concerning the forecast or prediction, the matter would not be caught under section 59 (1). It is interesting that in the Attorney-General's advice to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee he did not mention those particular cases to which I referred in the second reading debate, which were Wild v. Menville Pty Ltd, Ducret v. Colourshot Pty Ltd and Reardon v. Aquajet Holdings (SA) Pty Ltd, all of which were subsequent to the Mastertouch case in 1977. As I mentioned at the time, it may well have been that some of those cases involved findings by the court following a guilty plea, in which case it would be natural that this matter had not been tested. I am unaware of the other case Senator Durack mentioned, but I am concerned that the Attorney-General did not act properly with the Scrutiny of Bills Committee by not referring to the decision in the case of Reardon v. Aquajet, which was several years subsequent to the Mastertouch case on which he relied in his correspondence to us rebutting our concerns. In the case of Reardon v. Aquajet a manu- facturer of carpet cleaning machines sold the machines to persons answering employment advertisements for cleaners, which stated that the position offered a return of approximately $400 to $800 a week. The manufacturer was found to have breached section 59 when the earnings of the persons who purchased those machines proved to be substantially less than the advertised figures, and fines totalling $51,000 were imposed. Senator Durack mentioned this matter. Justice Fisher dealt with the matter of being recklessly indifferent and having a blameworthy state of mind attributable to the project. It seems to me that there is a real prospect within the existing law of coping not only with people who do not believe that their forecasts are attainable, but also with those who are recklessly indifferent. I think that is a most important point. I regret that any Attorney-General, when responding to proper concerns by a Scrutiny of Bills Committee, should find himself capable of avoiding mention of such a finding by a court on a matter that is so material to the matter under debate. I would appreciate the assistance of the Minister, particularly on the other matters, but also on this question of whether or not the Attorney-General has treated the Senate in less than a proper way by not referring to this case which bears so heavily on the meaning of `reckless indifference'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.18) —I am happy to respond to the concerns that have been expressed by Senator Durack and Senator Michael Baume about this clause. The essence of the problem-to restate it-is that by virtue of the judgment of Mr Justice Franki in the Mastertouch case, a representation as to a future matter cannot be taken to be misleading within the meaning of the Trade Practices Act unless it is a false or misleading statement as to an existing fact; in particular, if it falsely represents the state of mind of the person making the statement. Where a person makes a prediction, that statement is actionable only if either of two conditions are satisfied-either that the person making the statement does not believe that the prediction will be satisfied, or if he is recklessly indifferent about whether it may be satisfied. The problem is that it is only if one can clearly get proof of non-belief or clear satisfactory proof of reckless indifference that one can get these actions going. That statement of the law has been affirmed on numerous subsequent occasions. There is no ground for any suggestion that that statement of the law has been somehow countermanded by any future case. For example, it has been affirmed in the cases of Brown v. Jam Factory Pty Ltd (1980) 35 ALR 79 per Fox J.; Lyons v. Kern Constructions (Townsville) Pty Ltd (1983) 5 TPR 98 per Mr Justice Fitzgerald; and Walter v. Viney (1982) ATPR 40-31 per Fisher J. The practical problem that flows from that statement of the law in the Mastertouch case, back in 1977, is that it is virtually impossible to prove that the defendant did not believe, or that he was recklessly indifferent regarding, the prediction in question, unless one gets an actual admission of guilt from the defendant. It is the case, to come directly to Senator Durack's and Senator Michael Baume's point, that there have been cases where, nonetheless, these actions have succeeded. It seems to us that there are only two sorts of circumstances under that existing statement of the law in which actions have been successful, and they fall into two categories: The first category is cases where the defendant has pleaded guilty. This was acknowledged by Senator Michael Baume a moment ago. The case of Wilde v Menville Pty Ltd in 1981 is a clear example of such, and that, I think, was one of the cases that Senator Michael Baume mentioned in his last contribution to this debate. That is straightforward. As he acknowledges, if the defendant pleads guilty, that does not say anything about the utility or otherwise of the present law. The other category of cases in which actions have been successful, notwithstanding the rather formidable difficulties presented by the statement of law in the Mastertouch case, are those in which the prediction was held to have been not believed by the predictor, or alternatively made in a recklessly indifferent way, because there was evidence in those cases which did constitute clear proof of either of those states of mind and the particular evidence in issue-certainly this was so in the case of Reardon v Aquajet Holdings-was evidence of a previous history of persons who had taken up the promoter-defendant's offer of a franchise or whatever but had not earned anything near the earnings predicted, and there was evidence, presumably, that that was known to the promoter-defendant at the time that he made his further representation on the basis of which the action was sustained. So having had a long previous history of disappointed franchisees, all of whom were not in any way satisfied with what originally may have been merely optimistic predictions, it was held appropriate in those cases to find against the defendant. It is the case that the Trade Practices Commission has reported that it received some 100 complaints regarding predictions during 1984-85 upon which it was unable to act because it could not get any evidence of the defendant's state of mind, either direct evidence, which is always hard to get, or the kind of compelling indirect evidence based on a past history that was in issue in the Aquajet case and I think also the Jones case, which was a similar story of past transactions. That, I think, is the situation as a practical matter that is extraordinarily difficult, and it is in order to overcome that kind of difficulty that this section 51A has been written. I am not sure that I have addressed in that response all the points that have been made by the Law Council but I think I have addressed the most important points that were made by the Opposition. If there is anything more it wants to raise, I will be happy to reply to it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.24) —The Minister has not dealt with the point that is made that the representation may turn out to be true. The Law Council of Australia has suggested that that ought to be overcome by an amendment to the effect that a representation, if incorrect, shall be taken to be misleading. It also suggested that if it is to remain in, it should be restricted to section 52 and should not be extended to section 53 or other sections because statements as to future conduct which are no more than reckless should not give rise to criminal prosecution. The point about the reverse onus of proof has been attended to by the amendment that has already been agreed to, but there are still other problems that the Law Council sees in this. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.25) —I am happy to address this particular question as to whether the section should continue to have bite where a prediction turns out to be fortuitously true. The situation is that that is the case under the present law, that whether or not a prediction turns out to be satisfied is irrelevant to the question as to whether or not it was false or misleading at the time that it was made. That, on its face, might sound a somewhat bizarre state of affairs, but when one thinks through the logic of it, it is fairly compelling. That is why the present law is as it is. The crucial time is the time when the statement was made, not the time about which the statement makes a prediction. For example, a surfboard franchisor might represent that a franchisee could expect to make $30,000 per annum and that prediction may prove to be satisfied even though at the time it was made the franchisor had no expectation whatsoever, perhaps by virtue of the fact that a whole series of people had gone broke previously. It might be recklessly indifferent or it might be quite deliberately falsely made, but nonetheless turn out to be true because, quite fortuitously, someone who purchased one of the wretched surfboards might be such a good rider that he wins a championship the following week and all the kids on the beach see this particular brand name and rush off to buy it, leaving the franchisee with a killing, much to the surprise of the franchisor. That is the sort of situation that can arise. It is a rather common experience in the law that expectations which turn out to be not satisfied are simply irrelevant. Another example of this kind of principle at work is that a burglar who mistakenly steals a copy of a Ming dynasty vase, even though he thinks he is stealing the original, is guilty of no less a crime even though the expectation of the proceeds of his work is simply not satisfied. It must be right that one looks at the state of affairs at the time the statement is made, otherwise everyone would, even in the face of a breathtakingly dishonest statement being made which is quite properly the subject of action by the Commission or whatever, have to wait around to see whether some fortuitous state of affairs might arise which would result in the wildly implausible prediction turning out to be true. The fact that that principle is embodied in the present law is, I think, the best answer to the Law Council's concern that something has gone wrong in the drafting of this particular clause. The last point that was made was why the section extends to criminal provisions and is not confined simply to section 52, that is to say civil actions. The reason why the Bill has been drafted in this way and extends in this way is that the Trade Practices Commission was unable to act on numerous complaints because of the law as it found it, and as I have already spelled out. If new section 51a was restricted in its application to civil actions in the way that the Law Council has suggested, effectively the Trade Practices Commission would be unable itself to take prosecutions except in the very extreme situations which I have already noted, that is to say where there is compelling evidence from some other source of the satisfaction of one or other legs of the Mastertouch rule. It is thought to be the case, I think accurately, that prosecutions have a salutary effect in this area, and that one or two strategic exercises by the Trade Practices Commission, with an appropriate criminal sanction being attached to that action, can have a significantly deterrent effect in the community as a whole and be a more effective way of ensuring that the principles of the legislation are upheld than simply relying on private civil actions. I think that is the character of the response that the Government would want to make to that query. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.30) —I must say that I am still very concerned indeed about the Government's response to the reality that where reckless indifference is established, not as the result simply of someone pleading guilty but as a result of court action, such as cross-examination and so on, that there are clear opportunities available within the present law for these sorts of matters to succeed. The response of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) opens a door to me, I must say, to an understanding of something that I had thought was inexplicable because in the response of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills he said: It is virtually impossible in most cases to obtain conclusive proof of lack of belief or recklessness from surrounding circumstances and without an admission of guilt from the defendant. I had thought that in most cases that had in fact been tested. I find that in fact this is not so. For example, the Minister, having conceded that there are a couple of cases in which reckless indifference was established, then went on to say that in 100 complaints to the Trade Practices Commission it had been unable to act because it could get no compelling evidence on the matter. It seems to me totally inappropriate to suggest that the failure rate to get evidence to bring a matter on simply relates to the number of complaints, if you like, to the number of cases brought to the Commission, not cases that in fact have been tested. Certainly I would like to see some evidence from the Government to the effect that it is virtually impossible in most cases that have been tested in the courts to establish this point. It may well be that the 100 complaints the Minister talks about were in fact complaints that did not deserve to succeed. I simply ask him what is the failure rate in tested matters and whether there is any indication, in the more up to date results such as Reardon v Aquajet Holdings (SA) Pty Ltd, that courts may be taking a softer view in terms of reckless indifference or a softer view in terms of benefit to the prosecution than was established in Thompson v Mastertouch TV Services Pty Ltd. I do not think it would be right for the Committee to accept the proposition that these things are always static and that the courts do not change their position. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.32) — One of the characteristics of intelligent species is that they act on the basis of reasoned forethought and reasoned judgment as to the outcomes of likely causes of action rather than immediately plunging into the action in question, crashing against a brick wall, bouncing back again and then regrouping their forces and crashing their heads against the same brick wall again and doing it 50 or 100 times in a row. Senator Puplick —You will tell us the history of the Bill of Rights in a minute. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I think that interjection is worth recording. In this particular instance the judgment has been made, as it would be made by any intelligent prosecutor be he a director of public prosecutions or a State police prosecution officer, about what the law is on the one hand and what kind of factual evidence is required to meet the criteria set out in the law on the other hand. We are back to the kind of issue we were debating earlier this morning. It is essentially a subjective matter-a person's state of mind that he did not believe something. It is still essentially subjective as to whether someone was recklessly indifferent. For example, we may have someone who makes what are, on the face of it, fairly crazily optimistic predictions but made on the basis that the person is, as Mr Justice Keely said in the Miller case, an incurable optimist rather than that that person is recklessly indifferent to the outcome. That person may not be recklessly indifferent at all but may have made some sort of considered assessment of the risks and just built in a factor which no other rational human being would but which is very deliberately thought through as far as that individual is concerned. We have some in politics who behave that way. I really think that that is the point that is being made. One has to establish by some sort of objective evidence that either of these two mental states of mind have in fact been in issue. When we have a whole history of past events which we know have been brought to the knowledge of the person then that is susceptible of no other interpretation, at least that was held in Aquajet and so on, other than that the person did not believe it or if he did think that it might have been believable was recklessly indifferent to the consequences of it. That is the reason, not because there is any need to go on establishing a pattern of knockbacks in these matters. Rational, legal analysis leads one to that conclusion. That has been the position adopted by the Trade Practices Commission. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.36) —My question is whether the Aquajet case had in fact pushed the borders a little further. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.36) —I do not believe so. I do not believe that the statement of the law, as I am advised, was any different at all in the Aquajet case than in the others. It just so happened that the particular factual circumstances there in issue made it possible for that law to be satisfied in a way that has not, in the judgment of the Trade Practices Commission, been able to be the case in all the other complaints that I have referred to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.37) —It is not just the case of Aquajet of course but there are other recent decisions such as that of Mr Justice Neaves in Jones v. Glenhoun Holdings. My advice as to what Mr Justice Neaves said seems to be quite impeccable. In other words, he interpreted the existing Act as meaning: Statements would be misleading, even where they are a statement about the future. This was as to the expected return of the profits of a video franchise business. He continued: . . . would be misleading if the person making them did not believe that the forecast or the prediction would be satisfied, or was recklessly indifferent concerning them. That seems to me to be a correct statement of the law which is the same as Mr Justice Fisher has done. That is the latest decision on this matter of which I have been advised. There may be others. If that is the case I would have thought that the Trade Practices Commission could now start to take heart. The problem I come back to in relation to the proposed new section 51 (a) is that if the test in relation to the representation about a future matter is different then a corporation presumably only has to prove by some objective methods that the person making representation did not have reasonable grounds for making it, even though the person himself may honestly have held that view and may be able to prove that under the more modest burden of proof that is now required under the proposed new sub-section (2). However he would still be liable to what are criminal sanctions even though he honestly believed or could not be said to have been recklessly indifferent to it. It seems really that there is a major change in the law being contemplated here. It is not simply a matter of overcoming what appears to have been some rather limited judicial views as is exemplified by the Mastertouch case and one or two other cases which have been referred to. It seems as though there is a very major change in what are criminal liabilities imposed on people under the Trade Practices Act. It may be difficult at times to prove these things but, if in fact there is evidence that there were simply no grounds for a person holding a view-as has been the case in the Aquajet decision and in the decision of Mr Justice Neaves in the Glenhoun Holdings case-by passing this particular provision we may well be creating a situation in which people in future will be held liable for making statements which they really honestly believed to be true or were not reckless or indifferent as to whether they were true or not. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.40) —I do not want simply to repeat myself but to the extent that a couple of other cases have been adverted to-Jones v. Glenhoun Holdings Pty Ltd and I think another case involving the same defendant, both of which were held to have satisfied the Mastertouch criteria-I think again it needs to be acknowledged that there are somewhat special circumstances in both those cases which made it relatively easy for the reckless indifference criterion to be satisfied. Those cases concerned video franchise. In the Jones case the respondent in question failed to give any evidence as to the basis upon which the representations to the question were made. He simply failed to turn up. At the same time, which is more or less equivalent to a plea of guilty although it was not so regarded, the court had not only to go through the motions but also to get sufficient evidence upon which he could then be held to be either non-believing or recklessly indifferent, and the evidence it did have was from a highly reputable retailer in the same area who gave lengthy and compelling evidence to the effect that it would have been absolutely impossible to double an investment of $17,000 in eight weeks in the retail shop of the kind in question. It was possible, under those circumstances, for the court not to hold that there was no belief but that there must have been at least reckless indifference as to the truth or otherwise of the assertion in question. As I understand it, the other case of Geale and another against the same defendant, Glenhoun Holdings Pty Ltd, was based upon very similar facts and the case was run the same way, again without in either case any change to the statement of the law. All we are trying to do in this particular amendment, of course, is to create a situation where a representor can be made liable under the Trade Practices Act on the basis of having no reasonable grounds to make the representation in question. It is just a more easily satisfied criterion. It is not one that does violence to any basic principle of law of the kind with which the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills was naturally concerned, particularly since, as has been said, the amendment by the Australian Democrats to change the character of the proof on the evidentiary onus has been accepted. I suppose we can go on arguing this all day as to the merits of different legal formulae, but the law is perfectly clear. There are very few cases in which the present law has been able to be satisfied. There is a compelling need that the law of false and misleading statements be able to be satisfied if consumer protection is to mean anything at all, and the Government strongly believes that these particular clauses ought to be supported. Clause, as amended, 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 HILL(South Australia)(12.45) —Today the rural community is again out protesting its plight. It is a crisis which is largely due to overseas protectionism and domestic cost pressures. Both to varying degrees can be sheeted home to the ineptitude of this Government. First, I wish to deal with the issue of protectionism. One aspect which did not come out in the Government's rural statement was the major diplomatic failure of the Government in relation to the United States Farm Bill, another significant piece of international rural protectionism which has the potential to further severely harm Australian agriculture. Rural Australia is besieged by poor international commodity markets, due in no small part to the European Economic Community's common agricultural policy. That precedent was before the eyes of government: How the major economies of the world, when they determined to put their diversified economic wealth into subsidising rural production, can cause major harm to our rural industries. The CAP has resulted in a food mountain currently standing at more than $11 billion, including 17 million tonnes of grain, more than one million tonnes of butter, 790,000 tonnes of beef, 3.3 billion litres of wine and 487,000 tonnes of skim milk powder. Enough skim milk powder was surplus in 1983 to fill 33,500 railway wagons or form a train some 500 kilometres long. In many commodities, I remind you, Mr Deputy President, that the European Economic Community has not only supported its farmers but has made the EEC a net exporter in many cases where it used to be a net importer. The costs to Australian agriculture are enormous. They are estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics as follows: Wheat growers, $290m; coarse grains, $100m; beef and veal, $220m; sheep meat, $40m; dairy products, $115m; and sugar, $80m. The costs, put down in terms of a cost per Australian farm, have been calculated by the BAE to be a total of $1 billion dollars or some $6,800 per farm. So a prudent government, one would have thought, would have been on guard. That was not the case with this Government. We know that because, shortly after the passing of the United States Farm Bill, we had the pleasure of meeting with a number of United States parliamentary delegations-congressional delegations were in this country-and none, I can advise the Senate, had any idea that the Bill that they had just passed detrimentally affected Australia. They claimed to have received no communications or lobbying from either our foreign affairs or trade missions. All claimed that they would have weighed the interests of Australia, obviously a close friend and ally and, more important in this debate, a country that does not significantly subsidise its agriculture-we are, therefore, not seen as the economic enemy-had they been made aware of the consequences to this country. The United States Farm Bill is a $US76 billion package of price support and acreage restrictions, to be spent in just five years. The two most worrying aspects, I remind the Senate, of the Farm Bill are the export enhancement program, where $US1 billion-it was to be $US2 billion-is to be spent over three years to 1988-89, and commodity credits, where some $US325m is to be spent over each of the next three years also to 1988-89. The likely losers from the Farm Bill include sugar producers Brazil, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic and Australia-I remind the Senate that Australia is the fourth largest exporter-meat producers, New Zealand, Canada and Australia; rice producers, particularly Thailand and Pakistan; and wheat producers, Argentina, Australia and Canada. World wheat prices, for instance, are very sensitive to United States action as the United States is the largest single exporter whilst Australia is a price taker with a relatively small market share. The Australian Wheat Board estimates that returns to wheat farmers could fall by $220m in 1986-87. The Farm Bill measures will bite harder in the following years as the United States price guarantee levels decline and, with them, world wheat prices. The fall could double or treble the Australian Wheat Board's original estimates. The success of United States' wheat sales to Egypt and the Yemen Arab Republic may be foretastes of what is to come. As we know, Egypt is a major wheat market for Australia, taking some 13 per cent of our exports, and we obviously cannot afford to be complacent. This is in addition to the existing food aid programs of the United States, such as the food for progress, where a minimum of 1.9 million tonnes of surplus food must be dispensed annually. To put the United States Farm Bill in perspective, the $US76 billion involves a cost of some $US34,000 per farm over five years. An equivalent scheme in Australia would cost some $48,500 per farm over the same number of years, a cost of $8.4 billion. The cost per annum in Australia would exceed more than the Federal Government spends on any of industry assistance and development, housing, labour and employment, and foreign affairs and overseas aid. The Australian equivalent of $US76 billion-$109 billion-would virtually buy the world's annual production of wheat of some 500 million tonnes. So the assistance is obviously enormous, and all of this while the Australian Government apparently stood by with blank faces. Certainly there has been grandstanding since with trips by Mr Dawkins and Mr Hawke to the United States, but far too late. Once there is legislation in place in the United States, as there is, the farm lobby in that country is of such strength that, to suggest that the legislation would not be implemented, is to be extremely politically naive. This new hurdle for rural producers is placed on a course which, I suggest, is already beset with domestic cost pressures which have been the result largely of government policy. How is the Australian rural producer who sells on a world market supposed to compete when he must produce in a cost environment where inflation is twice that of our trading partners, where interest rates are at their highest real level since the Great Depression, where additional taxes are forecast, where-despite the world crude oil price situation-fuel prices continue to rise in remote areas, where the burden of tariffs on his farming equipment has to be supported, with rising government charges which have dramatically escalated in the last few years, and with infrastructure deterioration of roads, in particular? In other words, he must exist with a cost structure originating from this Government-sheltered world of fantasy, the Australian accord, the unique accord, the Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions axis, which has saddled Australia with an incomes policy uniquely at odds with some of the more successful incomes policies elsewhere in the world. Regrettably, the sinking dollar's benefits have been largely illusory due to what I have said to be poor commodity prices and the rising and rising import prices. What is, therefore, to be done? With rural Australia producing 40 per cent of Australia's exports, the sector obviously cannot be allowed to fail. On the other hand, we could never afford to match the subsidies of economies with the size and diversity of the European Economic Community or the United States. On protectionism we must, therefore, work through diplomatic and political channels, through seeking to extend the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and by all other means to keep Australia's markets open and free from export subsidies. We must do better than this Government has done in its diplomatic endeavours in the recent past. Domestically the Government should scrap its accord which, as I have indicated, entrenches inflation. It should scrap the productivity claim, recognising that we now have a world ranking of No. 21 per capita in the gross domestic product stakes, an all-time low. We obviously cannot afford the productivity claim. The Government should end all its additional tax promises, not some of them. It should complete the process of removing tariffs from the farmers' means of production. It should reverse the trend of ever-growing government with continued pressure for higher taxes and charges and the competing demand for money forcing interest rates up. It should revise its fuel tax regime, and I suggest that the BAE proposals would be an interesting start for it to consider. It should reform an industrial relations policy which unfortunately detrimentally affects many of the processes ancillary to agriculture-transport, coastal transport, port practices and sometimes meat processing-with the effect that they are uncompetitive and therefore make our agricultural industry as a whole uncompetitive. There is obviously much that industry itself can do-I suggest paying more attention to improving the value added of our rural exports by processing and presentation improvements and seeking out specialised markets. It is not all there for government; the whole industry can play a part. What I have tried to do in this short presentation is to end the myth that is promulgated by this Government that much of the plight of rural industry is beyond the resources of government to solve. That is not so. Much of it is a result of government policy or government ineptitude and there is an enormous amount that government can do if it was not hamstrung by its failing policies, if it was not subservient to the union movement and if it was prepared to show a little more courage and initiative. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.56) —On 1 April this year in the Southern Star, a paper that circulates in suburban Brisbane, an article appeared headed `Bulldozers rip up Toohey Forest Park'. I seek leave to have that short article incorporated in Hansard since the comments I wish to make are directed to the article. I have shown it to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). Leave granted. The article read as follows- Bulldozers rip up Toohey Forest Park IN a multi-million dollar deal involving the Brisbane City Council and the Queensland Government, West Australian businessmen Alan Bond and Robert Holmes a Court are to develop Toohey Forest Park as a tourist and convention centre. One-third of the former forest, the last surviving major natural bush area in the south Brisbane region, will be set aside for prestige high-rise residential towers. One of these, to be named Bellevue Mansions, will be built on the crest of Toohey Mountain. It will top the new Riverside Centre, near Petrie Bight, by five storeys, making it the highest building in southeast Queensland. Mr Bond previously owned about 50 ha adjoining the Park, acquired when his companies bought out Castlemaine Perkins. Now, in a deal proposed by a joint Brisbane City Council-State Government development sub-committee, he and Mr Holmes a Court are to be given full rights over the entire 275 hectares of the park. In return the British-born entrepreneur and his partner will be required to design, plan, and construct a mammoth project which will have a three-fold purpose. The major role of the new consortium will be to create a convention centre which will attract Japanese and Pacific Rim businessmen here on a year-round basis. ``It will completely destroy the myth that Sydney and Melbourne are the finance centres of Australia, and restore Brisbane to its rightful place as the heart of the Australian free-enterprise system,'' a National Party spokesman said. ``Although Mr Bond is expected to use some Australian funds in the development, we will make every effort to attract overseas capital into the venture. ``Already, a statement in principle has been forwarded to Mr Iwasaki, in Japan, and we are hoping he will do the same with Toohey Forest Park as he has done with that scrub country near Yeppoon.'' Local businessmen and real estate developers say the project will provide thousands of jobs, and give the district's economy a much-needed boost. ``It will be much bigger than Lindeman Island, and will go a long way to turning sleepy old Brisbane into the Los Angeles of the South Pacific,'' a spokesman for the main construction company said. ``We do not expect any opposition from the `Greenies' as Toohey Forest Park has no intrinsic value to conservationists. ``Until now, all that prime real estate has just been lying idle, serving no useful purpose. ``In fact, the developing company expects to generate a great deal of enthusiasm from nearby residents, as this will put a stop to the endless stream of trail bike riders who shatter their peace and quiet every weekend.'' A spokesman for the Premier's Department said the new project was a perfect illustration of the State Government's responsible attitude towards making the greatest use of Queensland's natural resources. ``In most other States of this nation, an area such as Toohey Forest Park would be wasted, having little more than a few walking trails and picnic areas,'' he said. ``But we here in Queensland are more imaginative, and more responsive to the deeper needs of the community. ``There will be some dislocation to adjoining residential areas, of course. The Government plans to resume more land to provide a direct arterial link with the new Gateway Bridge, to minimise discomfort to our international tourists. ``They will be able to step down from their plane at Eagle Farm straight into the new monorail service which will connect them directly to the Toohey International Centre, and to the Expo 88 site in South Brisbane.'' Full details of the project, together with artists' impressions of the completed development, will be made public after the State Government has passed enabling legislation through Parliament. It is expected that the most appropriate date for release of this information will be April 1, 1987, exactly 12 months from today. `This is bigger than Lindeman' Senator MACKLIN —I thank the Senate. I call attention to the last part of that article which says: It is expected that the most appropriate date for release of this information will be April 1, 1987, exactly 12 months from today. Fairly obviously when one reads the article one sees that it is an April Fool's Day joke. It purports to be a report of a multi-million dollar deal involving the Brisbane City Council, the Queensland Government, Western Australian businessman, Alan Bond, and Robert Holmes a Court, in developing the Toohey Forest Park, which is a major recreational park outside of Brisbane, in that these people were supposed to have a plan to develop it as a tourist and convention centre. Fairly obviously the particular article is meant to be a send-up of the Lindeman Island affair and it is flagged, if it needed to be, by the last paragraph directing readers' attention to the fact that it is 1 April. As a result of this article being written, the author, Alan Watson, was summarily sacked by the paper and lost his job and his entitlements. It seems to me to have been an extraordinary situation, one which I believe the Australian Journalists Association in Queensland has taken up on behalf of Mr Watson. I raise it because I believe it is an important item in terms of what in fact can and cannot be written in newspapers. It is fairly obviously a matter for the employers as to whom they employ and whom they do not employ, but it does seem to me to be a rather gross operation that this person, in making what might be a criticism of the Queensland Government's handling of the Lindeman Island affair via an article which was meant to be a joke, on 1 April, should have lost his job. It is obviously extremely serious for that person, but also for the readers of newspapers, that in fact such a high handed operation should take place with regard to somebody who is fairly obviously making a comment, and choosing to make it in a particular way. Because it was meant to be humorous, presumably it shows that the proprietors of that newspaper, or whoever was involved in that person's sacking, do not have a sense of humour. That seems to me to be a pretty harsh type of judgment to make on an individual. Other members of parliament, including Don Cameron, the member for Moreton, in whose electorate this newspaper appears, have also raised this issue. I believe that it is one that should be raised by members of parliament. Hopefully the proprietors of that newspaper, on whose part there was gross overreaction, may now see their action in regard to that particular journalist as an episode which should not have occurred. They should reinstate that person. If necessary, the next time that Mr Watson writes an April Fool's Day joke presumably he will have to make even larger headlines so that these people can actually get the joke as their sense of humour seems to be so poor and so sparse. Reaction came from various quarters. Undoubtedly there was some pressure on the newspaper to engage in the action of sacking Mr Watson. I hope that, if that were the case, in future newspapers in this country, as they have done in the past, might resist those types of pressures which come from outside. If indeed there were legal threats, which of course is another possibility with regard to this article, I would have thought that also the proprietors might resist them, because it seems to me that, if this were taken into court, the most that could have actually happened was people actually having a reasonable laugh at the expense of the people who should not have taken it so seriously. I do not want to comment further on this matter. I believe that at some stage in the future there is likely to be some type of action with regard to this situation through other mechanisms. I hope that it might not come to that and that the newspaper might see that there has been an overreaction in this regard and reinstate Mr Watson so that in fact he might be able to continue to make comments, not necessarily in editorials but by way of articles. He was obviously making a fairly clear comment on the Lindeman Island issue in this article, but choosing to do it in a humorous fashion. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(1.02) —I want to raise a matter that concerns me; that is, the extent to which the Senate was misled yesterday by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) relating to the very serious loss of over $12m that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation suffered as a result of being refused permission to get forward cover for its foreign exchange exposure until, belatedly, Senator Walsh's Department allowed that to take place in January of this year. The request initially was made in a tentative way by the ABC in November or December 1984, but then firm requests were made in May 1985 after there had been some devaluation of the dollar but before, of course, there was some further devaluation pressure. That request by the ABC was not acceded to by Senator Walsh's Department, for reasons which I believe should be revealed to this place because there was a substantial cost to the taxpayer involved in that failure by Senator Walsh's Department to act in what I believe was a responsible and proper manner. When I raised this matter here Senator Walsh took the view, in fact actually said, that the cost of forward cover may well have exceeded the loss of $12.8m that the ABC suffered. If Senator Walsh did not know that was bunkum, as Minister for Finance he is incompetent. If he did know it was bunkum, he deliberately misled this place. The reality is simple: The cost of forward exchange cover in general relates to the interest differential between the rates of interest that exist in the home nation of the currency involved and Australia's. In other words, we know for a fact that the bulk of the ABC's television film commitments, for example, related to the United Kingdom because that was stated in the Senate Estimates Committee. We know for a fact that the basic original commitment was for $20m worth of film. That is revealed in the Forward Estimates. Of course, we do not know whether that commitment existed throughout that period-it may well have, on average, been much less than that-but we do know that that commitment increased significantly by $6.4m. We are also aware of the fact, from the market-place, that had that commitment existed all that time until January, and had that exposure all been of course in United Kingdom pounds sterling, the cost would have been something like 2.4 per cent, because the annual rate would have been about 5 per cent, being the differential between interest rates in both nations. I have been advised by Sydney forward exchange operators, that the cost at the maximum would have been $500,000 for covering that particular commitment, a commitment that clearly should have been covered. Instead of suffering $500,000 cost in protecting the currency, we had this enormous loss to the public purse which is having to be replaced by taxpayers in these Supplementary Estimates. I do not mind if Senator Walsh and his Department, or Senator Walsh in particular as a member of the Government, have a determined policy view that one should not forward cover. I do not mind if that is his view. I object that it should be his view, but I do not mind him holding it. What I do mind is his attempting to mislead this Senate about the cost involved in forward cover; and that cost can be clearly and properly identified. Of course, we might not be within a few dollars and a few cents or even a few thousand dollars and a few cents, but it is not beyond the wit of man, nor beyond the wit of a Minister for Finance, to find out what the costs of covering are. I express my grave concern about this, as I have established that the cost of forward cover against the pound sterling over the 15 months of the Australian dollar's 53 per cent fall against the pound sterling since January 1985 would represent only about 5 per cent, had it all been on pound sterling, which of course would be about one-tenth of the loss that the ABC has been forced to suffer as a result of currency variations over this period. That is revealed in the Estimates. Okay, some people might say: `Yes, but there were some elements that were not in fact pound sterling but were American dollars'. There, as I understand it from my informants in the forward exchange market, the cost, being interest differential, was about 7 per cent-once again a tiny fraction of the sort of cost that the ABC has been forced to suffer because of the inappropriate and/or inefficient manner in which the Department of Finance has conducted itself in this respect. I was very disappointed indeed to see the devious way, it seemed to me, that this matter was avoided when I raised it in the Senate Estimates Committee. It would have been quite easy for the people involved to have provided a ballpark figure, as in fact I was able to obtain from money market operators, instead of being told that it would depend upon particular circumstances. Of course, it would depend upon particular circumstances. Of course, it would depend upon particular circumstances at the time, but the average figures are readily available and if the ABC had not in fact been able to get something like the average figure, I would be massively surprised. The figures quite clearly indicate that the $12.8m extra bill does not relate to any increased costs other than increased costs relating to devaluation. I want to stress then that, at the outside, the cost of covering this appears likely not to have exceeded something like $800,000, perhaps up to $1m, depending on two matters: Firstly, whether the full amount of the exposure existed throughout the whole of that seven-month period from 1 July until January, when belated approval was given, and, secondly, where in fact the exposure lay-did it lie in pound sterling, or other currencies where there was a greater cost of covering? I believe this Senate is owed an explanation. When Senator Walsh said quite clearly and uncomplicatedly that the cost of cover may well have exceeded the S12.8m loss, that was-and I say it uncomplicatedly-false. It could not possibly be true. The exposure level is the relevant figure that demonstrates that to be totally false. There is no doubt that the Minister owes this place an apology and that his Department clearly owes the ABC an apology for preventing this instrumentality from covering its exposure. I also would regard it as unfortunate that neither the ABC's annual report nor its estimates for last year indicate that the cost of foreign exchange losses last year was as a result of the Department of Finance not acceding to its initial response in November 1984. It appears to me that one may well be looking at an even larger loss than the $12.8m reported this year. Here we have the Department of Finance, which is supposed to be protecting the interests of taxpayers, protecting the revenue, if you like, from excessive loss and excessive spending by departments, being a party to a situation in which the Australian taxpayer loses at least $12m this year, by the look of things, and probably as much, if not more, in the last financial year. I would simply like to add one other point on a totally different issue. It seems to me that this question of retirement for invalidity from the Commonwealth Public Service raises almost as many questions as the compensation scandal that was revealed at the weekend by the Waste Watch Committee. I have already, in another context, referred to the extraordinary fact that more people retired from the Commonwealth Public Service-at least those covered by the Superannuation Commissioner-from invalidity last year than in fact retired because they had reached retirement age. That certainly was curious enough, but what interests me is to look through the departments to see those departments where more people left for that purpose. We looked at the Australian National Railways Commission when looking at compensation and found that there was something like an effective 30 per cent compensation rate-30 per cent of the staff, of the employees, went off on compensation at one stage or another. Here we see that 27 retired from invalidity and that only 17 retired as a result of age. In the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations 41 last year retired from invalidity; only 21 reached retiring age and retired. In the Department of Finance there was a high rate of invalidity. For example, 60 retired from invalidity as against 72 for age. In the Department of Health, the same number retired-ironic as it may seem-from invalidity as retired from age. Obviously the Health Department does not produce an aura of health. In the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, 39 retired from invalidity and 35 as a result of reaching retirement age. In postal activities, 487 retired because of invalidity; 304 as a result of age. As to the Department of the Special Minister of State, I do not know what impact the presence of Paddington Bear has on that Department, but 68 retired from invalidity and only 13 reached retirement age to retire. I do not know what special aura Mr Young has, but it certainly seems to make his Department sick! We come to Telecom: 1,090 retired from invalidity but only 717 reached retirement age. There is no doubt a desperate need to examine these figures, just as there is to find out why, for example, in Victoria twice as many people retired from invalidity as retired from age but in New South Wales many more reached retirement age-for example, 975 reached retirement age and only 530 were invalided out. In every other State more were invalided out than reached retirement age. Were it not for this extraordinarily good performance in New South Wales, the figures on invalidity retirements would be far, far higher and, I believe, disgracefully so. There are also some curious matters relating to the reason for retirement, and the Commissioner's report clearly shows this extraordinary thing: In Victoria 309 people retired from invalidity on the basis of neuroses, as against 95 in New South Wales. I do not know what is specifically neurotic about, firstly, being in Victoria and, secondly, working in the Public Service in Victoria, but these are most curious figures and this Government had better look into them to find out why. Is there something wrong in the work force in Victoria or is this some kind of ramp? I feel that when figures like this have been presented to the Government, and on which no action has been taken, the Senate has every reason to wonder what on earth is going on. I am determined to keep pursuing this kind of what appears to be questionable expenditure, or at least questionable decisions. It may be that the Government has to use this device to get people out of the Public Service because it cannot sack them. In that case, it would be much better if in fact different kinds of rules were introduced into the Public Service so that this kind of invalidity was not used as a device to cover up other matters. Sitting suspended from 1.17 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. I stress that I ask him the question in his capacity as Minister for Finance and not as the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I might ask him the same question in that capacity later. I refer to the confusion of statements which have come from Government Ministers on the question of the quarantining of farm losses. I refer to his statement that the $65m cost to revenue quoted by the Minister for Primary Industry is incorrect. I ask the Minister: What is the actual cost to revenue of the decision not to proceed with the Government's proposal? Senator WALSH —There is no confusion about this other than that which the Opposition has tried to drum up. The $65m is a gross figure. It is the figure that was in the estimates which came from Treasury at about the end of last year or whenever it was that Mr Keating last spoke definitively on the subject after negotiation with the Democrats. It is a gross figure. There are some offsets, one of which was specifically identified in Mr Kerin's statement; that is, the change in stock valuation. Others were alluded to with this reference: The problem of tax abuse in the primary production area will now be addressed with more closely targeted remedies. He gave one of them. He alluded to others in the speech-I think he did in the speech, but certainly elsewhere-in that the Treasurer is proposing to attempt to curb the other excesses and abuses which are taking place in this area administratively. It is not possible to quantify that figure. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his careful statement that the $65m is a gross figure. I remind him that at the time the rural statement was put down the Hon. Chris Hurford, as the Acting Treasurer, also made a statement. I quote from the top of page 3 of that statement, where he said: Not proceeding with the quarantining measure involves net revenue forgone by the Commonwealth of about $65 million . . . I ask him how he squares the statement of the Acting Treasurer with the answer he has just given. Senator WALSH —I do not know. I have never seen that net figure before. The $65m was the figure that has been in all the papers that have been put before the Government in the last few months. Mr Kerin identified $10m as the once-off revenue gain of one measure which Mr Kerin mentioned in his statement. Senator ELSTOB —My question is to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. The latest issue of Defence Industry reports that a French aerospace company has proposed a collaborative arrangement to establish a helicopter industry in this country. What is the order of the proposed investment? In what ways will it be of benefit to this country? Do such proposals for investments by overseas companies indicate international confidence in the future of this country under the economic management of Labor governments? Senator BUTTON —A number of international companies have had discussions with the Australian aircraft industry and with the Government in relation to both future defence contracts and the possibilities of establishing manufacturing activities for helicopters in Australia. The French company to which Senator Elstob refers is Aerospatiale. As I understand it, it has tendered for a military contract, together with other overseas companies. It is part of the proposal of Aerospatiale that there should be a manufacturing facility of some kind established in Australia. I am unable to answer that part of the question about the total investment proposed in that project at this time. I think the figure has changed from time to time, but there is a substantial proposed investment figure in respect of that industry. I think it is important to indicate to Senator Elstob that it has always been thought an attractive notion to have an Australian helicopter industry. After all, helicopters look like being important in the medium and long term future. But it has been a view articulated, I think, in a report of the Bureau of Industry Economics on the aerospace industry and, as a result of interdepartmental discussions, that it may well be a better course for Australia to adopt a role of participating in overseas industries on a collaborative basis so that the Australian industry would be collaborating and producing part of the products required in the helicopter industry on a world-wide basis and with a world-wide market rather than concentrating on producing the whole product in Australia. That is an issue which is subject to current debate. Insofar as Senator Elstob asked me for the exact investment figure currently proposed in respect of the Aerospatiale proposal, I will obtain that figure for him and give him an early answer on that question. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer. I again refer to the statement made by the Acting Treasurer yesterday and to the fact that that statement says: Not proceeding with the quarantining measure involves net revenue forgone by the Commonwealth of about $65 million in 1987-88 . . . I point out to the Minister that the trading stock measures, which are also referred to in the statement and which the Minister referred to, are quite separate from the quarantining issue. I ask the Minister: Can he tell the Senate what is the net cost to revenue of either the reversal of the quarantining measure or the adjustment of it, whatever the Minister likes to call it, in 1987-88? If he cannot give us that figure, will he undertake to get it for the Senate as soon as possible and, if possible, today? Senator WALSH —When the Government decided not to proceed with the quarantining measure, it was part of the same decision to do a few other things, one of which was the stock valuation adjustment which has been referred to already. Although in the direct legislative sense that was not part of the quarantine measures with which the Government will not proceed, it was part of the broader policy decision which was made at that time. In regard to the reference to net figures, on page 60 of Mr Kerin's economic and rural policy statement there is this passage which I draw to the attention of the honourable senators: Quarantining and the associated improved averaging provisions will not be proceeded with. I am having it checked now. Mr Hurford's reference to net may well have been net of the quarantining provision and the previously proposed changes to averaging. Senator DEVLIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. Concern has been expressed for some time at the design faults in the Cameron Offices complex in the Australian Capital Territory. Latest reports indicate that some structural damage may have been caused by water penetration to the reinforced concrete beams in the building. Will the Minister give assurances that the structure of the Cameron Offices is safe? Senator GIETZELT —There has been some concern and comment about the problems involving the Cameron Offices. Fortunately with the dry period in Canberra it has not been as difficult as it may be currently. The Cameron Offices do have two problems with water penetration. The first one involves water leaks through the roof. The second involves water penetration of the reinforcing to some of the bearing columns and beams within the building itself which, if left unchecked, could cause structural problems in the long term to the main building. The Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services have developed a maintenance strategy to rectify the two particular problems referred to by Senator Devlin. The Department of Housing and Construction has advised that the building is now safe and no restrictions need to be placed on its use and occupancy. Senator MACKLIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is it true that the Commonwealth Government had the power under the World Heritage Property Conservation Act to intervene in the Lindeman Island development proposal by East-West Airlines Ltd? Will the Minister ensure that a clarifying public statement is made in order that the Australian public not be misled by the inaccurate statements of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment made on 4 and 15 April, by Press release and letter to the editor of the Age, as to the true extent of Commonwealth powers in this important area? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, Senator Macklin asked for a legal opinion which is, of course, outside the ambit of Standing Orders. I will refer the question to the Attorney-General to see what response he might, nonetheless, care to make. Senator MORRIS —I direct my question to the Minister for Education. Has the Minister seen the article in today's Sydney Morning Herald which reports comments of Mr Hugh Hudson to the effect that no university will be provided for the west of Sydney as so few students from that area obtain the higher school certificate? Does the Minister not agree that the establishment of a university in the west would act as a strong incentive for students to attempt and succeed in obtaining their higher school certificate, knowing that a university would be accessible to them? Did Mr Hudson visit the west of Sydney before he expressed his view? Senator RYAN —Senator Morris's question is in several parts. The answer to the last part of the question is yes. I am aware of a meeting that Mr Hudson attended in the company of the State Minister for Education, Rodney Cavalier, and several State and Federal members who represent the west of Sydney. That meeting was held several months ago. At that stage Mr Hudson made, I think, a very comprehensive and sensitive statement about the need to have further higher education opportunities in the west. So I am very well aware of that visit at least and it may well be that Mr Hudson has visited the Nepean College of Advanced Education, which is the fastest growing CAE in New South Wales, and Hawkesbury Agricultural College, which services the west as well as serving the State's specialist agricultural areas. So Mr Hudson is certainly very familiar with the educational problems and the educational services being provided in the west and his advice on the Parry report comes from a very comprehensive understanding of the problems in the west. I certainly endorse Mr Hudson's assessment that, while participation rates in upper secondary education are so low, the question of further and higher education opportunities is one that cannot easily be answered. The sad fact of the matter is that school participation rates to the end of year 12 in the western suburbs of Sydney are amongst the lowest in Australia. That is a regrettable fact. I know that the present State Minister for Education, Rodney Cavalier, also regrets that fact and is very concerned to address that disadvantage. However, until we can make a dramatic improvement in the participation rates of students in the western suburbs, those students will continue to be disadvantaged in their access to CAEs and universities, whether they have to travel to those institutions or whether they do not. Although I agree with the comment in Senator Morris's question that the existence of a university facility in the west would be an encouragement to students to persist with their education, that is not the only way that increased participation can be encouraged. I remind Senator Morris and other honourable senators that we also have a very low secondary participation rate in disadvantaged areas in the inner city areas of Sydney. For example, places like Marrickville are geographically very close to Sydney University but they still have very low participation rates because of other factors such as poverty, disadvantage, and a very high number of newly arrived migrants. So the problem is a complex one. It is certainly true that one element in addressing the problem would be a drastic improvement in the opportunities available at upper secondary levels in the west. As well as that, I point out to Senator Morris that Mr Hudson, the Chairman of the Tertiary Education Commission, in his advice to me on the Parry report, proposed the option of a university college-that is, a college or a campus of an existing university in New South Wales being developed in the west to give greater access to students in the triennium 1988-91. I am going to discuss that proposal, along with other proposals for improving higher education opportunities in the west, with the Government of New South Wales in the very near future. I hope that we can work together to achieve very real improvements in opportunities, including the planning and development of university level education in the west. Senator COLLARD —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Given the criticism in the recent Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service annual report about the behaviour of some Indonesian fishermen who have watering access to Ashmore Reef, will the Minister confirm that a new memorandum is being drafted and that this process has been in the hands of the Department of Foreign Affairs for the last six months? If there is to be a new memorandum, can the Minister indicate when it will come into force? How does the Minister envisage that the existing provisions, and any new provisions, will be more adequately enforced? Senator RYAN —Following breaches of the existing memorandum of understanding by Indonesian fishermen, a new memorandum has been drafted. Under the new proposal, landing rights to all islands would be withdrawn and fishermen restricted to using hand lines from traditional vessels-that is, those propelled only by paddle and/or sail. Fishermen would also be prohibited from leaving their craft in the lagoon to gather sedentary marine organisms. The original rationale for allowing landing rights on Ashmore Reef, that of obtaining fresh water, is not valid. The well on West Island is almost always dry and cholera has been found in the water when it is not. The new memorandum of understanding will be negotiated between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Indonesian Government. In the interim, surveillance of Ashmore Reef will continue and every effort will be made to enforce the provisions of the existing memorandum. I acknowledge that Senator Collard asked a question about the timetable for the development of the new MOU and monitoring arrangements. I do not have that additional information. I will seek it from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and make it available to the honourable senator as soon as possible. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Following the highly successful experience in Western Australia whereby the Cape Leeuwin lighthouse was opened to tourists, can the Minister say whether there are any plans to extend that policy to other lighthouses, particularly in view of the fact that lighthouses are extremely popular attractions and offer the taxpayer a good example of services the Government is providing? Senator GIETZELT —As Senator Childs suggests, the opening up of Cape Leeuwin lighthouse in Western Australia is a very valuable experience for the tourist industry. The Government's approach in this respect has been proven to be correct. Lighthouses are very attractive tourist destinations. Not only are they a longstanding part of history and of great heritage interest but also they have an attachment to the romance of the sea and the perils of being shipwrecked which are associated with various regions. Generally speaking, they are located at scenic spots of some interest to the tourist industry. Therefore, the Cape Leeuwin experience has been a very good one and the local tourist authorities have provided guides and collected the nominal entrance fees. This has prompted the Government to examine proposals to extend that experience to many other parts of Australia. It is now the Government's intention to extend this facility to other tourist organisations. Negotiations have been conducted in regard to other lighthouses, particularly those on the eastern coast of Australia. The Government has currently under consideration lighthouses at such locations as Byron Bay and Port Macquarie in New South Wales, Cape Schanck in Victoria, Low Head and Bruny in Tasmania and Moreton in Queensland. It is currently considering extending the experience in Western Australia and opening up other lighthouses for public inspection. These lighthouses would then become tourist attractions. This is seen as part of the work being carried out for the bicentennial year in 1988. The proposal that the Government is considering at the moment is how it can give stimulus to the tourist industry, because in most cases those lighthouses are in areas where stimulation will have some attraction for employment and small local industries. Senator PARER —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. How confident is the Minister of the Prime Minister in his role as self-appointed mediator in the current conflict between the United States of America and Libya, particularly in view of his past practice in the Australian Council of Trade Unions of successful intervention after industrial disputation is over? Senator BUTTON —One of the most encouraging things about this Government's approach to the very real crisis which has arisen from the action of the United States in Libya is that the public utterances by our representative in the United Nations and by the Prime Minister were couched in very modest terms. That is refreshing and I think it should be welcomed rather than have the sort of snide cynical question which Senator Parer asked. Too often in the past we have tended to adopt a very high profile on some of these issues for what in fact we are, which is a relatively small country. I believe that relatively small countries can exert great influences in international affairs as long as they do not overinflate their estimation of their capacity to exert that influence. I argue, for example, that Sweden-as a small country-in terms of reduction in international tension over many years, has exerted an enormous influence, having regard to its size. Its contribution to the United Nations, to overseas aid and to various peacekeeping forces throughout the world, and so on, has been totally disproportionate to the size of its population. In today's reported statement to the United Nations a role was suggested for this country but, as I said, it was couched in very modest terms. As I understand it, from what I have seen of reports from New York, the Prime Minister has approached the issue in exactly the same way. That approach should be welcomed by all those who are genuinely concerned to see a reduction in international tension and not some knee-jerk tribal loyalty response to what has happened in Libya that has been apparent from some political activists and commentators in this country in the last few days. Senator TATE —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that home heating oil prices have risen recently despite falls in crude oil prices? Will the Minister indicate possible reasons for this discrepancy which is of great concern to over 20,000 Tasmanian householders, and, no doubt, to many mainland users? Given that home heating oil is a non-notifiable product and is therefore excluded from the regime of the Prices Surveillance Authority, will the Minister inform the Senate of measures open to the Government to overcome this problem? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have received a number of representations on this matter over the last few weeks, in response to which I have asked the Treasurer to consider whether the Prices Surveillance Authority should reintroduce formal surveillance over the presently non-notifiable petroleum products-that is to say, heating oil, kerosene, fuel oil, industrial diesel, bitumen and naptha. The question as to the reintroduction of formal surveillance is now being actively considered, but it is not yet finally resolved. In the meantime, however, the Government has received some very useful information from the PSA about present price patterns in those pro- ducts, pursuant to the arrangement which has applied since 1984 whereby the oil companies undertook to continue to provide the PSA with information on costs and prices for those products to enable the Authority to remain generally informed on the range of products and to be able to recommend the reintroduction of surveillance of that should be warranted. It appears that five of the oil companies have reduced the wholesale prices of some or all of the non-notifiable products, but including in each case heating oil and lighting kerosene, since the March import parity price adjustment. The price reductions for these products have been broadly in line with the reductions in the maximum wholesale prices for notifiable petroleum products, after allowance for differences in excise rates. In particular, it is the case that Esso reduced its prices for all non-notifiable products except bitumen by 9c per litre, on 15 March. Mobil Oil reduced its prices for heating oil and lighting kerosene by 10.1c per litre on 8 April. Shell came to the party a couple of days ago by reducing its price for all non-notifiable products by around 8 1/2c per litre, on 14 April. Ampol reduced its prices for all non-notifiable products except lubricants by 9c per litre, again on 14 April. BP is to reduce its prices for all non-notifiable products by around 10c per litre today. That leaves only Caltex. Maybe in the light of this information being made public, even though Caltex is more strapped than most of the industry, at least in the volume of its public representations in relation to stock losses, I hope it may be possible as a result for those price reductions to flow there too. In view of those developments that I have just indicated, it is not clear that the problem is quite as severe as the representations that I have been receiving on this issue and, again, as Senator Tate's question would suggest. Nonetheless, the Government is particularly concerned to ensure that consumers, particularly pensioners who are so often dependent on these products, get the benefit of the lower crude oil prices, in particular with regard to heating oil and kerosene. I have just been advised that the Treasurer has asked the Prices Surveillance Authority formally to advise whether it considers there should be any change in the surveillance arrangements, having regard to the recent price developments and to the established criteria for the exercise of surveillance. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Minister for Finance to the Government's offer of $54m for a sugar price support scheme of $230, $225, and $220 per tonne for each year 1985, 1986 and 1987. Is the Minister aware that on yesterday's London market sugar was $223 a tonne and rising? In view of the rising market, only $17m of the $54m will be required for price support, leaving a residue of $37m. Will the Government add the remaining $37m from the price support scheme to the amount of $46m allocated for rural reconstruction and make the sugar industry package worth $100m, as stated in the rural package and not $63m over three years which is a little over half of the $150m promised-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is giving too much information. I ask him to bring his question to a close. Senator WALSH —I did not hear all of Senator Boswell's questions, but I do not think it matters very much. The Government's offer, which has been on the table for more than six months, was to underwrite for the next three years returns at those prices, subject to a matching contribution from the Queensland Government. The offer is what it always was-that is, if there is a deficiency between the market price and those prices of $230, $225 and $220 respectively, then that deficiency will be made up by the joint contribution, with the proviso that there would be a ceiling at all times on the total amount that would be paid. In other words, if the difference between $230 per tonne in the first year and the actual price received-say, for example, it was $100 per tonne-turned out to be $150m or something like that in just the one year, it is the case that the Government's offer never did commit the Government to paying that much money. There was a ceiling on the amount of money. That was done quite deliberately because, regardless of what the price of sugar might have been on the London exchange yesterday, all the expectations in the industry and in the Government are that in the long term world prices will be low. Concomitantly, of course, the industry must be restructured so that it can produce at those likely world prices. That restructuring is being sabotaged by the ignorance and prejudice of the Premier of Queensland, who cuts off Mr Turner, the Minister for Primary Industries, at the knees every time Mr Turner comes close to reaching agreement with the Commonwealth Government. That ignorant, bungling, old Otto the Hun cuts Turner off at the knees, prevents the package from being adopted and prevents the restructuring of the industry which is essential for its long term survival. Senator Collard —Mr President, I take a point of order. It is a pretty rough game, but I do not think there is any need for the sort of adjectives that the Minister used in regard to the Premier of a sovereign State. I find them offensive and unwarranted. The PRESIDENT —My attention was temporarily distracted at the time the references were made. But if Senator Collard has taken personal objection to them, I ask the Minister, under standing order 418, to withdraw his remark. Senator WALSH —I withdraw. Senator McKIERNAN —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen a report in the West Australian newspaper of Tuesday, 15 April, and in other newspapers concerning the Australian Bureau of Statistics industrial dispute figures for 1985? What is the Government's reaction to the figures? Do the State figures in any way support the claim that Queensland is continuing to drag Australia backwards? Senator WALSH —The most recent bulletin on industrial disputes which was issued last Monday, 14 April, shows that in the 12 months ending December 1985 Queensland had by far the highest number of working days lost per 1,000 employees of any State. Queensland lost 417 working days per 1,000 employees, as against a national average of 230. I think the figure for South Australia is 49, which is extremely low, and the figure for New South Wales and Victoria is somewhat over 200. But the important point is that the number of working days lost per 1,000 employees was almost twice as high in Queensland as the national average. It is one of a number of statistics in regard to which the Queensland figures are the highest in Australia. As has been mentioned here previously, the rates of teenage pregnancies, ex-nuptial births and venereal disease in Queensland are also by far the highest, which can be ascribed to the ignorance of sexual matters which the Queensland Government seems to be dedicated to perpetuating. In every other respect, the positive economic indicators-that is, the rate of employment, the rate of growth, the rate of investment, and so on-show that Queensland has very close to the lowest figure, if not the lowest, of all the States. It is below the national average in each of those three cases, I believe, and it is indeed so that Queensland is dragging Australia down. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to Press reports today which indicate that there is some misunderstanding between the Government and oil refiners about tax aspects of the proposed stock loss compensation package. Is the Minister able to indicate what action is being taken to rectify this problem? Will the Minister give a commitment that consumers will not be forced to bear the brunt of full compensation to oil refiners through any further price increases? I noted with interest the response he made to a question asked by Senator Tate a little earlier today. Senator GARETH EVANS —The context in which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked her question is this: The immediate impact of the 1 March import parity price reduction was to create a situation in which the Australian refiners incurred stock losses-by the downward revaluation of the stock they had already acquired-of close to $600m. There have been subsequent additions to that pre-tax amount, as a result of the further reduction in the import parity price in April. The Government took the view that it was appropriate that a compensation package be put together involving some limited recoupment through the market-place, with the balance to be picked up by the Government, in order to reimburse the refiners for at least that part of their stock losses which they incurred through continuing to lift domestic Australian crude during the month of February; that is, after the world price had tumbled-- Senator Durack —I am sure Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle understands this perfectly. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am damned sure I am not persuaded that you do, Senator. For your benefit, if for that of nobody else in this place, I think it is appropriate-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to ignore the interjection and answer the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —This is a necessary prelude to answering that part of the question which relates to the tax issue. The arrangement that was made with the industry was to put together a compensation package which would fully reimburse the industry for that part of its stock losses accrued as a result of continuing to lift, at government request, high price domestic crude during the month of February at which time, the prices having already come down at the world level, it could have imported crude much more cheaply. In fact, during the month of February the industry, at the Government's request, lifted about 13 million barrels of Australian crude, paying about $16 more for each barrel than it would have had to pay on the world market if it had been able to get cargoes at spot prices. That added up to $210m, $125m of which the Government is proposing to reimburse under this legislation, the other part having been picked up through the market-place. The confusion that has arisen about the taxation issue has been because the companies misunderstood-and that is an appropriate description-the Government's original statement that this payment would be tax-free. What we meant to convey by that was that there would be no dilution of the full value of that compensation so far as the February liftings were concerned. The intention was always to fully compensate for the February liftings by reference to the difference between the 1 January and 1 March import parity prices, and not to have that compensation for February diluted by any tax claw-back. It was on that basis that the companies were advised of the original package and it was on that basis that some of them did misunderstand the Government's intentions. The Government's intention was to confine the direct government reimbursement to those February liftings, treating the rest essentially as commercial risk. The intention was not to pay compensation on a basis that would make a contribution to the refiners' remaining stock loss problem, very substantial although that problem is frankly acknowledged to be. It is a complicated issue. It needs more explanation than that, I suspect, to fill it out. But that is more than enough of an explanation, I also suspect, for this chamber. I sent a detailed telex to the companies last night, explaining the matter. I think most of them now understand the reason why the final dollars in hand are not likely to be quite as many as some of them had originally optimistically thought. As to the latter part of the question concerning further flow-through of prices to the consumer, I am not sure whether Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was referring to the result of further price reductions in the world market or whether she was talking about the consequence of recoupment exercises by the refiners in relation to previous stock losses. The answer varies depending on what she meant. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I was referring to the present situation of the stock losses and asking whether the Government would support an application to the Prices Surveillance Authority on the grounds of this lack of compensation for the present problem. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government's estimate is that even after the recoupment efforts that have taken place so far and which were authorised yesterday by the Prices Surveillance Authority, and even after this $125m is paid, the refiners will still face, net of tax considerations, a stock loss burden of about $300m. So there is a very substantial burden for the companies to bear. That is one reason why they are being so vociferous in the media at the moment, and understandably so. It is not the Government's view that that particular already accumulated burden should be recouped through increases in present product prices authorised by the PSA. We have made that clear in public statements. As prices rise again, as they are expected to at some stage in the latter part of this year-goodness knows by how much-perhaps it will be possible by appropriately timed adjustments to the wholesale price ceilings for a good proportion of that already accumulated stock loss to be recouped, but not at the expense of any major new impost that would flow through with additional burdens for consumers and, of course, add to the inflation rate. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the Minister seen a circular letter from the Doctors Reform Society, dated 14 April, which indicates that a decision has been taken to reduce the Medicare rebate to doctors who bulk bill? Is there any truth in this assertion? If so, why has this been done? Surely it will only further disadvantage those doctors in the community who bulk bill all their patients. Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen the letter which was circulated by Dr John Daniels, who is the President of the Doctors Reform Society of New South Wales. I can assure Senator McIntosh that there is no truth at all in the assertions in the letter. No such decision has been made: no such decision will be announced in the next week, two weeks or any other week. I understand that Dr Daniels has today telegrammed the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, acknowledging that the information is wrong. I hope that in the future Dr Daniels will be much more careful about taking notice of stories like this which are fed to him, obviously by people with malicious intent. Senator BROWNHILL —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to a recent statement by the Treasurer in which he said: Australia is hooked on imports-or has been-and while we were able to find another deposit of coal or iron ore to pay for it, or another paddock of wheat, that was fine. How does the Government intend to encourage Australians to kick the import habit, other than by maintaining a credit squeeze through high interest rates? Senator BUTTON —Changing attitudes in this country on fundamental matters like this is like moving tombstones. We, as a Government, are to be congratulated because at least we are trying. The sad thing is that, on the fundamental issue involved in Senator Brownhill's question, previous governments have not tried. I do not blame them for that; I am not seeking to make a political point. Senator Jessop —Yes, you are. Senator BUTTON —If you think I am, Senator, then let the cap fit you. I was not trying to make a political point; I was trying to make a point about a nation's capacity for delusion about issues. This was most admirably demonstrated in the political context by the rhetoric which surrounded the resources boom. That was one of the greatest disasters for this country in attitudinal terms, following as it did the comfortable belief that this country could live off the sheep's back forever. If the honourable senator is asking me whether the Government proposes to kick the import habit by adopting some of the bizarre suggestions that have been floating about, such as import quotas and things of that kind, the answer is no. The Government does not propose to adopt those suggestions. We derive some small comfort from the last trade figures which were published earlier this week. We hope that that is indicative of a trend. I remind Senator Brownhill that the largest item in imports in the last few months has been the category of transport equipment and heavy machinery and so on, which is consistent with a significant degree of investment in manufacturing industry and which, in the longer term, is a source of structural strength and growth and, indeed, a diversification of manufacturing activity. That is a source of an input into the Australian economy by imports which the Government would not seek to discourage in the short term. Mr Keating has offered some colourful comments about this matter in the article from which Senator Brownhill quoted. There are no immediate solutions to those problems, but it is important to be aware of them and to try to address them on a wide range of fronts. Senator BLACK —My question is to the Minister for Community Services. Has the Minister seen claims by the shadow Minister for Social Security that welfare cuts will force wives to work? Can the Minister tell the Senate the effects that these outlandish claims are having on Australian families? Is the Government committed to improving the lives of families in need? Senator GRIMES —Yes, the Government is committed to improving the lives of families in need in this country and we have demonstrated that. Yes, I have seen the claims of the shadow Minister, Mr Blunt. It is one of the many claims that have been made this week by members of the National Party of Australia and it is becoming quite difficult in this place or any other place to understand what they are on about. It seems to me that we have two wings of the National Party-we have the patrician wing, led by Mr Blunt and co., who say that the Government will cut social security expenditure and that it should not do so; then there is the thick wing led by Mrs Chapman from Queensland and Senator Boswell in this place who want to stop all social security expenditure and put all the beneficiaries out into the street. I think it is about time that the National Party woke up and decided where it stood. It has always had great difficulties with this over the years. I remember that some 10 or 11 years ago in one memorable speech Senator Sheil said that we should cut off all unemployment benefits because the beneficiaries spent all their time fornicating on the foreshores. The only problem with that speech was that, instead of saying those words with indignation, Senator Sheil said them with envy and nobody believed him. It really is a mad situation when a party which claims to have a policy which is concerned with people in difficulties and families in trouble has a Minister in Queensland who says that all this expenditure should be cut off because the beneficiaries are spending all their time having children and doing all sorts of nasty things. Of course, here in the Senate we have Senator Boswell who raves in his usual manner about women taking over the world and particularly taking over his job, I think. Then we have Mr Blunt who says that this terrible Government is going to cut expenditure-apparently it will do exactly what Mrs Chapman wants us to do-and this means that it will send women out to work. I think the best thing to do is look at the Government's record. Under the previous Government, allowances for guardians and pensioners' and children's benefits all fell in real terms over the time of that Government. Since 1983 we have increased the additional pensioner benefit for children by 60 per cent; we have increased the mothers'/guardians' allowance; and we have increased the family income supplement by 60 per cent, thus making it easier for the women in low income families to stay at home. We have increased the number of child care places, enabling some women to work and other women, in lonely situations in the suburbs, to get some respite from their loneliness and difficulties in bringing up their children. We will continue to follow that policy. The community knows that we will do that. The community knows the real people who are concerned about cutting assistance to people in need, and particularly families in need, are in the party of which Mr Blunt, Mrs Chapman, Senator Boswell and Senator Sheil are all members. They are all the old troglodytes who would wipe out all welfare expenditure in this country. The people of this country know that and therefore they will take no notice of the ravings of the likes of Mr Blunt. Senator LEWIS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is the Government concerned about the industrial confrontation and arrests which have occurred on construction sites in the Australian Capital Territory in the last few days, particularly on the new Parliament House site for which the Commonwealth has direct responsibility? Does the Minister deplore the decision of the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party and the local Trades and Labour Council to support the rogue Builders Labourers Federation against the positions of the Federal Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions on deregistration? Will the Minister publicly dissociate herself from her branch's decision or, as with the ANZUS Treaty incident early last year, is she worried that such a stand might jeopardise her preselection? Senator RYAN —I will give an answer to that part of the honourable senator's question which has to do with housing and construction policy. With regard to the parts of the question concerning the internal affairs of the local branch of the ALP, I will say nothing to him because this is not a matter within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister for Housing and Construction and it is none of his business. Of course we are concerned about the problems on the construction site of the new and permanent Parliament House. We are not only concerned about it; we have taken very brave and radical action to bring about peace in the building and construction industry. We have taken action which is more effective than action taken by any of our conservative predecessors. We have taken the unprecedented but successful step of deregistering a union because it would not abide by the proper procedures governing industrial relations in this country. We have taken the further step of properly providing for union membership of members of the former Builders Labourers Federation so that they will not be without the benefits of union coverage. At this point I think we should all commend my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, who has had the carriage of this affair and who has conducted himself with great patience and persistence in an extraordinarily difficult situation. It is our Government which has re-established the building and construction industry in this country. It was in total disarray at the time we came into government. It is our Government that has had to take the very tough and difficult steps of having the Builders Labourers Federation deregistered because of its illegal activities. It is our Government which will successfully bring about peace in the building and construction industry so that not only the construction site of the new and permanent Parliament House but all construction sites throughout Australia will operate properly, within properly established industrial awards, and offer protection alike to workers on those sites and investors in those projects. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I draw your attention to standing order 98 about questions which may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs, and I ask the Minister, in her capacity as a Minister of the Crown, a question relating to public affairs: Why will she not support the Government of this country against her own branch of the Australian Labor Party? The PRESIDENT —Order! I rule that the question is not a supplementary question. Senator COOK —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the Hawke Government initiatives of introducing in 1984 the management and investment companies program. Now that this program is over two years old, can the Minister give any indication as to whether the program is succeeding in its objectives? What is the future likely to be? Senator BUTTON —I welcome Senator Cook's question because it is important that these institutions be accountable to the Parliament and it is important that progress in respect of some of them be reviewed from time to time. Senator Cook is quite right in saying that the management and investment companies program was introduced early in 1984. That program was designed to encourage the development of a venture capital market in Australia and to attract management and financial support for the start up and early growth of businesses which had the potential to grow, which were export oriented and which used innovative technology. This Government, and indeed the previous Government in setting up the Espie inquiry, recognised the need to provide a stimulus to the development of a vigorous venture capital market. The MIC program also recognised that it was important for Australia to encourage innovative entrepreneurial businesses which creatively use modern technology as part of our effort to revitalise Australian manufacturing industry. I am generally pleased with the progress of the program so far. It was a very new initiative. So far the progress has been excellent. At the end of March 1986, management and investment companies had 65 actual investments in 54 different businesses. The predominant fields of investment are computer hardware and software, electronics equipment and robotics, biomedical companies, and biotechnological products and services. About 50 per cent of the management and investment company investments have been in the start up and early stages of businesses. At the end of March actual investments totalled some $32.5m with further plans for a further $10.1m. In the two years of the program significant progress has been made, stimulating both capital and professional manpower. In June 1983, one year before the program started, there was perhaps $5m available for venture capital in Australia. By June 1986, three years later, we estimate that about $247m will be available for venture capital investment in Australia of which approximately a little more than a half will be management and investment company funds. I am confident that the initial promising progress of that kind will continue. I indicate that the Government is committed to ensuring a continuation of this important initiative in the future. The program was announced for a five-year period and it will continue to be supported by the Government as announced when the original announcement was made in 1983. Senator HILL —The Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry will no doubt recall the second reading debate of my private members' Bill on horticultural plant variety rights and that the Government would not support the Bill pending the report of Professor Lazenby. Now that Professor Lazenby has reported and, according to the Government's economic and rural policy statement put down on Tuesday, concluded that PVR is the most appropriate means of stimulating plant breeding in Australia and of improving access to overseas plant genetic material, which was also the conclusion of the Senate standing committee that considered the matter, will the Government now cease its delaying tactics and indicate support for my Bill with all the benefits which will follow to Australian horticulturalists? Senator WALSH —The answer to the last part of the question is no. The Government will not support Senator Hill's Bill. I am sure he will be astonished to learn that I do not actually remember his speech in the second reading debate. I certainly have not committed it to memory. On the broader question, this matter did receive some attention a while ago but I am afraid I cannot remember the precise details of what the Government proposes to do. I will find out from the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, and let the honourable senator know as soon as I can. Senator VALLENTINE —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The visiting United States scientist, Hugh de Witt, from the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California, recently told audiences in Australia that there is no chance of a comprehensive test ban treaty during the time in office of President Reagan, which will last until January 1989. Given that Hugh de Witt has worked in this institution for nearly 30 years, an institution which-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is giving far too much information and I ask her to confine herself to the question, otherwise I shall have to rule the honourable senator out of order. Senator VALLENTINE —Could the Government inform us what plans it has to continue working for a comprehensive test ban treaty in the face of such total intransigence by the Reagan Administration? Is the Government also prepared to admit that the Reagan Administration's opposition to a comprehensive test ban treaty has nothing to do with verification or testing current stockpiles, but is because it simply does not want one while the current nuclear test program is underway as part of the strategic defence initiative and will not be completed until the 1990s? Senator GARETH EVANS —The United States Administration has consistently characterised a comprehensive test ban treaty as a long term objective that would be acceptable in the context of broad, deep, verifiable arms reductions, substantially improved verification capabilities, expanded confidence building measures and greater balance in conventional forces at a time when a nuclear deterrent is no longer as essential an element as it is currently for international security and stability. The Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, has acknowledged that under these circumstances and against those criteria Australia has a major difference with the United States in regard to the appropriate context in which a comprehensive test ban treaty can be concluded. However, Australia does share the United States' view that addressing and resolving the outstanding concerns about the verifiability of a comprehensive test ban treaty must be an essential element of the process of achieving this important objective. Australia's efforts, as Senator Vallentine would be aware, have been directed to getting concrete work under way on these verification issues. We certainly intend to persevere in relation to that. As to that part of the question which dealt with the strategic defence initiative I simply say that the Government has no evidence which would substantiate the suggestion in Senator Vallentine's question that the strategic defence initiative is the key consideration in the position of the United States Administration on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Senator GARETH EVANS —A couple of days ago Senator Hamer asked me a question, more in hope than in expectation, about the classification of security documents, to which the Attorney-General has now provided me with the following reply: The recommendation that Cabinet documents should not carry a national security classification unless their contents justified it has been implemented. Mr Justice Hope, in his Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies Report made a number of recommendations relating to protective security matters. Included was a recommendation that consideration be given to a further review of National security classification procedures-the specific matter to which Senator Hamer adverted. Since the announcement by the Prime Minister in May 1985 of the acceptance by the Government of a number of the major Hope recommendations relating to ASIO, the Government has been giving consideration to the very considerable number of recommendations contained in all the Hope reports. Consideration of detailed responses to the protective security recommendations will be given by the Government in the near future. Any change to National security classification procedures will be incorporated in the revision of the Protective Security Manual. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Jones asked me yesterday, 16 April, as Minister representing the Special Minister of State, a question without notice about alleged illegal use of Telecom Australia equipment in Brisbane. The Minister has provided the following answer: I am advised that the Australian Federal Police is aware of certain allegations relating to the illegal use of Telecom equipment in Brisbane, which were the subject of reports on Channel O Eyewitness News, Brisbane, during the week 17-21 March 1986. I am further advised that the allegations are being investigated by the AFP. No arrests have been made, inquiries are continuing. I am unable to comment on whether any transfers of Telecom staff have occurred and advise the honourable senator that this is a matter which falls within the portfolio responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Communications. Senator GIETZELT —Senator Lewis asked me a supplementary question several days ago in relation to the relocation of the anti-apartheid information centre opposite the South African Embassy. The Minister has provided me with the following answer: The Department of Territories is currently investigating options for the relocation of the anti-apartheid information centre as a matter of priority. These investigations are not yet complete. Senator GIETZELT —Yesterday Senator Newman asked me a question without notice in respect of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. The Minister for Transport has given me the following answer: The revised Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme commenced for all shipments from 1 September 1985. The rates of assistance were updated in accordance with the Inter-State Commission report on the scheme. These rates represent the Commission's best judgment of the assistance required by Tasmanian industry to alleviate its interstate freight cost disadvantage. A review authority has been established, as recommended by the Inter-State Commission, to provide independent advice on the administration of the revised scheme. Following advice from the authority butter and waste oil shipments to the mainland are now eligible for assistance under the new scheme. The authority's advice also has been sought on the interim rate of assistance for zinc shipped on the Zincmaster. When announcing the Government's decision to revise the scheme the Minister indicated that the Inter-State Commission would be asked to review the rates of assistance available under the scheme in view of changes to the Bass Strait shipping service. The Commission is due to provide the Minister for Transport with its report by 1 June 1986. The Minister advises that he is aware that some delays have arisen in relation to the payment of assistance to claimants under the scheme. These have occurred in the initial phases of the implementation of a computer based claims processing system in the Hobart office of the Department of Transport. The Minister assures the Senate that the necessary administrative steps have been taken by the Department to overcome these problems. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the fifth report of 1986 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1986, the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986, the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Act 1986 and the Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the eleventh report of the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the seventy-ninth report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee on its scrutiny of the Health Insurance Regulations (Amendment). Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The report describes our scrutiny of the Health Insurance Regulations (Amendment). By effluxion of time last Thursday, 10 April, amending regulations were deemed to have been disallowed when the Senate rose. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) who was responsible for the regulations, agreed to their disallowance. This is only the second time in the Committee's history that disallowance by effluxion of time has occurred and the first time it has occurred with a Minister's agreement. Because of this the Committee considered that it was incumbent upon it to report on the matter to the Senate as soon as it could. The Health Insurance Regulations (Amendment) provided that the Secretary to the Department of Social Security was to be a prescribed person to whom otherwise confidential information in the trusteeship of the Health Insurance Commission could lawfully be given. The Commission administers Medicare and as the report indicates it is the recipient and the repository of vast amounts of computerised medical information about the health of millions of Australians. The Health Insurance Act contains secrecy provisions designed to protect the privacy of this very sensitive material. It is a serious criminal offence for officers acquainted with information to reveal it outside the Commission. However the Minister for Health can suspend the operation of these secrecy provisions to some extent by prescribing persons to whom the information may be given. In the past the Minister has prescribed official medical and medico-legal investigators as appropriate to receive information. These regulations appear to be a major departure in that they prescribe, as a recipient of secret material, a person who has no official involvement or connection with the Health Insurance Commission or the investigation of medi-fraud. In addition, the prescription is totally open-ended in that in theory it makes lawful the release to Social Security of any information held by the Commission. Clearly this could include medical information. The Commission has such sophisticated computer hardware and software that it would be theoretically possible to compile and release intimate and embarrassing medical profiles on identifiable individuals, families and groups in society. It would be unthinkable that the Minister for Health would allow this, or that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) would wish it. However, a dangerous situation is created when the legal possibility exists that medical information could be released without breaking the Act or the regulations. We would be astounded if the Australian Taxation Office were legally permitted to circulate full details of the tax returns of every Australian to other areas of the bureaucracy. Yet the potential invasion of privacy represented by the power to circulate medical details is much more serious since our state of physical and mental health is a source of our most intimate weaknesses. Improper revelation of medical information exposes us to humiliation, ridicule, contempt, embarrassment, blackmail and great stress. We have a system of health insurance that for good and honourable reasons is designed to identify, and apply to, every citizen in the nation. However, when married to modern computer technology and a tendency towards a centralisation of bureaucratic and governmental power, we have a recipe for a potential abuse of privacy that is breathtaking in its scope. I have no doubt that these implications have arisen inadvertently and incidentally from the Minister's genuine concern to assist with the detection of social security fraud. Fraud on the public revenue, whether through tax evasion or false welfare claims, is a corrosive crime which affects everyone by unfairly depleting our pooled resources. The Committee supports the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Security in their efforts to tackle fraud. However, the means used is an issue which cannot be ignored. The Health Insurance Regulations were prepared without appropriate regard being given to their legal implications for millions of ordinary Australians who use Medicare and who have a legitimate expectation that the privacy of their medical histories will be respected by a sensitive bureaucracy and powerful legal protections. It appears that both the sensitivity and the legal protections appear to have succumbed to the imperatives of detecting fraud. I accept that the Minister and his officials had no intention to release anything but identity details which Social Security could use to check the identities of claimants. The Committee considered that the release of such innocuous material would not be an undue trespass on rights. A balance must be struck between the detection of fraud and the protection of privacy. The drafting of these regulations did not reflect that balance, although the Minister intended, of course, to do so. The regulations have been disallowed by effluxion of time and the Minister has undertaken to make new regulations which will spell out clearly the kinds of protections which the Committee considered these regulations lacked. He will amend the Health Insurance Act to ensure that these proposed new regulations can be as protective and effective as possible. It would have been perhaps happier and more protective of privacy rights if that access had been limited to data concerning veterans who had exercised their rights to claim veterans' benefits. I say this in the context where the Minister was asked to re-examine the implications of earlier regulations which permitted the Health Insurance Commission to release all Health Insurance Commission data to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, not just that data relating to veterans. The Committee asks the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter, as the earlier regulations are also open to much criticism. Finally, I wish to thank the Minister for Health and his officials for the considerable help and advice they gave the Committee. In the final analysis the Minister, in particular, acted decisively and agreed not to oppose the automatic disallowance of these regulations and their removal from the statute book. I commend him for his readiness in this instance to protect rights and allay the Committee's concerns. I look forward with some confidence to seeing his proposed amendments and new regulations in the Budget session. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(2.14) —The seventy-ninth report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee which Senator Cooney has tabled is a most significant report. It is possibly one of the most significant put down for some years. As Senator Cooney indicated, it concerns Health Insurance Regulations which, had they been allowed to stand, would actually have made it lawful for all of the private medical information held by the Health Insurance Commission to be given lock, stock and barrel to the Department of Social Security. The Commission's computer records have details of practically all the medical conditions suffered by virtually the entire population of Australia since the Commission was established. Annually, about 113 million medical services are recorded by the Commission in computer systems which can be programmed to break down that material into medical profiles of identifiable individuals, families or other groups. I am not referring to the production of statistical material on health patterns and trends for the purpose of medical planning and research, which is quite acceptable. In those cases, the identity of the patients or the insured claimants is irrelevant. I am talking about the technical possibility that physical and mental health profiles on identifiable people in the community can be prepared and could have legally been given to the Department of Social Security for the purposes of that Department. I refer senators to paragraph 9 of the report, which states: Quite obviously, it is not beyond the technical facilities available to the Health Insurance Commission to produce medical profiles on identifiable individuals, families, members of ethnic groups identifiable by name and place of residence, members of work forces making use of corporate medical officers, and other groups identified by cross-tabulated variables. Accumulated medical information describes an individual's or a community's physical and psychological weaknesses. Thus, it is, for an individual or a group of individuals a source of enormous social and political vulnerability. The Committee's correspondence with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is described in chapter 4 of the report. I acknowledge that the Minister was helpful and courteous at all times. But senators who read the blow by blow account given in the report will see that it took some effort by the Committee to eventually sheet home to the Minister the full implications of this one line executive instrument. Those implications are described in chapter 5 of the report, and I urge senators to look at that chapter of the report. The implications can be discovered without the exercise of much imagination. Indeed, I am concerned at the lack of sensitivity which allowed regulations with such implications to be made. The Regulations allowed the Commission to give any of its information to the Department of Social Security. Computer tapes could quite lawfully change hands or a direct terminal-to-terminal computer link-up could have been legal. It would have been perfectly lawful for the Health Insurance Commission to allow Social Security to have access to everything held on the Commission's computers. What is on these tapes? Well, when we pay for our medical treatment, our claim sets out the nature of the medical treatment we have received and the computer records that information. It is quite simple for the computer to deduce from its relevant tapes information about the medical conditions from which individuals suffer. Indeed, I understand that the computers are deliberately so programmed to enable this to be done, not for any sinister reason, but in order to ensure that medical data can be analysed for planning and research. But, analysed in a particular way, these computer tapes can reveal the most private and intimate details of the physical and psychological illnesses of almost all of us over a long period of our lives. From tapes it could be discovered who suffered from genetic disorders, venereal or other sexual diseases, psychiatric conditions or contagious diseases. It could reveal who had undergone all sorts of sensitive medical conditions. The whole gamut of unpleasant and worrying illness, diseases and maladies, which is so private to us as individuals, could be made available to the Department of Social Security, not just in regard to social security claimants which would be horrifying enough, but in regard to every one of us who is enrolled in Medicare. Medical information is often the most private information we possess about ourselves. It is difficult to envisage a more offensive bureaucratic intrusion into a person's life than a proposal to give the Health Insurance Commission legal power and authority to hand medical data over to the Department of Social Security. I quote from paragraph 36 of the report and remind honourable senators that the Department of Social Security: Is the largest investigative arm of the federal bureaucracy. In terms of staff size it is one of the largest departments of state. It is daily an applicant, respondent amicus curiae or witness before the administrative appeals tribunal, the federal court and the family court. It is involved in litigation on a large range of social security matters, employees' compensation cases and family law questions where an unacknowledged use of otherwise privileged medical fact, opinion and innuendo could be of advantage to an unscrupulous advocate. It is a Department whose views can be canvassed directly or indirectly by Cabinet or other departments on questions of individual's employment and promotion, and in relation to appointments to statutory, judicial or other high office. Of course, the Committee does not for a moment suggest that there was any sinister intention behind these regulations, now thankfully disallowed. I am quite sure that neither the Minister for Health nor the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), nor the Health Insurance Commission, would countenance a release of medical information at this stage. But, as the Committee kept saying, the problem is that time passes and people forget their promises, and the desire to obtain information becomes overwhelming where some person in a department believes that someone is a cheat or a rogue and would seek to use these tapes to obtain this information. All the best intentions in the world would not be good enough to remove the clear legal powers to hand over private medical information. It was this lack of real legal control to restrict the type of information to be released which caused the Regulations and Ordinances Committee to take such a firm and insistent stand on this issue. The legal possibility of abuse existed, and this had to be removed if people are to continue to have confidence in the Health Insurance Commission and the Department of Social Security. I refer honourable senators to paragraph 47 of the report, where the Committee quotes a very telling comment from the 1983 Law Reform Commission report on privacy, which states: When a government department or agency receives information on the understanding that it is to be used for a particular purpose, it might not feel constrained to limit its dissemination to fulfilment of its purpose, if wider circulation seemed to meet the needs of the Commonwealth. There is a grave and genuine fear behind the sentiment expressed there, a fear which has not been reduced by recent suggestions that all Australians might be required to have an identity card. The Health Insurance Regulations have been disallowed, and the Minister has undertaken to amend the Health Insurance Act to provide that future regulations will be clearly protective of fundamental rights to medical privacy. I know that those amendments will be carefully examined by the Senate and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to ensure that there is no legal possibility of release of medical information by the Commission. Finally, part of the report refers to a power which the Commission already has to release medical information to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It may be necessary for some medical information relating to veterans to be released to that Department for the purpose of processing claims. However, it is quite inappropriate that the legal mechanism which allows the Commission properly to release this information on veterans also, incidentally, allows the release of medical information on any one of us. Similar considerations and criticisms apply to these earlier regulations. It is the very strongly held wish of the Committee that those regulations should be amended or withdrawn as soon as possible to prevent the legal possibility of the release of medical information on people who are not claimants for veterans' rights. Like Senator Cooney, I urge the Minister for Health and his officials to look carefully at the Committee's report. It will assist them-they do not have to worry about it-with ensuring that the Department of Social Security properly has access to Medicare identification data to help combat fraud, but without personal rights to medical privacy being undermined in a fundamental way. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.24) —I was sitting quietly in my office working on papers that I had before me as a member of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card when I heard Senator Cooney make his remarks about the disallowance of this regulation. As a result, it is not my intention to speak at any length about the report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee other than to congratulate Senator Cooney and his colleagues on the way in which this matter has been handled. All I wish to say in this debate is that it is interesting that, after all of the assurances given to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card about the privacy of data and about the capacity of the Health Insurance Commission, which is to run the Australia Card system if it is introduced, that under no circumstances could there be any divulgence of information, that no Minister would ever be party to the promulgation of regulations which allowed these fundamental breaches on questions of privacy and that at all times the Health Insurance Commission was the most sensitive body in the world on questions of individual privacy, that myth has been exploded by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. The Committee has done a first-class job in drawing attention to what will be a fundamental matter of argument which I am sure the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card will relish looking at in the course of its next couple of meetings. I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 9 April, on motion by Senator Crowley: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.26) —I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 9 April, on motion by Senator Crowley: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 9 April, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.29) —I commend this report to the Senate. This has been an exciting year in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The report of the Australian Science and Technology Council underlined CSIRO's importance as the primary research organisation in Australia. CSIRO employs about 7,000 people and has a budget of about $380m. CSIRO carries out research across all fields of endeavour and is particularly valuable in our mining and rural industries because those industries carry out sufficient research of a practical kind themselves so that they can effectively capitalise on CSIRO's efforts in their own fields. However, in the manufacturing industries there are serious gaps between the research done by CSIRO and other research organisations, and the industries themselves. This reflects on CSIRO's communication with industry and even more so on the failure of Australian industry to invest in research and development on its own behalf. In fact, Australian industry is spending less and less on research and development while technology around it is changing at an ever-increasing pace. In the 12 years from 1969 to 1981 industry funded research and development fell from 0.48 per cent of gross national product to 0.21 per cent of gross domestic product. Industry has more than halved its research and development effort. Comparatively, industries in similar countries to Australia spend around 0.93 per cent of gross domestic product on research and development; in fact, 10 times as much as has been spent on Australian industry. One reason for this is that Australian traditional manufacturing industries have tended to be protected from international competition. They have tended to limit their activities to domestic markets and have relied on foreign source capital goods and technology. The domination of our manufacturing industry by subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations has been a major factor. Australia's current exposure to low commodity prices on world markets has exposed our vulnerability in trade balance on the manufacturing front. We can no longer afford to support manufacturing industries which have no will to export. The will to export is not enough. Successful export depends on quality and performance of our products. Technological innovation, based on a solid investment in research and development, is the only path Australia can afford to follow. CSIRO's role in fundamental research is of vital importance in this process. Whether CSIRO can successfully transfer its results into innovative technology will depend heavily on industry's commitment also to the process of research and development. Alternatively, Australia will have to consider seriously the establishment of publicly-owned enterprises which will not neglect their investment in development, innovation and research into various products and practices. CSIRO's move to establish contractual links with industry is a major step in the right direction. The setting up of multi-disciplinary groups is one of CSIRO's strategies for problem solving for industry and for speeding up the application of research into new products. I commend CSIRO on the successes it has achieved to date. Communication has now become a major need in CSIRO's new thrust. Interfaces must be established between scientific disciplines, between technologists and scientists, between industry and technologists, between Australian technologists and the rest of the world. For these interfaces to function properly, three new classes of skills will be required within CSIRO. They all need to be communicators with good lateral thinking skills, who can see connections between the different areas which we have mentioned. We need people with management and industrial training who can take a target product and understand the nature of venture capital, and we need people who can sell the product to industry or set up new industries to exploit the product. As well as people, a prime necessity for innovation is an innovative environment. Without research, without CSIRO, our industries will wither on the bough. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.34) —I do not wish to delay the Senate because it does have to debate this afternoon some very important legislation to be presented by the Australian Democrats, but I did want to take the opportunity of adding my voice to the congratulations to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for the valuable contribution it is making to Australian research. As Senator Vigor says, there is a problem with the interface between the research it is doing and Australian industry. Firstly, there are not too many Australian owned industries left in this country. Secondly, it is very difficult in the present climate for management of industry to invest funds in long term research, to develop ideas and innovations that will have application in the market in the long term. Industry management is faced with the task of maximising its profits in the short term. I suggest that most managers look at the elimination of their research expenditure as the quickest way to add to their bottom line net profit. So they are not prepared to invest in the future simply because of the pressure that is being applied to industry to show year by year a good, increasing net profit, or face the prospect of being taken over by some corporate raider. I believe it is the Government's responsibility to create a climate in this country which is conducive to long term innovation and development. There is no doubt that Australia has to be innovative; it has to have export-oriented industries. That presupposes that we have ideas that are new and marketable around the world and that means that we have to increase dramatically our research effort. CSIRO is doing an invaluable job in this area. Dr Brown and his team are co-operating with industry in many areas and valuable developments which have been put onto the market are already finding acceptance in the United States of America and Europe. Senator Button —Some in particular you might have in mind? Senator SIDDONS —I do not wish to use this forum other than to talk about principles. I do not wish to use it for anything that could be construed to be enhancing the reputation of companies in which I may or may not have a vested interest. Senator Button —I was not suggesting that. My compliment was to the companies which have the initiative and innovative imagination to take these things up. Senator SIDDONS —I can only agree absolutely with the Minister. There is a problem to get the right environment in industry for research. The CSIRO is trying very hard and is being very successful in some of the industrial innovations that it is working on right now. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.37) —I would like to speak to the annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I take this opportunity to make a few comments particularly about the retired Chairman, Dr Wild. I think it is fair to say that the CSIRO is certainly passing from one period to the next. I am not sure how long the current period is, but under the management of Dr Wild a great deal of strength was added. Dr Wild has the distinction of being an internationally renowned scientist in radio astronomy. I think he was acknowledged as being the peer of any of the great men in the world. He has done a lot for Australia. He has created a situation where Australia is now recognised as having a certain pre-eminence which it probably would not have otherwise achieved. Now that period is finished, it has given rise to questions as to where the CSIRO is currently, where it is going and how it should best be organised. At present it is a little bit disruptive. There are morale problems in certain areas of the CSIRO while it is working out what is happening. I urge the Government to get on and consider its response to the various inquiry reports. This will enable the personnel to settle down and to get on with the things they do best. I have been most impressed to see the level of the scientists, the depth at which they work, the dedication they have to the job, to the country and to the organisation they work for. I believe that it is up to the Parliament-Government and Opposition alike-to give the CSIRO the sort of encouragement that will help it continue on its path. While we are niggling away at what we can and cannot afford, I think it is quite wrong that we should have the CSIRO and the scientists concerned on that list. It is essential that we let them know that we have enough confidence in them to keep them at work and keep them doing the things that they are good at over the period ahead. Again, I urge the Government to consider this matter very closely, to get on with the job and to let the CSIRO reach its true potential. At present the Organisation is a bit hamstrung. There will be a drain of people concerned about their future from the various divisions within CSIRO. We need to be able to encourage the private sector to become more involved. We want CSIRO to be out telling people what it can do. It should be merchandising its wares a bit better and acquainting industry of the advantages that it has to offer and what it can do for them in solving problems. I do not think that the work of the CSIRO has been adequately merchandised in the past. I think a much more commercial view will need to be taken if we are to get full value from what the CSIRO has to offer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Co-operation Debate resumed from 9 April, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.41) —There are no permanent friends or enemies in international relations, just permanent interests. The Pacific region is the fastest growing part of the world economy. Within 15 years, the western Pacific alone is likely to account for more than a quarter of total world production in gross national product terms, whereas 25 years ago its share was only one-twelfth of world production and five years ago it had already grown to one-sixth. Trade in the western Pacific is growing even more strongly than production. Within 15 years the Pacific region could account for almost half of the world's trade. This massive growth in trade will require enormous expansion of finance and technology in the region. It is of vital importance to Australia that we establish strong trade links with the countries in our region. The Pacific Economic Co-operation Conference in Seoul is the outcome of interest amongst the Pacific nations moving towards the establishment of a Pacific economic community, and it was with that long term aim in mind that Australia has been part of this Conference. The Conference confined itself to economic issues. It has established task forces or forums to study the major issues of an economic nature on which agreement must be reached before a Pacific economic community can become a reality. These forums are: Agriculture and renewable resources; minerals and energy; trade negotiations and trade policy; foreign investment and technology transfer; and capital flows between nations. All task forces underlined the need for co-operation between developed and developing nations in the region. The Task Force on Agriculture and Renew- able Resources concentrated on the need for effective management of fisheries in the region. The United Nations Law of the Sea agreement of 1982 established the 200-mile exclusive economic zones. As a result, many countries in the region suddenly now have vast wealth in the sea off their shorelines. The Task Force on Agriculture and Renewable Resources also examined issues concerning livestock and feedgrains, and put forward a menu for co-operation in the region. This involved price stability and supply availability, aid and investment, technical co-operation and assistance and liberalisation of trade barriers. The Australian Democrats support all of these issues. Throughout the Conference, concern was expressed about growing protectionism in world trade, and the stresses this imposed on goodwill between countries. In particular, the Conference called on all countries of the Pacific region to unite in a new round of multilateral trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade umbrella, and to seek reform of GATT so that commodity prices can be stabilised in world trade. This will be necessary before we can move into a Pacific economic community. If we are to maintain the Pacific as a zone of peace, we must increase co-operation between all states in the area. As I stated earlier, there are no permanent friends or enemies in international relations, just permanent interests. The phenomenal rate of growth of trade in the Pacific region has provided a climate where states are prepared to co-operate towards gaining a stronger voice in international negotiations. It is in the interest of Australia that we move towards a regional economic community which will bring peace and stability to our region. We will only achieve a strong independent Australia through cultivating a stable economic base in our region and co-operating with our neighbours. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 9 April, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.45) —The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is continuing to go through a major period of reorganisation. It was starved of funds under the Fraser Government at times when the commercial networks were increasing their revenue rapidly and pumping much of that revenue into technological change. The Corporation has inherited a property mess with a bill for $10m in rent alone each year. Its operations in Sydney are spread over more than 25 sites. The Board is certainly keen to see a much needed property rationalisation in that city. In the midst of all the turbulence, the Corporation must remember that its greatest resource is its talented staff. Just this week Robyn Williams hosted the 500th edition of the Science Show. Some sections of management were reluctant to see the project go to air. Yet, quite regularly, up to a quarter of a million Australians tune in on Saturdays for refreshing and thought-provoking material that commercial outlets do not have and do not provide us with. The wonderful thing about ABC radio is its capacity to find renewed inspiration and to lead the way in a new direction or set the standard in other ways. This is often done on a shoe-string budget and in adverse physical conditions. Yet the dedication and ingenuity of researchers, producers and presenters still triumph in the end. We have programs such as Encounters and Indian Pacific, which have no parallel in the commercial area, and others such as AM, PM, The World Today and National Farm Report which continue to set the standard for current affairs. The key is involvement rather than just time filling. As long as people do not get into a complacent rut, those programs will remain alive. As in the case of the Science Show, the superb material put forward by the social history unit generates substantial income through sales of books and cassettes. Provided that the primary focus is on the tradition of good broadcasting and on providing Australians with a service which reflects and respects our diversity of interests, there will be keen audiences. However, good broadcasting must always come first. I also wish to pay tribute to Radio Australia which is described in the report as the world's window on Australia. Its programs generate about 180,000 listener letters each year. Radio Australia is adopting a regional approach with five services focusing on South East Asia, north Asia, the Pacific, Africa and the Indian Ocean. A major network of correspondents in the Pacific has been built up. The news and current affairs division retains great credibility because it adheres to very high standards of journalism. No wonder then that Radio Australia provides the most widely heard source of news and current affairs in Asia and the Pacific region. I applaud management's willingness to allow correspondents to specialise and its preparedness to make their expertise available beyond Radio Australia to our normal domestic services. That is a course of action I recommend elsewhere within the ABC, instead of calling upon journalists from other organisations to provide regular expert comment. I also believe that Radio Australia can make us better aware of the region in which we live and the people with whom our economic destiny lies. There is a need for the programs to be turned inwards towards this country and the people of Australia. I am pleased that independent producers are now being given an opportunity to gain television exposure on the ABC. I believe that this process can be enhanced through community access windows and the provision of public and community access television in local centres during the down time of the ABC. I believe that the ABC should be complimented on its activities and I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.50) —Earlier today, I sought leave to continue my remarks while my colleague Senator Archer got a copy of the National Crime Authority annual report. I am able to advise the Senate that Senator Archer spoke on this report when it was called on previously. So he will not speak to it again. He obviously remembers that it was important. Looking at Senator Archer's notes I see that he commends the three commissioners, Mr Justice Stewart, Mr Bingham and Mr Dwyer. I join with him in commending them for what they are doing, although I shall come to some perhaps relatively minor criticism in a few moments. I also make mention of something that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, has done to us this week. On Tuesday, Senator Archer asked him whether it was intended that the telephone tap legislation should in any way be extended from the current position. Senator Gareth Evans gave Senator Archer an assurance that the Government's position was firm and that there would not be any extension to the telephone tap arrangements beyond what they were as at Tuesday. I quote from Senator Evans's response to Senator Archer: The Government has made clear its position in the past-that it does not think it is appropriate to extend the power at the Federal level . . . However, today-Thursday 17 April-only a couple of days later, the Sydney Morning Herald states: The National Crime Authority is to be given its own power to tap telephones in pursuit of drug traffickers, in a step aimed at boosting its fight against organised crime. I wonder what is the value of asking questions in the Senate, if Senator Evans adopts such an attitude towards the questions which we ask. I turn to speak to the report of the Authority in a little more detail. I find it very interesting to see the way it deals with a number of points. For example, there are questions of law reform with which the National Crime Authority is dealing. It looks at law reform with regard to drug abuse, corrupt organisations, money laundering and mutual assistance treaties. Under the heading `Money laundering' the report states: Criminal organisations often use financial institutions and commodity brokers for laundering illegally obtained money. The Authority is considering whether there should be greater supervision over the operations of financial institutions and commodity brokers. In the chapter on consultation and co-operation, I note that the Authority has been liaising with State governments. The report states: To date this cooperation has been readily given. The report goes on to talk of the co-operation with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence which is required under the National Crime Authority Act. It refers also to co-operation and liaison with law enforcement bodies and police seconded to the Authority. I am delighted to see that the Melbourne group seconded to the Authority is headed by Chief Superintendent J. C. Mengler of the Victoria Police whom I seem to recall was a detective operating in Hamilton when I was practising before the courts in the Western District of Victoria. Detective Mengler and Detective Sailor Jack Manley were the two scourges of the criminals in the Western District of Victoria. I notice sections on overseas liaison, liaison with the Department of the Special Minister of State, and a section on community involvement, which states in part: The Authority is conscious of the importance of community education . . . I have only a minute left to speak. I get the impression of a body with its members terribly busy, rushing around, shifting papers between one another, ringing up people, making arrangements to fly here and see this person and do other things, but the whole object of the Authority is to investigate crime. There does not seem to be much of that going on. Certainly, some police have been seconded to work with the Authority. When I think of the work that Mr Costigan was able to get out of his Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, when I know that this body archived most of the material that it got from Mr Costigan, and when I read how it is liaising with and writing to other bodies and thinking about law reform in certain areas, I get the impression of a body terribly busy but achieving nothing. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —So that there will be no misunderstanding about the working of the Sessional and Standing Orders, Senator Archer, although having spoken when the paper was considered earlier in the week, is not de- barred from taking part in this debate, which is a new debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 9 April, on motion by Senator Kilgariff: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 9 April, on motion by Senator Kilgariff: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 14 April, on motion by Senator Puplick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.56) —The annual report of the Australian Heritage Commission for 1984-85 draws the attention of the Parliament to a number of matters, particularly those of very considerable environmental concern. I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate a number of those concerns arising from this annual report. I suppose that the most important single section in this report deals with the question of the preservation of Australia's rainforests. Page 2 of the report states; Australia has left less than 2,000,000 hectares of rainforests (i.e. an area that would fit inside a circle of seventy kilometre radius), approximately one-quarter of the original rainforests in pre-European times. The report goes on to indicate that on the basis of the best scientifically available information at the moment rainforest habitat covers less than 10 per cent of the land surface of the world; yet it is home to well over half the world's species. The report then draws attention to a number of problems arising from the destruction of rain- forests and, in particular, those that are being destroyed in Queensland. It has a number of comments to make about the behaviour of the Douglas Shire Council regarding the Daintree forest and also about the threat to rainforest areas in New South Wales as well as those in Queensland. As I have previously indicated in this chamber, the commitment recently given by the New South Wales shadow Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Tim Moore, the member for Gordon, indicating that the Liberal Party in New South Wales has adopted a policy for the preservation of all existing areas of rainforests in that State, is, I believe, one of the steps being taken in the right direction. I would have hoped that all States and all political parties would have come to an understanding that the continued destruction of areas of Australia's rainforests is something that should no longer be tolerated. The report draws attention to a number of other matters which I want to mention very briefly. It draws attention to the Port Arthur conservation and development project. This project was highlighted recently during an Estimates committee hearing in questions asked by Senator Newman, who received a number of very unsatisfactory responses from the Government. Indeed, that was the subject of Senator Newman's first question in this chamber when she drew attention to the confusion arising from the Federal Government's failure to make clear its ongoing commitment to the development and conservation of the Port Arthur region which, in some respects, is one of the most significant historical heritage areas in Australia. The Commission, in its report, draws attention to some of its own publications, in particular, a publication entitled `A Good Foundation': Reflections on the Heritage of the First Government House, Sydney by Professor D. J. Mulvaney. Having looked at the report and having looked at publications of the Heritage Commission in that series, I believe it is to be commended for some of the excellent publications which it is currently putting out relating to areas of significant heritage and heritage preservation in Australia. The only other point I want to make is that I think the Commission does a very valuable job in drawing clear attention to the effect of the listing of places on the Register of the National Estate. The Commission states: The Register has a direct protective role only in relation to actions proposed by the Commonwealth which might adversely affect the National Estate. There are no legal constraints on owners of private property, or on State or local governments, caused by the entry of that property in the Register of the National Estate. I hope that that will be borne in mind because to a very large extent there are often many unguarded and ill-informed criticisms of the effect of the simple listing of areas on the register. I believe the register is a most valuable and important document. It is part of continuing growth of understanding and appreciation of Australia's natural and man made history. I would hate to see steps taken which in any way would interfere with the listing of areas on the register. I certainly believe that the Commission, in the work that it has been doing, has provided a most valuable service to the people of Australia. I hope that it continues to receive adequate funding from the Government and has as much continuing success in 1985-86 as it had in the previous year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 14 April, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.02) —The 1984-85 Norfolk Island annual report points out that the Norfolk Island police force consists of three full time officers seconded from the Australian Federal Police. In fact, these officers serve under the jurisdiction of the Administrator of Norfolk Island. The Administrator may also swear in special constables among the Norfolk Island community and use them on an on-call basis. The police force came to my notice at the time of the Greenpeace bombing incident. I am particularly interested in what use was made of these resources while the yacht Ouvea was at Norfolk Island last July. The Ouvea had been chartered by Dr Xavier Maniguet and had left Noumea on 13 June, sailing from Norfolk Island on 18 June and arriving in New Zealand four days later. It sailed out of Auckland the day before the terrorist sinking of the Greenpeace vessel, Rainbow Warrior, late on the night of 10 July. It was eventually established that scrapings from the Ouvea taken while it was at Norfolk Island disclosed traces of explosives. A map found on the yacht led police to an art gallery in New Zealand and established the role of a female agent in reconnaissance for the criminal activities which transpired. There were also links with equipment abandoned after the bombing in Auckland harbour and with matching physical evidence of the crew's New Zealand movements. Yet the four Frenchmen who were on the boat escaped justice. Three of them were released and allowed to sail from Norfolk Island on 16 July. The yacht was presumably scuttled and its crew spirited back to the safety of France. There, New Zealand police were unable to interview the three DGSE agents, even though they briefly surfaced at police headquarters when the Tricot whitewash report was released. Clearly, the French authorities are unwilling to let questioning proceed, let alone extradition on murder and arson charges. In these reprehensible circumstances, I would expect our Government to make available as much information as possible about what happened on Norfolk Island. After all, the National Times spoke to an eyewitness to the search of the Ouvea and learnt that that person was staggered that the police had let the crew go. The Norfolk Island Newsletter contained this comment in its edition of 20 July last: It came as a bit of a shock when we learned that the remaining 3 crew members had been allowed to leave and the last that was seen of the yacht was its navigational lights disappearing over the horizon on Tuesday night, as fast as they could go. Media inquiries were being rerouted to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by the Administrator of Norfolk Island. In these circumstances, and in light of Senator Gareth Evans's statement on 28 August about the necessity for the guilty parties to be brought to justice, the Government's response to basic questions I have placed on notice has been somewhat disturbing. Everyone basically wants to forget what happened. No organisation or department seems to have studied the episode to tighten our anti-terrorist procedures in Norfolk Island or here. No one really wants to say much about the assistance that the New Zealand police received. All the critical questions have been fobbed off with the remark that it was a New Zealand matter. I exclude from this, of course, the Attorney-General's Department, which has not yet bothered to reply, even though it played a key role, as I understand, in advising the Administrator. On 18 July, Detective Superintendent Allan Galbraith of the New Zealand police was quoted in the New Zealand Herald as saying: It would be fair to say that we would have liked to have had a longer time to inspect the vessel. I repeat that last part of his remarks, namely, `to inspect the vessel'. The question is whether the New Zealand police had any real chance of carrying out the necessary forensic tests. If not, what were the obstacles? What were the lines of communication coming into and emanating from the office of the Administrator of Norfolk Island? What written reports were made to the Administrator or elsewhere? When will these be made public? I include in that Dr Maniguet's statement to the Australian authorities on the mainland. I trust that when Estimates Committee F reconvenes someone will be able to tell us the answers to some of these basic questions. Otherwise, I believe that the misgivings of the Australian public will grow. I commend the report, which in itself is excellent, to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 14 April, on motion by Senator Archer: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 14 April, on motion by Senator Archer: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.08) —I wish to make brief mention of this paper, which is entitled `Compensation for Ministers, Members of the Commonwealth Parliament, the Federal Judiciary and Members of the Inter-State Commission'. It is a subject which has been under discussion for many years and there are reports which go back 10 years or more. Of course, it is a matter on which there has been considerable conjecture because of the nature of the occupations of the people concerned and the fact that it is seldom a lifetime occupation, whichever one of those occupations may be involved. At present there is no scheme as such for any of those people should they suffer from any of the problem areas that go with their occupation. The report makes recommendations that there be compensation for members of parliament, judges and others, and that it should be paid to those-and I quote: (a) who suffer personal injury in the course of their performance of ministerial, parliamentary or other duties associated with their particular office; or (b) who suffer from a disease to which the contraction, aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of which the performance of their duties was a contributing factor; or (c) who die as a result of sustaining such an injury or suffering from such a disease. This is an extension of the liability which has been accepted by the Commonwealth for various other classes of occupation. I am no longer in any doubt that this group-which includes ourselves, so I declare the pecuniary interest of myself and my colleagues-should have a scheme. I think it is unreasonable, in view of the way that the compensation business has been extended, that there should be exclusions from it. I am quite pleased that Senator Walsh is not in the chamber at the moment because he may well not agree with my point of view. But I think it will need to be pursued. I do not wish to see anything in place that is not completely reasonable and completely in accord with the sort of compensation that is available to other people. But I believe that the report of the inquiry carried out by Mr Justice Mahoney, and Mr Mangan and Mr Porter as members, is a reasoned document and I commend it to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 14 April, on motion by Senator Archer: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(4.11) —I wish briefly to draw the Senate's attention to page 50 of this report and the comments under the heading of: `Design, Research and Development'. The report says that an objective of the post-1984 arrangements was to foster uniqueness of design in the production of Australian passenger motor vehicles and components. It goes on to say: However, very few applications related to expenditure on new research and development, which confirms the view that very little basic research is undertaken into passenger motor vehicles and component parts in this country. We can conclude from that that insofar as research and development are concerned, the car plan of 1984 is not working. This is a very serious matter. Again, if we are to develop export oriented industries, the automotive industry should be leading the way. We should be able to develop in this country motor vehicles which have export potential, and presumably this is not happening. We are relying on parent companies overseas to provide motor vehicles that are developed for conditions in Europe and North America and it would seem, if one can believe this report, that we are not doing any basic research on the development of motor vehicles suited to Australian conditions. I believe that the Government has a responsibility, in view of our very critical balance of payments problems. Nearly 40 per cent of our exports go towards paying our interest bill on money that we have borrowed. We are heading for the bankruptcy court and we can escape bankruptcy only by exporting. The area in which we have potential to export more in the short term is in manufactured goods. What is needed is a bold new approach by the Government. Why cannot the Government set down criteria for an Australian designed motor car suited to Australian conditions, using an Australian engine, designed to use fuels of which we have abundance? What will we do in 10 years when the crude oil in Bass Strait runs out? Will we import crude oil at enormous cost or will we use a fuel of which we have abundant reserves, such as natural gas? The Government could well lay down criteria for a car which meets Australian conditions, using a fuel which we have in abundance. A car that was designed specifically to use natural gas would make us independent of imported crude oil and would also find export markets in countries with similar conditions to Australia and with particular reasons for using an alternative fuel to crude oil. My plea to the Government is to use a bit of imagination, to be bold, to look ahead 10 years, to lay down the criteria and put the challenge in front of the automotive industry to do something about developing a car suitable to Australian conditions and which would have export potential. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(4.15) —I wish to refer to the few aspects of the Automotive Industry Authority report which need special attention. The first is on page 8 under the heading `Sales'. The following passage is worthy of reflection: The strong performance of 1985 reflect strong economic growth and improved consumer confidence in the wider economy, augmented by some special factors which impacted on sales. There are of course good reasons why the sale of 685,000 units in 1985 was a record. This sales figure was recorded against a backdrop of a stronger economy, increased consumer confidence and a rush to purchase cars before the full impact of devaluation and lead-free petrol unit costs. Another aspect of this report which needs special highlight appears on page 24. Under the heading `Employment' it was reported that although employment in the industry has declined since 1970, 1985 saw an increase of 2.3 per cent. Whilst these figures are commendable, at least a few of the factors involved in the record sales will not be duplicated in 1986. No doubt the Opposition will blame all reductions in sales in 1986 on the fringe benefits tax. However, the truth is that much of the 1985 record sales involved people buying in advance of the introduction of more costly lead-free petrol models and cost increases resulting from currency devaluation. The full impact of these two developments is yet to be seen, but price sensitivity will also be a big factor. Price increases not only mean that consumers buy in advance, but also may mean that they may not buy at all. Fully imported Japanese cars will no doubt feel the full brunt of the devaluation. The other relevant factor is that of cheaper oil prices. Cheaper petrol will mean a drift back to large cars which are generally produced in Australia. It is my view that cost increases for imported cars and cheaper oil will help boost sales of locally produced cars. However, I must make a few remarks about the likely impact of the fringe benefits tax. I say `likely' because until the tax has been in place for a period so that it can be assessed, any predictions are only informed speculation. Certainly the principle of taxation equity is one which I and the Government hold dear. The provision of non-tax perks in place of taxable income is tax avoidance. Notwithstanding that, I would also like to record my concern that the introduction of this tax may have a disproportionate impact on locally produced units and my home State of South Australia. To recoup the cost of the proposed tax, employers could take one of two directions. Fleet cars could be downsized to smaller cars which are more likely to be imported. Options connected with fleet cars could be eliminated. Both of these developments will lead to lower employment levels. The figures which I believe to be in operation are that approximately 40 per cent of motor vehicle sales are fleet sales; moreover, 25 per cent of motor vehicles production originates in South Australia. As this is the State with only 8 per cent of the national population, any employment impact will affect South Australia disproportionately. My concern in this regard follows a probable downturn in sales in 1986 because of other factors. It must also be remembered that South Australia has already shouldered much of the burden of the industry restructuring, such as the Chrysler rationalisation and the General Motors-Holden Ltd Woodville closure. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.19) —The Report on the State of the Automotive Industry, which was tabled in the Senate yesterday is, in a sense, a report on the last war because it reports on the state of the industry up to December 1985 and of course there have been developments since then which attempt to focus the debate in rather different areas. With respect to the report as it stands, I must say that the Opposition welcomes the fact that it has been published and substantially supports the views expressed in it. The document is very useful in terms of bringing us up to date with the work being done to pursue the car plan through its second year. Debate at the moment is focused on what is widely seen as a variation of the car plan, namely, the proposed fringe benefits tax and the possible impact that will have upon demand and sales, and therefore on the volume of cars which can be produced within Australia and the employment that can be maintained within Australia. There appears to be a widespread view within the industry itself that the taxation changes which were part of the Government's last year's tax package constitute a substantial variation to a car plan which was introduced in 1984 and which was predicated on there being a stability of policy through to 1992. Within the report itself there is comment on the positive and the negative factors which are likely to affect the sales of passenger motor vehicles. In referring to those negative factors, there was an acknowledgment of the importance of higher prices, an acknowledgment of the fact that the introduction of lead free petrol models has contributed to higher prices, and that is a downward pressure, and an acknowledgment of the fact that there have been interest rate rises which have made the cost of purchase more expensive for many consumers, and the fringe benefits tax on company vehicles is mentioned. The report goes on to say that any fall in passenger motor vehicle sales in 1986 is likely to be borne by imports and only to a lesser extent by local passenger motor vehicles. I suppose that reflects the fact that the devaluation has impacted more heavily upon imported cars than it has on locally manufactured cars, although locally manufactured cars, because they contain imported components, have also been affected. I would like at this stage to again stress to the Government the need for it to reconsider its taxation decision because of the obvious weakening of the market which is no longer a matter of prediction but of actuality in calendar year 1986. The situation is that in the first couple of months of this year there has been a substantial reduction in sales, and whilst last year was a record year, the reductions are such that they affect the stability of the industry and the prospects for employment. In January-February of 1986 there was a 20 per cent drop in passenger motor vehicle sales. The figures which have been provided by the Australian Automobile Dealers' Association suggests that the fleet market has diminished in those months, over the same two months of the previous year, by 35.76 per cent. That is a very substantial reduction and one which has very significant implications for the industry because, of course, fleet vehicles are predominantly Australian manufactured vehicles, or at least to this point have been. That very steep reduction in sales could suggest very real difficulties for the major Australian manufacturers. We are in the odd situation where the responsible Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is in the Senate at the moment, is making no secret of the fact that he is opposed to the Government's fringe benefits tax in its present form because of its impact on the motor vehicle manufacturing industry. I am not quite sure what views Senator Button has of ministerial responsibility, but he certainly seems freer than most Ministers I have ever struck to admit to a point of difference with his own Government. His present situation is that he is indicating that he has supported changes but has not been successful in obtaining them. The Opposition simply wishes to indicate and stress to the Government, and to Ministers such as the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) who may not have been as supportive of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce as she could have been, that what we need is a revision of the Government's fringe benefits tax proposal in the interests of this vital Australian industry and in the interests of continued employment in this industry. On this occasion we find ourselves, at least in part, on the side of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and against the majority of his colleagues apparently, but I think it is a matter where reconsideration by the Government is required. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.24) —I am concerned about the thrust of the Report on the State of the Automotive Industry. While we generally agree that rationalisation and a restructuring of the industry are essential to enable it to become competitive, both domestically and internationally, I think the direction of the report in its attack on the component sector of the industry is unfortunate. It is unfortunate in terms that the policy has led to specialists acquiring monopoly positions. Having acquired those monopoly positions as a result of that restructuring and in order that they may become more competitive they are now being attacked to such an extent that there is a likelihood of import replacements. It would be unfortunate if overseas contracts were left for components which effectively carried the base load and allowed the Australian manufacturers to carry the risks of the ups and downs. It is unfortunate that they have also been attacked on the industrial area. No mention seems to be made of the car manufacturers themselves or about their industrial problems. We seem to have attacked a labour intensive sector that I believe is settling in and is taking some time to rationalise and to harmonise. It reflects the fact that government authorities and governments do not recognise the problems that beset industry, that it does take time to integrate industries. It is unfortunate that there are problems associated with this fringe benefits tax that could have a disastrous effect on the motor industry. I call on the Government to make a brave decision, as it made in relation to the rural industry, to reverse its policy and to enable this important industry to become viable and to enable its sales to recover to satisfactory levels of profitability and employment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of Government papers has expired. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.27) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(4.28) —On behalf of Senator Chipp I move: That the Senate- (a) calls upon the Government to remove all foreign bases and installations from Australian soil unless it can be positively shown that: (i) the bases and installations do not form any part of the nuclear strategy of the United States, (ii) the management of the bases is genuinely under the joint and equal control of the Australian and US Governments, and (iii) all information handled by the bases and installations is shared with the Australian Government; (b) calls upon the Government: (i) at least 6 months prior to the expiration of any lease, and in sufficient time to give notice of termination or variation, to establish a Joint Parliamentary Committee to investigate whether the conditions for the continuation of the bases have been met, and (ii) in any case to complete inquiries into all bases and installations before December 1986; and (c) calls upon the Government: (i) to establish whether any Australian defence installations provide information or research for any nuclear weapons or strategies, and (ii) where it is established that this is the case, to cease such operations forthwith. This is a very important item at any time, but it is particularly important at the present moment with the Libyan crisis very much in our minds. On 14 April 1986 in the Senate I asked Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister for Resources and Energy, who represents the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley)-apparently he does not feel that this is an important enough issue to attend in the chamber-a question. I asked: . . . what is the Government's attitude to Pine Gap's electronic spy satellites being used to spy on Libya as they were used to spy on Greece and Israel last year? Senator Gareth Evans, with his usual rather flippant response to these serious questions, said: As to that part of the question concerning Pine Gap, the honourable senator will recognise that I cannot answer his question without being drawn into his speculations about operations of the joint facilities. For very good reasons the Government is quite unwilling to do that, as Senator Sanders well knows. He then went on to quote from a letter from the Minister for Defence dated 9 April last year which states: The Government maintains its position that it could not confirm or deny anything that is reported to be associated with an operation at Pine Gap. He said `could not confirm or deny'. Frankly, in the real world if anybody fails to deny something we can only assume that they confirm it. That is the only prudent course of action. Therefore, I believe that the Minister for Defence confirms the fact that Pine Gap was used to spy on Greece, and is often used to spy on other areas of the world. Senator Gareth Evans in his reply goes on to say: So if we could manage without some of the more lurid and inaccurate speculations about Pine Gap's operations in the past, we might have a slightly more sensible approach to its operations at present and future within the limits of what it is possible for any government to say about the operations of that facility. In other words, he skirted around the issue. He failed even to deny that the United States facility at Pine Gap was used in the Libyan operation. By implication he said that that was not so. He states that I am subject to lurid and inaccurate speculations about Pine Gap. Senator Gareth Evans —Yep. Senator SANDERS —Here he is. I welcome the Minister to the chamber. I would like to point out that although he may claim that I have lurid speculations, that august publication, the Canberra Times, this very day said: Much of the traffic interception performed by the Americans . . . arises from satellite-borne interrogation systems which can . . . relay the information to ground stations for processing. We have been told by President Reagan of the United States that they have intelligence information which leads them to believe that in fact the Libyans planned an operation on the nightclub in Berlin. We have been told that the Americans relayed these plans to their operatives in East Berlin from where they were told that the operation had in fact taken place. How did they receive these signals? Probably, almost certainly, through Pine Gap. Pine Gap is the only such station that the United States operates. It operates it here in Australia for two reasons. It operates it, firstly, because of the low electronic interference, and secondly, because it is a secure, stable and isolated place which can be run with some security. Pine Gap satellites were used last year to spy on Greece. Furthermore, there is other involvement of the United States bases in Australia in the Libyan situation. Although Senator Evans denied it, it is a certainty that North West Cape would have been alerted and in fact would have communicated certain information to United States forces in our region. During the 1973 Middle East war this was done without any consultation with the Australian Government. It should come as no surprise that this facility would be used in the present instance when, in fact, major units of the United States fleet went into action in the Mediterranean. It is only logical that units of the United States fleet in the Indian Ocean would be in contact with their control and command organisations. That contact would be through North West Cape. Was our Government consulted this time? I doubt it very much. West Germany hosts United States bases and military personnel. Those United States bases and military personnel would also have been put on alert. However, Chancellor Kohl was not consulted and only learned of the situation in Libya through news reports. I think the same situation was occurring here in Australia. This matter raises three reasons for bringing on the motion. One reason is the use of the bases in support of aggressive military strategies, including nuclear war. The second reason is the threat posed to Australian security. The third reason is the lack of Australian sovereignty. We have no control over the use of the bases. Following the Libyan strike it is reported that a United States F111 landed at Rota in Spain. The Spanish people are very concerned about United States bases on their soil. Certainly, this would involve them, at least in the Libyan eyes, in the United States action if a United States plane landed on Spanish soil. There is no way the Spanish Government could forbid that F111 from landing at a United States base on Spanish soil. Therefore, Spain has been dragged into this thing much against its will. I ask honourable senators to think of what happened in Britain when Margaret Thatcher acted on the basis of certain information. We learn only now that that action was only on the basis of the information which we have all been given that Ronald Reagan had some secret information-information that he is not going to show anybody-which showed that Libya was involved. Maggie said: `Go for it babe, use our bases'. Willy nilly she is pulled into the Libyan operation. Senator McKiernan —And the people of Britain. Senator SANDERS —Yes, as the honourable senator says, the people of Britain against their will have been locked into this situation. They have been put at risk. The Libyans hold them responsible. Their embassies are now under threat. Their homeland is under threat because they have been dragged into this war because of a very broad alliance with the United States. We were told that the Libyan attack was a limited strike. We were told that it was a surgical strike-although it was surgery with a broad axe. What happens in time of nuclear war? How would these bases in Australia be used if in fact the world became involved in a nuclear war? Let us refer to the United States strategies themselves. The following scenario is from the United States maritime strategy as described by Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral J. Watkins. This strategy commits the United States to escalate any local conflict with the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics to global war. Watkins stated: Should war come, the Soviets would prefer to use their massive ground force advantage against Europe without having to concern themselves with a global conflict or with actions on their flanks. It is this preferred Soviet strategy the United States must counter. The key to doing so is to ensure that they will have to face the prospect of prolonged global conflict. Therefore, as tensions in such a situation rose nuclear armed ships at Cockburn Sound would put to sea. Pine Gap would monitor Soviet military moves by radio message interceptions and by monitoring air defence radars. North West Cape would relay messages to all United States forces in the region, placing them on alert and directing naval operations, especially to bottle up the Soviet fleet in the Sea of Japan. North West Cape is of use not only in the Indian Ocean but also in the Pacific because of the orientation of the receiving antennas on the submarines which apparently are more powerful in a broadside direction than they are end-on, which means that a submarine travelling east-west would not be able to receive the signals from Jim Creek but in fact would have to rely on North West Cape in Australia. Therefore, even in the north Pacific North West Cape could have some value. When the war broke out, according to Admiral Watkins, the United States would seize the initiative and naval forces would destroy Soviet forces in forward areas and fight their way towards Soviet home waters. As Admiral Watkins has said, the United States would seek to `defeat maritime strength in all its dimensions'. This would involve attacks against Soviet ships and would include the use of Tomahawk cruise missiles. It would attack these ships which in fact would be located by triangulation stations on Australian soil. These triangulation stations constantly monitor the high frequency transmissions of any ship in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. These stations are located at Toowoomba, Perth and Darwin. Also, there is such a station in New Zealand at Tangimoana. This data is collected and sent to Melbourne through what used to be called Watsonia but what is known now as Simpson, a communication station which communicates with United States satellites. These messages would then go to CINCPAC, the Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. Therefore, the information on location is sent through Australia. The attacks would continue on Soviet air bases in the north Pacific using Tomahawk cruise missiles and bombers. North West Cape would relay these attack orders. The Tomahawk cruise missiles and bombers would fly through radar gaps identified by Pine Gap. Pine Gap is a gigantic electronic vacuum cleaner. It soaks up signals from over Russia; in fact, from anywhere the antennas of the satellite are pointed. It would be a very important link to find out where the Russian radar was inoperative, thus allowing the bombers to get through. Attacks on Soviet nuclear missile submarines by the United States would be on orders relayed through North West Cape and the attack submarines would navigate using the Omega navigation station located near Sale in Victoria. Escalation to nuclear war would be highly likely at this time. The Soviets would be very keen to use their submarine-launched missiles before they lost them. If they knew they were subject to imminent attack, they would launch their missiles. The Soviets would believe that any Tomahawk missile was a nuclear missile. They would have to believe this. Therefore, their attack strategy would be altered by this consideration to a full scale nuclear attack. Tomahawk missiles can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads, but one would have to assume that any Tomahawk missile coming in was nuclear armed. The United States Navy would use its nuclear missiles before it lost them. This can be done at the discretion of ship or submarine commanders with no outside authority technically necessary, so there would be a huge escalation of the situation. Due to the vulnerability of United States and Russian command and control systems to attack, the pre-emptive nuclear attack is a favoured military response on both sides, irrespective of what the politicians have been saying. For the United States, the pre-emptive nuclear attack on first strike is, and has always been, the preferred action. The United States single integrated operational plan-SIOP-has always included the first strike option. Star Wars, Trident II, the MX and the Tomahawk of the United States and the B1 bombers, the SS24s and the SS25s of Russia are all being developed to make first strike more successful but it is already the preferred option. During a nuclear war all bases used for a conventional attack would be used in a similar way for a nuclear attack. North West Cape would give the first strike orders. Pine Gap data would assist bomber and cruise strikes and monitor the Soviets. Toowoomba, Perth, Darwin and Simpson-Watsonia-would assist naval targeting and Omega would assist submarine navigation. But other bases would also be involved. This is where Nurrungar comes into play. Nurrungar's satellites would give warning of any Soviet nuclear missile attack or, more likely, response to a first strike. With the next generation of satellites, it would assist Star Wars to mop up the Soviet response and to identify surviving Soviet missile silos for destruction. The accuracy of the missiles would depend on data from satellites backed by Smithfield in South Australia, which include Geosat and Navstar. In summary, the bases would assist in the build up to conventional and nuclear war, particularly with the aggressive United States maritime strategy. They would be directly involved in any United States first strike-the preferred nuclear option-and they would be destroyed by nuclear missiles at the outset of a Soviet first strike, being vulnerable parts of the United States command and control system. This would reduce United States capacity to retaliate. The Government's policy is that the bases are justified as contributing to deterrence, early warning of Soviet missile attacks and verification of arms control agreements. I will deal with these one by one. Deterrence means not striking first but responding to Soviet nuclear attack. But deterrence is dead. The military policy of the United States, and perhaps Russia, is, and always has been, pre-emptive first strike. Also-I do not think anyone in this chamber can argue with this-United States conventional strategy is becoming more provocative. The United States is becoming more and more bellicose and more and more willing to use its massive strength. The American people demand it. Reagan gives them what they want. They want a Rambo response. All this lowers the nuclear threshold. I am not suggesting that the Soviets are not responsible in their own ways. They are engaged in sabre-rattling at this moment. Perhaps both sides have become more prone to take action since the Libyan crisis. The Australian involvement in the United States nuclear strategy threatens us and the entire world. Early warning really only involves Nurrungar. Nurrungar would initiate the massive United States retaliation to a Soviet first strike because Nurrungar receives data from infra-red satellites over the Equator which are capable of detecting the initial launch phase of missiles in the Soviet Union. People might say that it is fair enough that we should have ways of detecting the launching of missiles, but it also could lead to accidental war through a misunderstanding of the data which comes in. It could lead to a war because of a mistaken case of a missile launching. This happens quite frequently in our defence systems when the data is not analysed correctly. Any such miscalculation could lead to a nuclear holocaust. Certainly the launching of United States missiles as the result of a Russian missile launch would lead to a nuclear holocaust. This, of course, would then lead to a nuclear winter and could affect the entire world. We often hear that verification is a major function of the bases. Basically verification involves Nurrungar and Pine Gap monitoring missile tests. It has nothing at all to do with the verification of how many missiles or facilities Russia has, or America has in the case of the Russians. If we are going to worry about the verification of the missile capabilities of a country, Nurrungar and Pine Gap simply cannot do the job. Those bases run satellites which are in geo-stationary orbit over the Equator. The satellites are at such a height-thousands and thousands of kilometres above the earth-that the resolution is very poor. If one wants to be able to photograph, as one can from space, the details of a missile installations one does it from a polar orbiting satellite, which has a very low orbit height. A satellite in orbit around the poles can collect data and then discharge it a few orbits later right to the United States. It does not discharge its data to Pine Gap at all. Pine Gap is not necessary for this and anybody who says it is does not understand the whole operation of satellites. All of these bases are far more likely to cause nuclear war than disarmament. What we really need, if we wish for verification, is an international satellite monitoring agency. That could be run by the United Nations but need not be connected to any military system. It could have its own satellites and bases. None of the bases in Australia is necessary for this system. The Australian Labor Party, at its National Conference in July, is going to be looking at policies concerning the bases. It will apparently support the bases for their contribution to early warning and verification. It will ignore the offensive role that all bases have and it will certainly ignore the fact that North West Cape, Simpson-Watsonia, Smithfield, Omega and others have no role whatsoever in verification. The Labor Party would do well to look strongly at its policy and decide exactly what the roles of the bases are and eliminate the bases if it finds, as I believe I have found, they are a danger to the Australian nation. In respect of sovereignty, despite official statements, we have no meaningful control over bases and no influence over the strategies they support-none whatsoever. Almost certainly these bases were used during the Libyan crisis without our consent, but the best example of how the United States treats us as an ally was given recently in this chamber. On 11 February, Senator Gareth Evans said that the strategy of attacking nuclear missile submarines during conventional war was one option amongst many. The day before the United States Defence Secretary, Caspar Weinberger, said that it was the official United States strategy. The Government had not been told about this. The Government read in the newspaper about this major change in United States policy which affects Australia through the bases. United States control over the bases and our lack of any meaningful control ourselves is made possible by two aspects of our democracy in Australia. The first aspect is that the Parliament cannot ratify or reject agreements with other nations such as the bases agreements. The Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Governor-General have that power; the Parliament does not have it. The second aspect is that our freedom of information laws are pathetic, and the Government will not acknowledge information that is on the public record in the United States. The Soviet Union's military planners know more about what happens here than the Australian public. The bases agreements have extremely important implications for our security. They should be subject to a full parliamentary inquiry with at least as much information revealed as is on the United States public record. The bases threaten national and global security and our democracy. The opportunities are coming up to do something about the situation. Nurrungar can be scrapped, if we take action now, at 12 months notice. Pine Gap can be removed at 12 months notice after 19 October this year. North West Cape can be removed at 180 days notice after 31 December 1987. The Australian Democrats demand that these agreements and those covering the other bases be subject to a full inquiry before any decision is made. It is possible that the Pine Gap agreement has been or will soon be renewed without the knowledge of Parliament or even the Labor Party Caucus. We are contributing to the growing threat of global conventional and nuclear war. We are shutting our eyes to our involvement. It is time that we asserted the right to make our own decisions and to remove ourselves from the nuclear network in the interests of global peace. The bases destabilise global peace. They are not adding one iota to the preservation of world peace. They make it more and more likely that a first strike will occur by one nation or another. The Government had admitted that the bases also make us in Australia nuclear targets, as does the presence of any nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered ships in our harbours. The bases also eliminate any chance of Australia being a neutral voice for common sense in the nuclear world. If we are committed to the United States strategy-as we are by the presence of their bases-we cannot possibly act as a neutral force for peace in the world. We have no credibility in that line. It is time to declare our independence. After all, we are an independent nation. Why do we allow the United States to dictate what happens on our soil? Why did we allow the United States to drag us into conflagrations or wars which we have no desire to enter? It is time to stand on our own two feet on the world stage. We can influence world events in a positive manner if we have the guts to order the bases out of Australia and assert our independence. I commend the motion. Senator Chipp —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: I rise not in anger but just to make the point that there was a clear arrangement this morning at the Whips' meeting-of which you would have had no knowledge-that there was to be one speaker on this motion, the debate was to be adjourned, and then we would proceed to Senator Mason's Bill. Now I see that Senator Gareth Evans believes that he should respond to what Senator Sanders said-and quite properly. I found it almost incomprehensible this morning that that agreement was reached by the Whips of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party; but that was the arrangement. If Senator Evans speaks, it is quite proper that the Liberal Party should have a chance of responding as well. I just point out-not just because this is a Democrats day; we get one in five-that we have only one and a half hours this day, all that we have in five sitting weeks, in which to put forward private members' business. That applies to every member of this chamber, be they Liberal, Labor or whatever. I just rise in sorrow to say that this is an unfortunate situation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —There is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-I acknowledge that an agreement was reached at the Whips' meeting this morning. I found out about it only early this afternoon, when I questioned the wisdom, as Senator Chipp has said, of allowing as provocative a speech as that which we have just heard to go immediately unanswered. It became immediately clear that there had been a misunderstanding, and that the Labor Whips, I think, had thought, as maybe the Liberals had too, that what was involved was the introduction of a private member's Bill rather than a speech on a notice of motion. Of course, if one is introducing a Bill, it is normal practice for there to be a second reading speech. I plan to speak for no more than about 15 to 17 minutes. I would hope that the Liberal spokesman on this motion could exercise similar self-restraint. Senator Chipp —Are they Greenwich minutes or Evans minutes? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have a text, so I have a rough idea of how long I shall take-as long as honourable senators do not interject. That is the important thing: Do not interject. On that basis, if we can reach agreement to terminate this debate and adjourn it after the three of us have spoken, it should be possible to get back on to the Mason Bill quickly. In respect of that Bill, my text should last for only 10 minutes, so there will be some further opportunity for debate. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-The situation in regard to the Whips' meeting this morning is that there was not an agreement reached that was a firm agreement. We specifically agreed that it was not an agreement, but that each of us would confer with our parties about the arrangements as to what would follow on the basis that there would be just the one speaker, as has been set out. Subsequently, I was told that that was likely to be the case, but that if the Government wanted to respond, the Opposition would respond too. I would not want anyone to think that any agreement was made at the Whips' meeting. We were all very conscious of the need to consult our own people on the matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I am sure that the Senate appreciates those explanations, but since time, being of the essence, seems to be the problem, I now call the Minister. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.56) —It is an unfortunate sign of the times that we should be debating today a motion which covers not only much of the ground that we have gone over on numerous previous occasions in this chamber but also, and more significantly, ground which is based, in Senator Sanders's motion, on numerous misconceptions and some quite ill-informed precepts-and this despite the fact that this Government and, to a markedly lesser extent, the one before it, have gone to great lengths to correct these misconceptions about the joint facilities and the areas of ignorance, be they real or feigned. Senator Sanders ranged fancy free over a wide variety of recent events during his speech, most notably, and naturally, the recent action by the United States of America against Libya. But I think that my main responsibility on this occasion is, on behalf of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), to respond quite specifically to the terms of the Australian Democrats motion now before us, rather than to try to track Senator Sanders through every extravagant ebb and flow of his stream of consciousness to which we were subjected on this occasion. When I talk about misconceptions, let me begin, by way of illustration, by referring to the very first section of part (a) of the motion. The Australian Government does not allow permanent basing or the establishment of foreign military bases on Australian soil in time of peace. The simple reality is that there are no foreign bases on Australian territory. The joint facilities are not military bases-there are no combat personnel; no combat equipment; no military stores; and no military warehouses. Under this Government, therefore, the question of foreign military bases in Australia does not arise. On 12 June 1984, in a debate on this topic Senator Chipp said: The Democrats do not doubt that the bases-- to use his word- play an important role in arms control. I am glad that he acknowledges that, and at least acknowledged it on that occasion. But let me explain the purposes of the joint facilities so that we can be quite clear as to where they fit into the international strategic structure. The joint facilities provide the United States with early warning facilities and with independent means of verifying Soviet compliance with arms control and disarmament arrangements. In so doing, they advance not only Australia's interests but the world's interests by contributing to the preservation of peace and the global power relationships upon which the survival of us all on this planet ultimately depends. Something which, regrettably, Senator Sanders and his Democrat colleagues would appear to ignore is the important fact that the joint facilities provide a framework within which Australia can urge its allies to participate in moves towards reductions in the levels of nuclear armaments. The influence which Australia has in international affairs in the disarmament area-an influence which has been positive and significant, and acknowledged as such in many other countries-would be seriously eroded if the Democrats had their way. If they had their way, the positive and significant role which the joint facilities play in decreasing the likelihood of nuclear war would be dispensed with. The motion proposes that the condition should be applied that the so-called bases and installations must not `form any part of the nuclear strategy of the United States'. Does this encompass United States strategies and plans to defend itself from the risk of a Soviet nuclear strike? If so, the contribution which the facilities in Australia make to the United States early warning system-and, thereby, to reducing or eliminating the prospect that the USSR might be encouraged to conduct a surprise bolt from the blue first strike on the United States-would no longer be possible. The proposal would undermine a principal element of the basis on which the system of mutual deterrence operates-the ability of the United States of America to retaliate with its submarine forces in the event of a Soviet attack. Dissociating ourselves, as this motion would require us to, from `any part of the nuclear strategy of the United States' would require that the naval communications station at North West Cape-whose primary role is to provide reliable communications to United States submarines that may be operating in our part of the world-cease operations. This would detract from global security, not add to it. Of course the joint facilities do form a part of United States nuclear strategy. That is no secret, and the Government has explained that part. Let me quote from the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of 6 June 1984. I will quote it again: Timely knowledge of developments that have military significance is very important and can be critical for the security of the US and its allies, including Australia. Effective deterrence and hence avoidance of conflict depend on this. Similarly, effective measures for military restraint and for the control and reduction of armaments depend upon reliable assessments of military developments. Arms limitation arrangements between the United States and the Soviet Union specifically provide for verification. The general purpose of the facilities that we operate at Nurrungar and Pine Gap with the Americans is to contribute to all of these objectives. Later on he stated: The purpose and functions of the joint defence facility at North West Cape have already been made public. It is a communications relay station for ships and submarines of the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Navy and serves as a key element in a complex system of communications supporting the global balance. As indicated in the statement which the Minister for Defence tabled in Parliament on 3 November 1983, agreement was reached with the United States Government on new arrangements to ensure that the Australian Government would be able to make timely judgments about the significance for national interest of developments involving North West Cape. As to section (a) (ii) and (a) (iii) of the motion before us, the functions of the joint facilities were, as I have already just said, fully explained by the Prime Minister in his statement on 6 June 1984. But let me repeat that in that statement the Prime Minister said that the joint facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar contribute to arms control verification and early warning as well as effective deterrence. Significantly for this part of Senator Sanders's motion, the Prime Minister also indicated that the Government has full and complete knowledge of what is done at these facilities. Senator Chipp —Do you know exactly what goes on at Pine Gap? Senator GARETH EVANS —In response to Senator Chipp's interjection, I will repeat that sentence: The Government has full and complete knowledge of what is done at these facilities. Senator Chipp —Who in the Government? Who? Name him. Senator GARETH EVANS —Certainly the subject Ministers-Mr Beazley, Mr Hayden and the Prime Minister. I would not claim complete personal knowledge of everything that goes on there, but certainly I have been briefed in general terms and I hope to extend the range of that briefing in the near future. Certainly the Australian Government as a whole and through certain crucial key individuals has full and complete knowledge. We are quite confident of that and I repeat it. Let me emphasise again that these joint facilities are jointly managed and operated by the Australian and American governments. All functions and activities require, and have, the full knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government. We monitor this and we are satisfied that the operations of the facilities in no way derogate from Australian sovereignty. To expand further on this point let me deal with the facilities one by one in more detail. It has been acknowledged for many years that there are separate United States and Australian national rooms to preserve the privacy of national communications relayed through the North West Cape. Australian personnel are involved in all aspects of the operation of the North West Cape station apart from the United States national room and are solely responsible for the operations of the Australian national room. The Minister for Defence announced in the House of Representatives on 3 November 1983 measures to improve the protection of Australian sovereign interests in the operation of this station. These arrangements establish special access to the US Department of Defence for consultations on strategic policy issues, and an enhanced role for the head of the Australian defence staff in Washington. They provide for improved procedures so that, in future, the Australian Government would be informed as early as possible about developments affecting, or potentially affecting, the operation or use of the North West Cape station. The Government is satisfied that these arrangements ensure that Australia's sovereignty in the operation of the joint defence facilities at North West Cape is adequately protected. As to Pine Gap and Nurrungar, in his statement of 6 June 1984, to which I have already referred, the Prime Minister said that these joint facilities contribute to arms control, verification and early warning, as well as to effective deter- rence. This statement was agreed by the United States Government and was based on, I repeat, our full and complete knowledge of what is done at these facilities. Australian personnel have access to all the operational areas of the Pine Gap facility and are employed in the key areas. Australian personnel are fully integrated into the operation of Nurrungar. There is a standing requirement that there be at least one Australian service officer on each shift crew in the operations room. As the Prime Minister has said, all functions and activities require, and have, again, the full knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government. We monitor them closely and are satisfied that the operations of the facilities in no way derogate from our sovereignty. Clearly, therefore, sections (ii) and (iii) of section (a) of Senator Sanders's motion are redundant and part (i) so vague, with respect, as to be meaningless. In section (b) of the motion there is demonstrated again a certain ignorance of the nature of the joint facilities. The terms of the motion also demonstrate the ease with which some people-I say `some' because I recognise that some people are more misguided than without knowledge-make statements on the joint facilities, completely ignoring the facts. None of the facilities is subject to a lease, to use the terms of the motion, which requires renewal. Let me repeat it so that that is quite clear: Not one of the facilities is subject to a lease which requires renewal. Each is the subject of an appropriate treaty or agreement which includes a non-terminable period. When the non-terminable period expires, the agreement continues in force until either side serves due notice of termination on the other. Senator Chipp may be nodding his head-- Senator Chipp —You may be damn right. That means that they can go on forever without them coming to the Parliament. Senator GARETH EVANS —I wish Senator Chipp had acknowledged that when someone on his behalf had been drafting his motion because the motion calls upon the Government at least six months prior to the expiration of any lease to do various things. Senator Chipp —That is legally possible. Senator GARETH EVANS —With the utmost respect, I have just described what the legal nature of the relationship is, at least on these particular facilities. The North West Cape agreement came into force in June 1963 for 25 years and will remain in force thereafter unless 180 days notice of termination is given. In the case of Pine Gap, the current agreement entered into force in December 1966 for a period of 10 years and remains in force thereafter unless one year's written notice of termination is given by either of the two parties. In the case of Nurrungar, the treaty entered into force in November 1969 for 10 years and will remain in force thereafter unless 365 days notice in writing of termination is given. All three of the agreements, therefore, will remain in force and there is no question of them requiring renegotiation or re-authorisation. Clearly, therefore, again with the utmost respect, section (b) (i) of the motion is a nonsense as it does not accord with the facts. With regard to section (b) (ii) of the motion, the Government constantly monitors the status and operations of the joint facilities to ensure that they are consistent with Australia's national interest and sovereignty. Again, this section in its present terminology is a nonsense, as the Prime Minister's statement of 6 June 1984 makes clear. As for the suggestion that there are Australian defence facilities researching nuclear weapons or strategies-I take it the honourable senator means for Australia-I remind him that Australia has forsworn the nuclear weapons option through its membership of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Prime Minister repeated this commitment in his 1984 statement when he announced that the Government categorically rejected the option of acquiring nuclear weapons. Since then, of course, Australia has signed the South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty, which prohibits the acquisition, manufacture, stationing and testing of nuclear weapons within the zone. The maintenance of effective deterrence through early warning and verification-a situation greatly enhanced by the existence of the joint facilities-has as its purpose the avoidance of war between the super-powers. The Government's position is not one of ignoring the realities of the state of the world and jumping on idealistic, but well-meaning bandwagons. Nor is it one of blind acceptance and the abrogation of Australia's influence, independence and sovereignty. Indeed, as a government, we have taken the tough but realistic and responsible decisions on these issues. What we have in this motion is, however well intentioned it undoubtedly is, a moralistic and sanctimonious set of exhortations based on a series of misconceptions. Leaving out the loose wording and errors of fact-although this speech was written before Senator Sanders made his speech, it is applicable to the terms of the motion-and looking at the underlying intent of the motion, it is clear that the Democrats would have Australia either opt out of the alliance, or attempt to get full benefits without any appropriate contribution by Australia, while at the same time, and most importantly, leaving Australia isolated and ignorant of the real world. They would leave Australia without any voice in world affairs. They would leave Australia without any influence in areas of crucial importance, such as in nuclear disarmament, arms control and nuclear test verification. Without national technical means of verification which both super-powers support, the prospects for effective nuclear arms control would evaporate. The joint facilities contribute significantly to such verification. Finally, I should point out that the benefits which accrue to Australia through its alliance relationship with the United States-in terms, for example, of our security, cost of our defence and exchange of information-are balanced by the very real benefits which accrue to the United States through the joint facilities by way of early warning and verification. The joint facilities give us a real influence in international affairs and provide us with detailed knowledge to support that influence. It would be a great error to dispense with these benefits at a time when we all agree that nuclear disarmament is of crucial and increasing importance. We are in a position to provide significant support to the process of nuclear disarmament while protecting fully Australia's sovereignty and independence. That should not be thrown away, either in an attempt to gain cheap political points, an appeal to emotions or in ignorance of the realities of the world, as harsh as they may be. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.13) —I rise on behalf of the Opposition again to restate the Opposition's support for the joint facilities in Australia and also to dissociate the Opposition from the only lightly veiled anti-American sentiment of the Australian Democrats as put today in their motion and as stated in the assertions of their spokesman in this debate. If I might enlarge slightly on that, we heard Senator Sanders say today that it is the Democrats' view that the bases are being used in the build up to an aggressive nuclear war. The Democrats believe that the preferred option of the United States of America is a pre-emptive nuclear strike. These are the sentiments-- Senator Sanders —That is true. Senator HILL —I acknowledge the interjection of Senator Sanders who reasserted the position. These sentiments, of course, are intended to strike fear into the hearts of those who listen to debates such as this one. They are designed to strike fear particularly into the hearts of the young people of Australia. This is an old technique. I would suggest that it is a fairly revolting technique. Senator Sanders —Have you read the United States' documents outlining their policy? Senator HILL —I have read a lot of documents on this. We sat here and listened quietly and patiently to the contribution made by Senator Sanders and I would appreciate the honourable senator doing the same. This is a fairly below the belt-I do not hesitate to use the word-and revolting method to frighten the electorate into giving support. It is a method from which we would seek totally to dissociate ourselves. We see this again in the wording of the motion that has been put before us by the Australian Democrats. The first line of the motion is misleading in that it refers to foreign bases in Australia. This is one of the occasions on which I can say that I agree that the Government spokesman is correct in that there are no foreign military bases on Australian soil. The Democrats' spokesman has deliberately drafted this motion in a misleading form which again has been designed to frighten people. The motion has been put in a form so as to provide the opt out. The motion calls upon the Government to remove such bases unless certain things can be shown. Of course, the first of those things is that the bases and installations do not form any part of the nuclear strategy of the United States. As Senator Sanders is well aware, the bases perform a role. They perform a role as a deterrent to nuclear attack. They perform a role in the verification of arms control agreements. It was interesting this afternoon to learn that Senator Sanders and his leader, Senator Chipp, disagree on that point of view. Senator Chipp is of the view that they do play a part in verifying arms control agreements. Apparently, on this occasion, Senator Sanders disagrees with him. The motion has been drawn in such terms that it simply cannot be complied with. This again shows the mischief that the Australian Democrats are about in this debate. Let me make it quite clear-and the Opposition will repeat this again and again-that we support the ANZUS alliance. We know that the Australian Democrats do not support ANZUS. Senator Sanders —It is a sham. Senator HILL —Senator Sanders argues that it is a sham. I do not know why the Democrats do not come clean. Perhaps Senator Sanders will and say why they do not support the alliance and say that they do not want Australia to be aligned. Senator Sanders —Exactly. Stand up as an independent nation. Senator HILL —Apparently the Australian Democrats' position has now been further clarified. They are advocating non-alignment for Australia in defence matters. This is the first time that I have heard it put in such terms. I hope that that has the agreement of all of Senator Sanders's colleagues as well. Let us contrast our position even more clearly. We support the alliance and we support the deterrent. The deterrent has worked for 40 years and ought to be given more credit than Senator Sanders is prepared to give it. We accept that Australia has to be prepared to pay a price for that alliance. Part of the price is the joint facilities that we have on our soil. The other part of the price-and I submit to the Senate that this is a small price-is being prepared to accept allied naval shipping in Perth and elsewhere and matters of that nature. We accept that that is a reasonable price to pay. It is a reasonable contribution by Australia to an alliance which we believe is in the best interests of this country. That remains the clear position of the Opposition. The Opposition's position contrasts somewhat with that of the Government because the Government, of course, professes support for the alliance. It professes that Australia should be a full and contributing party to ANZUS. However, the Government does not always give its full support when the alliance is put to the test in a practical way. We have had a number of experiences over recent years to support that that is the case. I remind the Senate of the incident not so very long ago that involved the British ship Invincible. When that ship was damaged and sought entry to Sydney Harbour for repairs this Australian Government was unable to allow it to do so because it could not guarantee its safety while it was in port and it could not guarantee that the unions would allow it to leave the port. That was an absolutely embarrassing position for this nation. Our role within the alliance, when put to the test on that occasion, was shown to be of little value to our allies. We all remember the MX missile debacle when the Australian Government was asked to do very little to contribute to tests conducted by its ally, the United States. What was Australia asked to do? It was asked to provide little more than refuelling facilities for United States aircraft which were in this part of the world to monitor the tests. Of course, as honourable senators are well aware, when it came to the crunch the left wing of the Australian Labor Party demanded of its Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that Australia should not facilitate in that way. The Prime Minister, in an embarrassing way, had to renege on his undertaking. He had to go to Washington and renege and thereby embarrass not only himself but also this nation in the presence of one of its significant allies. We know that this Government is reducing the number of port visits of United States naval vessels to Western Australia. Senator McKiernan —Hear, hear! Senator HILL —`Hear, hear!' says a Labor Party member of this chamber. This action is being taken obviously as a result of further pressure from the Government's left wing. The most recent example of its attitude in these matters is its attitude to the strategic defence initiative. Whereas many of the allies are prepared to play a part in the research phase of SDI, the Australian Government is not. The position of the Opposition is that SDI is a defence mechanism as opposed to an attack mechanism. That is something that I would have thought Senator Sanders, given his preoccupation with the belief that the United States strategy is one of pre-emptive first strike, would be pleased to recognise-a project that is designed specifically to provide a defence rather than an attack mechanism. What an ideal it is that leading forces throughout the-- Senator Gareth Evans —You are going off the rails. Senator HILL —We have parted company. What an ideal it is that nations in the Western alliance are prepared to play a part in looking for a defence mechanism against an international nuclear attack rather than simply relying on the somewhat immoral and aged principles of mutually assured destruction. The Opposition regrets that the Australian Government is not prepared to support its ally in this way. The Japanese Government is prepared to do so, as is West Germany. Our position is that we regret that the Government, although it states its full support for the alliance, is often found to be somewhat short of its claims when put to the test. That brings into vogue what the Labor Party intends to do in relation to these matters at its July conference in which it will reassess its policies on nuclear deterrence and the role that Australia is to play within the alliance. We are pleased that we have been made aware of the Labor Party's intentions in this matter by an article which appeared in the National Times of 28 March to 3 April. That article has not been denied in any way and therefore, no doubt, is somewhat factual. In that article, Geoff-- Senator McKiernan —How could that be? Senator HILL —I will put a few of the statements to the honourable senator. I will put the policy that has been determined by his Party's foreign affairs and defence committee. As the honourable senator knows, under his Party's system, by the time such an issue has been dealt with by all the factions-this issue has already been dealt with by most of them-it will be adopted by the Party at its conference and become the Party's new policy. I thought that, as part of this debate on the alliance and the place that the honourable senator's Party intends Australia to take within that alliance for the future, this policy ought to be discussed briefly. We are advised by Geoff Kitney in his article: The Labor Party is preparing to take a much tougher position with the Americans on the key issues of the US bases and the ANZUS alliance. The article expands on that statement: . . . it proposes that the Labor Party redefine its commitment to the ANZUS alliance to give special emphasis to Australia's relationship with NZ and to exclude any specific commitment to the ANZUS Treaty. We are advised-it has not been denied-that this is part of the draft policy that will be put to the ALP conference in July, a policy that will exclude any specific commitment to the ANZUS Treaty. Senator Sanders —Hear, hear! Senator HILL —That policy is supported, we find with interest, by the Australian Democrats today. I am sure that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, will be heartened to know that he has the support of the Australian Democrats in this planned policy change. We have a belief that Australia should be strongly supportive of the ANZUS alliance. If New Zealand is not prepared to play a reasonable role within that alliance by refusing to allow an ally's naval shipping simply to enter its ports, we can understand the American sentiment, which is to regard the ANZUS Treaty as inoperative as far as it applies to New Zealand. What has been the Australian Government's attitude to this issue? We are aware that the Prime Minister has said that ANZUS as a tripartite treaty is no longer in existence. What does this Government propose to do if it says that ANZUS is no longer in existence? It proposes in its draft policy to establish for itself a new neutral role in relation to New Zealand and the United States. We wish to be distinguished from that policy. We say that what this Government should be doing if New Zealand is not prepared to be part of the alliance and to play a full role is-we do not hesitate to say this-to put all its energy into persuading New Zealand to review and alter its policies and again come back within the family of ANZUS. But if New Zealand is not prepared to do that, it is the responsibility of the Australian Government to go out and renegotiate its alliance with the United States, which is still prepared to be a party to that alliance. Apparently, that is not the approach that the Labor Government is intending to take after the July conference. It is interesting, because this policy paper has become relevant to this debate, that the article goes on to refer to this new self-reliance defence policy of the Labor Party about which we are starting to hear a lot. The expansion of this Government's isolationist policy might be another way of putting it-a policy, as we have seen, to pull our small commitment out of the Sinai, where we were playing a part at the request of both Israel and Egypt in keeping the only treaty currently existing within the Middle East. We see that policy in the pull back from Butterworth, resulting in an arrangement that will simply be unworkable for the future. We have seen it in the selling off of the Fleet Air Arm and in many other examples. What we are seeing is a new neutral role by the Government in relation to ANZUS and the United States. Apparently there is a refusal in this policy to give a full commitment to the alliance that we have had with the United States and an emphasis on this new isolationist self-defence policy. What does this leave us with? It leaves us with a typical example. I refer to the Kangaroo '86 defence exercise for this year, a defence exercise with which my colleague Senator MacGibbon is very familiar. It has been in operation since 1974. On this occasion, for the first time, Australia will have to exercise alone. The last exercise was cancelled because of the mess in which we found ourselves with regard to the ANZUS alliance. Australia is now going one step further in its isolationist, self-reliance policy and we will exercise alone. It thinks that as a small power-a realistically small power-in some way it can play this sole role within the defence aspects of the world scene. On our side of politics, that is a totally naive approach. It is a dangerous approach. It is not putting Australia's security in the light in which it should be put. It is a policy by which we believe Australia is not well served and it is a policy which we oppose. In conclusion, I reiterate our disappointment at hearing the Democrats again attacking the United States, our allied partner. We actually believe that good faith is the bulwark of a workable alliance. But that is not the view of the Australian Democrats. We regret their attitude as they have put it again today and we reaffirm our position as strong supporters of the Western alliance, both morally and because it is in our self-interest. We assert the importance of deterrence and our willingness to play our part in that alliance by allowing a limited number of joint facilities on our shores. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 18 April 1985, on motion by Senator Mason: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.31) — Senator Mason's Bill, the Defence Amendment Bill 1985, that is now before us, proposes that the elected representatives of the Australian people in both Houses of Federal Parliament should be properly involved in decisions to send Australia's military personnel into situations of armed conflict beyond our own territory. While the Government opposes the Bill for reasons which I will spell out in a moment, I make it clear at the outset that we do sympathise with its underlying philosophy. Senator Mason, in his second reading speech on 18 April 1985, which is nearly a year ago, spoke of our involvement in the tragic and wasteful episode of Vietnam. In the context of this Bill we should remember that the Australian Labor Party at the time spoke out vehemently against the decision taken without proper consultation to send Australian troops to Vietnam. It can be said, of course, that we did so at some political cost. Arthur Calwell said that involvement in an Asian war was the worst mistake Australia had ever made in foreign affairs, and that conscription for service in Vietnam was `immoral, unjust, and a violation of human rights'. We were embroiled in Vietnam as part of a strategy for defence that aimed to stop the supposed downward thrust of communism-a theory which I have often described as a kind of gravity theory of international politics; the notion that what is up must come down, but which, as Senator Mason pointed out, is not only misguided and historically naive, but also substantially aided the firm establishment of communist regimes throughout Indo-China. This Government has a much more practical and inherently logical defence strategy which concentrates our scarce resources in the most cost effective way for the direct defence of Australia and its territories. Our strategy is one of defence self-reliance. It aims to defend the fundamental democratic and humane values of our society, and does not seek to involve us in other people's wars on other people's territory. In implementing this strategy we must, of course, allow for the proper defence of our continent and territories and this may involve in certain circumstances defensive action outside Australia's territorial limits. In our current strategic circumstances there is no identifiable military threat to this country. It is lower level challenges to our sovereignty such as harassment, sabotage and small scale raids that are regarded as most credible. Strategic guidance concludes that such threats would develop, at least initially, in the maritime environment and in the northern approaches to Australia. It is unlikely, therefore, that in the event of hostilities the military defence of Australia and its territories would be limited to Australian forces serving within Australian territory or territorial waters. Our ships and aircraft could be expected to operate outside Australian sea and air space. The Bill before us would allow for this only after either resolutions by each House of the Parliament, or a proclamation by the Governor-General. It is difficult, however even after hostilities have begun, to decide, in advance, the limits of required deployments. In practical terms that responsibility lies with the Government's management of the defence situation. To require the proclamation of a state of emergency and the recall of Parliament to enable effective countering of low level threats is not, I suggest, a practical basis for defence planning. Further, situations may develop where there is a need to determine measures to be taken without the publicity associated with debate in the Parliament; situations where public knowledge could limit our strategic options and indeed put our forces at risk. Internationally, declaration of a state of emergency could be interpreted at least as over-reaction, alarmist or aggression; the latter more likely by a potential aggressor who could react by escalating his military preparedness and thus bring about the situation where, in fact, a state of emergency exists. There are other practical problems. The provisions of the Bill would preclude defensive activity such as protection of Australian shipping. They could also severely constrain the operational effectiveness of the Defence Force in such routine circumstances as hot pursuit in the Australian fishing zone beyond territorial limits. They could also complicate arrangements for the employment of Defence Force personnel in other countries under the defence co-operation program and in other instances where the Australian defence forces may be involved in providing humanitarian or disaster relief assistance. These and other circumstances are not covered by the exceptions in the Bill. While the list could no doubt be expanded, it would be difficult to arrive at a list in the legislation which is both comprehensive and clear in its coverage of routine peacetime activities. There are also somewhat more technical difficulties-for example, the operation of the amendment when Parliament has been dissolved. I recognise the motivation that our shameful involvement in the Vietnam conflict has provided to Senator Mason in his proposing of this Bill. The Labor Party, as I have said, spoke out vociferously against this overseas commitment of our armed forces at the time, and nothing in our history or traditions suggests that Labor would ask our servicemen to participate in operations outside our territory unless this involved the direct and immediate defence of fundamental democratic and humanitarian values of Australian society, and with our actions being subject to full public accountability through the people's elected representatives in parliament. The Government commends Senator Mason on the motives which form the basis of this Bill but the practical difficulties inherent in its application are such that it cannot be supported. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.38) —I rise to speak on behalf of the Opposition. We are totally opposed to the Defence Amendment Bill 1985. I listened with interest to what the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, had to say. I was astonished at the fundamental inconsistency of his case. He was arguing for self-reliance, and at the same time preaching the case for fortress Australia and continental defence. The inconsistencies there are irreconcilable. But that is properly a matter for debate on another day, as is his treatment of the Vietnam war. He is entitled to his views on that matter, and so is his Party. But he should reflect on the fact that if the United States and its allies had not entered the Vietnam war, we would have certainly seen the loss of Thailand, and probably Malaysia as well. The great achievement of the Association of South East Asian Nations, the economic growth of those nations which will lead ultimately to some sort of defence union between them, and a great force for stability in the area which is absolutely vital for Australia's defence, has been achieved as a consequence of the effort we made in Vietnam. The Vietnam war gave ASEAN the breathing space it needed to organise its affairs. But as with the concept of fortress Australia, that is properly a matter for debate at another time. I turn now to Senator Mason's Bill. This Bill in essence seeks parliamentary approval before Australia's forces are committed overseas in any way. It requires the approval of both Houses. In the event of an emergency it requires the Governor-General to call together the Houses of the Parliament at least within 48 hours to ratify that committal. In so doing, it attempts to do two things: It attempts to graft onto the Westminster practice under which Australia is governed, in a clumsy, ill-thought out way, the procedures of the American presidential system. They are two different ways of governing and one cannot pick and choose the good bits out of one system and run them with the other. I find it very strange that someone like Senator Sanders, who is an American and who spent most of his life in the United States, should come in here and vilify the American nation at every opportunity, yet everything he does in this Senate chamber seeks to introduce American practices into our system of government. He tries to recreate the very thing that he has fled to the other side of the earth to avoid. He seeks to build the new Jerusalem here and the new Jerusalem is going to be a new Washington DC. The second thing that Senator Mason's Bill tries to do is put into the hands of minority groups in the Senate the control of the defence and foreign affairs of Australia. Could anyone imagine Senator Chipp, or Mr Chipp as he was then, when he was Minister for the Navy of this country-a position which he discharged with great distinction, dedication, diligence and responsibility-seeking approval for the actions of the government of the day from the ratbag element in the Senate? Does anyone really believe that Senator Chipp would support a proposition like that? To state it in those terms is to expose the basic and fundamental fallacy of this argument. One of the most serious and difficult decisions that any government ever faces is the committing of Australian forces overseas. Whether war has been declared or not, those troops are being committed in a wartime situation. One is taking the ultimate decision and that decision self-evidently has to be made after the most careful examination of the arguments for and against. That is a decision that can be made only in the full knowledge of all the circumstances-knowing the diplomatic circumstances that are involved, the strategic involvement and all the military and economic factors. These must be weighed up in the light of a careful assessment of all the options that are open to the government of the day. That simply cannot be done in open debate in any chamber of this Parliament. Senator Mason's legislation would, in effect, arrogate to the Senate the right to countermand a decision which has been made by the Executive Government, having full access to all this information. As I said in relation to Senator Sanders and Senator Chipp when he was Minister for the Navy, we are giving the ultimate decision on the security of Australia to minority groups or parties which might have the balance of power in the Senate at the time. These are the points that I will seek to develop in my speech. There is another point I wish to raise. Senator Mason sees this Bill very much as a means of ensuring what he wishes to do; that is, keep Australian defence forces within Australia and not permit them abroad. But he fails to realise that that is very much a two-edged sword because it could work the other way round. It is not straining the bounds of credulity to imagine a very emotional incident occurring. For example, suppose that a Qantas airliner was blown up and 400-odd Australian nationals killed in some country and the Parliament, under the umbrella of Senator Mason's legislation, resolved to commit Australian forces overseas. It might be that more reasoned counsel available to the Executive government of the day would counsel very much against that and would take alternative courses of action. If honourable senators think that illustration is far fetched, perhaps they should cast their minds back 10 years to the situation that existed at the time of the East Timor troubles. Had the Left of the Australian Labor Party been numerically stronger-and that is something that could have happened then or could happen in the future-and had this legislation of Senator Mason been on the statute book, Australian forces would have been committed to Timor. That would have had consequences that we simply could not foretell. This legislation is based on a false assumption. The assumption made by Senator Mason is that the Parliament has no control of the Australian defence forces and that is blatantly untrue. The Parliament does control the Australian defence forces and all it needs is the courage to exercise its rights, if it has to. The Australian Government consists of three arms-the Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary. The Parliament is the legislature and it is in the business of making the laws of the country. The Executive is the Ministry which is answerable to the Parliament, but it is the Ministry which governs the country and makes the decisions. One of those decisions is that which relates to national security and which is very germane to Senator Mason's Bill. The final arm is the judiciary which is there to enforce the laws impartially. I come back to this business of parliamentary control. The Parliament controls the Australian defence forces because all defence forces need money. If one is fighting a war one needs a great deal of money and continuing access to money. If the Parliament does not approve the actions of the executive government, the remedy is very simple-the Parliament simply refuses to grant money to those armies. The Bill itself is a product of some very muddled thinking in relation to the United States system. There is no parallel between the Westminster system and the United States presidential system and regrettably the Democrats fail to understand that. Most of the business that the Democrats bring up is characterised by its sheer superficiality and opportunism. Senator Chipp —Why do you have to be offensive in a sensible debate? You were making a good speech but you are now being personal and offensive. Senator MacGIBBON —This point is very real to my argument, Senator Chipp, because if the Democrats had thought this through they would not have-- Senator Chipp —That is still no reason to be offensive and personal. Senator MacGIBBON —If I have been personal, I apologise. I had no personal intent at all. However, I guess this has got under Senator Chipp's skin a bit because I have come to the superficiality of the argument. In the United States Constitution, Article 1, section 8 states very clearly: The Congress shall have power to declare war . . . to raise and support armies . . . to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. In the light of the Vietnam war that power was altered in November 1973. The Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which set out to fulfil the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and to ensure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of the US armed forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances and to the continued use of such force in such hostilities or in such situations. In effect, it required the President to consult with Congress before military forces were committed and if they were committed, he had 60 days to meet Congress and another 30 days in which to withdraw the troops if Congress did not approve. Interestingly enough, despite this resolution, it did not solve the legal problems on the commitment of forces by the United States Government, and it did nothing at all to resolve the intense moral and psychological issues that are always associated with the commitment of armed forces. We do not have that system in Australia. In Australia the Governor-General is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and section 68 of the Constitution vests that authority in him. The Governor-General is advised by the Executive government which, in turn, is responsible to the Parliament of the nation. It is simply not possible for the Democrats to move by simple parliamentary resolution or take unto the Parliament powers which are properly vested in the Constitution. The basic principle on which armed forces are committed in Australia is that the citizens control the forces. I submit that it is a gross perversion of that argument to suggest that the Parliament should directly control them. The Parliament should control them by controlling the Executive which is in a position to make a much more informed decision as to the deployment of those forces. If we do not have that sort of commitment we end up with muddled command. In a situation where we have to commit forces, if we have blurred lines of command we will have disasters and failures on our hands. The basic doctrine is that one cannot separate administration from command and what Senator Mason tries to do here is to separate the administration of the defence forces from their actual command. As every commander knows that is a formula for disaster. The way the Department of Defence is set up at present, the administration of the defence forces is effectively hived off from those who control the defence forces. The Secretary of the Department of Defence ranks parallel with, and in practice seems to take precedence over, the Chief of the Defence Force. The heavy civilian component in the Department of Defence seems to outweigh the decision-making capability of the uniformed services. That is a matter which we will have to address in the future; we need to reform the administration of the Department of Defence. It is absolutely untenable to suggest that we go one step further and take Senator Mason's proposition that we take the administration of the defence forces out of the hands of the executive government. Senator Mason —That is a military dictatorship you are describing. Senator MacGIBBON —I would like to pick up that point. Had Senator Mason any powers of recall he would have remembered that a few moments ago I said that it was a fundamental tenet of Australian democracy that there is civilian control of the Army. To take his line, by affecting the administration of the Australian defence forces and placing that administration on an uncertain path we would be very much moving down a path of military dictatorship. I would like to reflect on what has happened in the last 40 years. No one wants war and nothing I am going to say here in any way condones war, but we have to recognise the fact that to resort to war is the ultimate method, or resort, that a national government has to protect the security of its nationals and to protect its essential interests when all else fails. World War II was a total war. In other words, there were no holds barred. It was a war between the Allies and the Axis powers. It was a war that was fought with the clear intention of fighting to a stage of unconditional surrender by the loser. The horrors of World War II, in which over 50 million were killed, made such an impact on the consciousness of the world that people tend to think of all wars in terms of total war and unconditional surrender. Since the advent of the nuclear age in 1945, people have equated war with nuclear war and they realise that a nuclear war is both unthinkable and unwinnable. World War I and World War II were total wars fought with the aim of unconditional surrender of one party or the other. They in a sense were very much aberrations. Of the millions of wars that have been fought since mankind began, most of the wars have been fought for limited objectives. They usually have been fought over a border area that is in dispute, over an island off the shore, or some small issue, and they are fought to redress a wrong that has happened. Involving all of mankind in a war and fighting to an unconditional surrender is not part of the great majority of wars. It may well be that this is the sort of situation that Australia will face; it may be that to prevent a war breaking out in the future Australia would need the ability to deploy forces within the region. The other point I would like to make about control of the Australian defence forces and the ability of the Parliament to commit them turns very much on public support. We simply cannot have soldiers overseas fighting-or defence forces of any nature fighting-without public support in the nation. The public, if it does not approve of a war, can very effectively exercise disapproval by voting the Government out of office. Let us look at the effect of this legislation. The prime duty of any national government is to protect its people and the essential national interests. That turns, in the case of Australia, on having a deterrent posture in defence. One of the fundamentals of having a credible deterrence is to have effective mobilisation. We need to be able to demonstrate that we have effective mobilisation. It is a fact that Israel has demonstrated repeatedly that while it has a small standing army it can very rapidly, within a matter of hours, mobilise a very large, fully-trained reserve. I relate this to Australia because in the past we have always had allies who have bought time for us, time that extended into years, while we mobilised and got our forces ready. But we no longer have this. Without the support of those allies that we have had in the past we might have to deploy some of the permanent Australian defence forces. For example, it might be a requirement that we use the Operational Deployment Force overseas to buy some time while we mobilise our own forces. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jones) —Order! The time for General Business has expired. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-Because of the arrangement with the Whips this morning it was understood that I would be given 10 minutes to speak. I have already canvassed that it was nobody's fault that I could not have that time. I have a speech here of about four minutes. I have canvassed the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and they have agreed that, if the Senate so chooses to give me leave, I can have this speech incorporated. I seek leave to have this very short speech incorporated in Hansard. Senator Robertson —I just make the point that this will not preclude Senator MacGibbon from being in continuation when the debate is resumed. Senator Chipp —That is understood. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- I warmly support Senator Mason's Defence Amendment Bill 1985. This Bill would place the responsibility for a decision to send Australian troops abroad squarely on the two Houses of Parliament. The Bill provides for exceptions covering the movement of personnel in the normal course of their activities and the possible need to take quick action in an emergency. In the case of such an emergency being declared, parliamentary approval would need to be sought within 48 hours. Provisions for parliamentary approval exist in Canada, constitutional prohibitions exist in Germany, Japan, and even the United States of America. This Bill would provide a check on the executive arm of government. It would ensure that Australia would not be drawn into a Vietnam, an Afghanistan, or a possible United States defence of its bases in the Philippines. What is there now to prevent the Executive-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Cabinet-committing Australia to a disastrous course of action without the Parliament and Australian people knowing what the arguments for and against were, and what the potential hazards might be? Nor would the approval of the House of Representatives be sufficient, but merely a reflection of the Executive's opinion. The very least such an important step would require is a full and free debate in both Houses of Parliament. The Senate could raise questions which the Australian people would want answered before they would consent to becoming involved in an act of war, which involves every person and affects the lives of everyone, perhaps for many years after the formal involvement has ended. This Bill would restrain the application of ANZUS in Australia's favour in the way United States law restrains any of their responses. It would mean that Australia would not automatically jump to America's assistance when they decide to invoke it. They have the restraint of constitutional processes even if they do no more than consult, responses would need Congressional approval. Since it is far more likely that the United States would invoke ANZUS to get Australian military support, surely, we as a nation need to have appropriate processes to assess any Australian military involvement, in particular to assess whether this involvement would be in Australia's national interest. In February-March this year while the situation in the Philippines was still unclear, on two separate occasions, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) floated the awesome possibility of the United States under ANZUS calling for Australian troops to defend US bases in the Philippines. The instability of the region could quite easily drag us into a bloody war just as Mr Hayden speculated. Nor can we say that the possibility of Australian troops being sent to defend United States bases in the future has been ruled out by the Aquino victory. What will happen if her Government decides to get rid of them? It is precisely in such a way that yesterday's friends become today's enemies, for reasons apparently beyond our control. But they are within our control. This Bill, if passed, would put them within our control. 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 Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.59) —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- I present Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 in which appropriations totalling $1.1m-additional to those made in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1985-86 are sought for the recurrent and capital purposes of the parliamentary departments. The principal reasons for the increases sought are cost and price increases since the budget. Details of the proposed additional expenditures are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) proposed: That the Bill be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. 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 Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(6.01) —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- I present Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1985-86 in which appropriations totalling $183.6 million-additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1985-86-are sought for capital works and services, payments to or for the states and the Northern Territory, advances and loans and for other services. The proposed appropriations are needed to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures for which provision was not made in that Act. The additional appropriations are sought to meet certain cost and price increases which have occurred since the budget and other requirements which the Government has considered it appropriate to meet this financial year. Areas where significant increases are sought over amounts provided in Appropriation Bill No. 2 1985-86 are as follows: $8.0 million is provided as the first instalment of a payment of $30 million to New South Wales for the construction, on behalf of the Commonwealth, of stage 1 of the National Maritime Museum. $21.0 million is provided for increased Commonwealth Assistance under natural disaster relief arrangements due to higher than estimated expenditure by Queensland and Western Australia on relief in respect of major natural disasters which have occurred since the Budget. $52.3 million is included to meet an upward revision to grants payable to the States and the Northern Territory under formal agreements in respect of medicare public hospital arrangements. The increase reflects finalisation of 1984-85 hospital utilisation data which resulted in backpayments for 1984-85, a higher base for indexation of the 1985-86 grant, and the effect of the recent determination raising the sessional rate for visiting medical officers in New South Wales Public Hospitals. $19.5 million is provided for grants, authorised from 1 January 1986, to compensate users in all states for the effects of dumping duties on fertilisers. The grants are to be applied by the states to offset the effect of the imposition of dumping duties on imports of fertilisers and to make payment to manufacturers so that they are not disadvantaged by the consequent reduction in import duties. The scheme is to be reviewed following the completion of the review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 and of the study of Australian fertiliser production and consumption, by 30 April 1986. $16.7 million is included for payment to the Parliament House Construction Authority because of the better than expected progress with construction in the last six months of 1985. Given the proximity of the 1988 completion date, advantage has been taken of the good site conditions to maximise progress. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. 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 Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(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- I am pleased to now move the introduction of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. It represents yet another milestone in this Government's record of improving the status of women and is evidence of our firm commitment to enhance women's job opportunities. This Bill will require certain employers to have an affirmative action program for women and to report their progress to the Government, through the Director of Affirmative Action. The objects of an affirmative action program will be to eliminate discrimination against women and to promote equal employment opportunity for women. This legislation is necessary to ensure that all large employers take seriously their obligations to their women employees. The changing role of women in our society is reflected, to a large extent, in the changing patterns in the workforce. The Government is determined that women should be able to enter and compete in the labour market on an equal footing with men and that outdated prejudices or conventions should not prevent them from fully participating. Neither individual employers nor the nation can afford to waste the valuable contributions which women can, and do, make to our economy. Affirmative action programs are designed to ensure that any existing discrimination is identified and removed, and that equal opportunity is a reality in the large workplaces in this country. The policy which is reflected in this legislation has been developed in full consultation with all groups affected by it, in particular the trade union movement, employers and women's organisations. We developed the policy in a gradual and realistic way to ensure that it was fully understood and to give those affected the opportunity to influence its final shape. I am confident that the result, which I present to you today, Madam Speaker, represents a workable and practical way of assisting women to pursue work opportunities to the best of their abilities. Soon after coming to Government, we passed the Sex Discrimination Act-an important reform which provides for the resolution of individual and group complaints of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy. Affirmative action programs are designed to complement anti-discrimination legislation by eliminating any rules or practices which may unfairly disadvantage women in the workplace and by promoting equal opportunity. In June 1984, the Prime Minister tabled the Policy Discussion Paper Affirmative Action for Women. To test the Government's proposals as outlined in that Paper, we established the Affirmative Action Pilot Program and 28 large private sector companies and 3 higher education institutions accepted the Prime Minister's invitation to participate. The Pilot Program ran for 12 months, concluding in July last year, and the contribution of those employers has been invaluable in the development of the legislation I am introducing today. I would like to express my appreciation of their efforts, and of their willingness to take part in such an innovative scheme. The Government also established a representative Working Party on Affirmative Action Legislation. Its members came from government, business, trade unions, higher education, women's organisations and the Opposition and it was chaired by me as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Its tasks were to monitor the Pilot Program and to advise on the form and content of the legislation the Government had committed itself to introduce. In November 1985, the Prime Minister released the Working Party's Report. Its major recommendation was for the introduction of legislation to require all higher education institutions and private sector employers with 100 or more staff to develop and implement affirmative action programs for women. I am very please that, despite the differences of opinion on the need for legislation expressed by some members and on the content of the recommended legislation expressed by others, the Working Party was able to agree on an approach. The views of all Working Party members are outlined in the Report, and let me acknowledge the difficult job members had in reconciling their very different views. I thank them for their dedication: the legislation I present to the House today reflects their willingness to work hard to achieve a result that was, in the end, acceptable to all. The other recommendations of the Working Party have also been adopted by the Government. A conference will be held later this year to reach agreement on how to remove legislative restrictions to women's employment while not, of course, jeopardising the safety or health of any worker. Many of these restrictions are within the jurisdiction of State Governments, but this initiative by the Commonwealth, I trust, will facilitate the establishing of new standards which will be acceptable to all parties. The Prime Minister has written to State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory asking them to look at whether some current building and fire regulations are unnecessarily complex or reflect out-moded standards and inhibit employers establishing child care facilities for their staff. The Commonwealth Schools Commission is currently undertaking detailed consultations with State and non-government education authorities and relevant community organisations on a draft National Policy on the Education of Girls. The Policy is expected to be finalised later this year. Progress is being made towards the development of a co-ordinated initiative to encourage women to undertake engineering. To this end, proposals are currently being considered for funding under CTEC's Equity Program. Mr President, I will now outline the major components of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. The Bill will cover Australia's 19 universities and 46 colleges of advanced education and all private sector organisations which employ 100 or more staff. The implementation of the legislation will be phased-in over several years. It will apply first to higher education institutions. They will be required to commence their affirmative action programs on 1 August 1986 and to make their first reports to the Director of Affirmative Action 1 August 1987. Many institutions already have begun programs to improve women's employment opportunities. The legislation will ensure that same employment standards exist in our national system of higher education. The Bill provides for co-operative arrangements to be made by the Minister with an appropriate State Minister for the exchange of information between the Director and a State officer relating to the development and implementation of affirmative action programs and for the development of guidelines in higher education institutions. Turning now to the private sector, I want to stress that the legislation does not cover small business. While the Government believes that in areas such as advertising and recruitment, small business should be non-discriminatory, it recognises that small business does not have the capacity to undertake the full import of the legislation. The Bill provides that an employer whose staff numbers fall below 100 will still be covered unless and until the number of employees falls below 80. Organisations employing 1000 or more employees will be the first to comply and will be required to commence their affirmative action programs on 1 February 1987 and to report to the Director of Affirmative Action on 1 February 1988. There are approximately 510 employers with more than 1000 staff. They are Australia's major employers and the Government has accepted the Working Party's recommendation that it is appropriate that they should meet these legislative obligations first. Some of them were involved in the Pilot Program; others sought assistance from the Office of the Status of Women and began preparing programs. The timetable proposed means that these very large employers have almost two years from today before they are required to report. We believe that this phasing-in will allow employers adequate time to meet the obligations proposed in the legislation. It is a reasonable timetable. The definitions in the Bill require employers, when counting their employees for the purposes of determining whether they are covered by legislation, to include all subsidiaries. The Bill follows the Companies Act definitions of subsidiary companies' relationships to parent companies. The second period of the phasing-in will be for employers with between 500 and 999 employees. Approximately 520 employers will be required to commence affirmative action programs on 1 February 1988 and report first on 1 February 1989. Employers employing between 100 and 499 employees will commence on 1 February 1989 with their first reports being due on 1 February 1990. This final stage will cover approximately 3430 enterprises. The Government is determined that this important new reform for working women will not become unnecessarily bureaucratised. We do not want to burden employers with unnecessary paperwork; nor do we want the small agency we intend to create to administer the legislation to become bogged down with an unmanageable and superfluous paper burden. The phasing-in of the legislation will help us to achieve a streamlined operation. Employers covered by the legislation will be required to provide two reports each year. The public report will be short, providing a breakdown of employees by sex and job classification and a description of the progress of the Affirmative Action program. The confidential report will provide greater detail to the Director of the progress being made under the eight steps of the program. The Bill provides that information from this report cannot be released without the employer's consent. Employers will have total control over the use of confidential information they provide to the Director. It will be an offence for any person to release this report or other confidential information provided to the Director, with a penalty of up to $2,500 or imprisonment for up to 3 months or both. The penalty reflects the seriousness of the undertaking being given by the Government that these reports will, in fact, be confidential. We do not intend that the compilation of these reports will pose an onerous task on the employer. Mostly, they will entail forwarding to the Director information and data on staffing and personnel procedures which most progressive companies already collect. The Government has accepted the Working Party's recommendation that there be two separate reports in order to provide an acceptable mix of some public accountability while protecting from public gaze any information companies wish to keep confidential. Employers will be required to allocate some staff and resources to the program, particularly in the initial phase. We would expect that those initial costs will become insignificant when spread over the time scale required to integrate affirmative action activities into usual personnel practices. During the Pilot Program, the participants agreed that affirmative action made `good business sense' and is `sound personnel practise'. The Australian Commissioner of Taxation has ruled that the expenses incurred by employers in implementing affirmative action programs would be deductible under section 51 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. If the expenditure involves plant or equipment, the normal depreciation provisions would apply. Mr President, let me go to the heart of our legislation-the program whose progress employers will report to the Government each year. There are eight steps to such a program and I will quickly run through them. The employer will issue a policy statement and give appropriate staff members responsibility for the program. Consultations will be held with trade unions where they have members in the workplace and with employees, particularly women employees. A statistical analysis of the workforce will be produced to develop a profile of the workforce by job classifications and sex. A review of all personnel policies and practices will be undertaken, to ensure that these are not disadvantaging women. Finally, employers will set objectives and forward estimates and will monitor and evaluate these annually. The setting of objectives and forward estimates is an essential part of an Affirmative Action program. On the recommendation of the Working Party, we have adopted this terminology to replace the earlier terms `goals' and `targets'. The Bill ensures employers are not required to take any action which is incompatible with the merit principle. I want to stress that the Government's Affirmative Action legislation does not propose positive discrimination or reverse discrimination. We are totally opposed to the use of quotas, and this legislation, by stating that all actions are to be based on merit, makes this clear. Those opponents of equal opportunity for women who try to discredit our legislative approach by claiming that we are proposing quotas are wrong. The Bill clearly demonstrates that. It is also clear from the definitions of objectives and forward estimates contained in the legislation, that these are to be determined by the employer and not imposed by the Director of Affirmative Action. The Director will be required to make an annual report to the Parliament, through the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Director also has the power to make other reports to the Parliament, also through the Minister. The Director could use this provision to prepare special reports on the employment of women in particular industries or occupations or to provide information on successful approaches and methods for effective affirmative action programs. The Director will be a statutory officer, appointed by the Governor General, for a period of up to 5 years. The position will be within the portfolio of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, and the office of the Director will be situated in Sydney, and not isolated in Canberra away from the businesses and institutions affected by the legislation. The Director will have a number of statutory functions and powers, including the primary one of advising and assisting employers on their affirmative action programs and monitoring and evaluating the reports lodged. There is a considerable amount of work to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the legislation, to ensure it operates in an orderly and productive fashion. The Prime Minister has therefore decided to establish a small interim agency in his Department until the permanent agency can be established. This interim agency will begin the preparatory work of assessing the potential information needs of employers and methods of meeting those, and of devising the form of the reports which will eventually be required. The agency will report to the Prime Minister at the commencement of the legislation on the preparatory work and on its recommendations for the operation of the permanent agency. The Bill provides for the establishment of representative advisory committees, to provide advice to the Minister and the Director. The members of a committee would be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the Director. It is envisaged that the Minister might appoint committees to provide general advice or a committee might be established to advise on a particular industry or occupation. I believe that the consultation process which has been used to develop this legislation should be continued. Both the Director and the Minister would benefit from the views of those closely involved with the relevant issues. The Government's approach in this important area of women's employment has been based on extensive consultation with all parties. It is not a punitive approach. Rather, it seeks to foster the development of affirmative action programs in an atmosphere of consensus and co-operation between Government and employers. This approach is also reflected in the only sanction provided in the Bill: the Director's power to name in a report to be presented to the parliament any employer who fails to lodge either report or who fails to provide further information on request. The Bill provides for employers with a reasonable excuse for such failure to escape the proposed sanction and it provides that, where the Director proposes to name an employer in a report, the Director must give the employer at least 28 days written notice of this intention and the reasons. The Bill also provides for an employer to apply to the Director for an extension of time of up to six months in which to lodge the reports. The Director may grant such an extension where there are reasonable grounds for the request. The Government intends the Director to continue the harmonious relationships built up between Pilot Program companies, employers' representatives, the higher education sector, the trade union movement and the Office of the Status of Women. In selecting the Director, the Government will be looking for a person able to maintain this harmony and to be sensitive to private sector and higher education ways of operating. I give the assurance that this legislation will not be administered in a heavy-handed fashion. I am confident that the vast majority of large employers in this country wish to co-operate with the Government's aims of ensuring that Australian women who wish to work are not denied any opportunity for which they are qualified. The Government is of the view that there is a need for all employers, whether in the private or public sector, to conform to the principles of equal opportunity in employment. The measures in this Bill are similar to those measures required to be undertaken by Commonwealth Government departments. I might add that consideration is currently being given to the appropriate legislative mechanisms for the coverage of Commonwealth Government statutory authorities. Other interested parties have been doing their own work in this important employment area. The ACTU has prepared an Affirmative Action Manual to assist trade union members and officials to make a useful contribution to the development of affirmative action in Australia. Last year, the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry announced the establishment of the Council for Equal Employment Opportunity to actively promote equal opportunity throughout the private sector. They propose to establish a formal register of participating companies and a Board to oversee the staff working with the companies. I expect the Director of Affirmative Action to work in close co-operation with this venture when it is established. The Business Council also intends to publish a book, based on the experiences of the Pilot Program companies. Mr President, the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill is a major Government initiative which is designed to remove any existing obstacles to women fully participating in the Australian workforce. It is a forward looking and imaginative approach to improving women's job opportunities and I am sure the result will bear out the Government's commitment to this policy. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 29 April 1986 at 2 p.m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the day and/or hour of meeting so determined be notified to each Senator. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(6.05) —The Australian Democrats will not oppose this motion. However, we are disappointed to the extent that if the proposed days of sitting for this session continue we will be off for only one week, which we object to anyway as we believe that the sitting period should be for two weeks on and two weeks off, and we will then be sitting for two weeks from 29 April and then another two weeks after that, a total of four weeks. Inevitably, we will sit another week, which makes the total sitting five weeks. That is 20 days. I do not know what the number of hours is in 20 sitting days. However, if we divide the number of Bills on the Notice Paper into those 20 sitting days remaining we have a clear indication that it will be physically impossible for these Bills to be passed. I plead with the Government to enter into early negotiations with Senator Chaney and myself with a view to expediting the passage of those Bills. I say to the Government that the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats will be sticking to the resolution of the Senate concerning the introduction of Bills. We will not tolerate this nonsense of Bills being introduced after 31 May. Most of those Bills will be sent to a committee. I give warning to those heads of departments who think they can use the time-honoured technique of sneaking in controversial Bills at the last moment, knowing that the Senate will want to get up and think that it will pass them quickly, that that is not on. Nor, as far as the Australian Democrats are concerned, is it on that we will sit for four or five weeks running without a break. That is a recipe for disaster. That is a recipe for members of this chamber to kill themselves. It is crazy and unnecessary. If only a bit of planning were done sooner in this regard. Normally at this time the leaders of the three parties have some sort of conference about the program. Such a conference has not yet been held. I would hope that in the first week we come back we will get together and make a decision as to which Bills should be passed, which Bills should not be passed and which Bills are not urgent. A decision has to be made, for example, about the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. We must ask ourselves whether we want to pass it this session or not. Senator Gareth Evans —We are going to need a bit of help from you if we are going to get it through. Senator CHIPP —I find massive incongruity in the suggestion that one Government senator made to me that the Democrats should join in applying a guillotine to the debate on the Bill of Rights. That suggestion has been made, although I will not name the honourable senator who said that to me. However, that is just not on. I have not yet been persuaded that there is any filibustering on the Opposition side in regard to the Bill of Rights. While I might say that some of the speeches have been repetitive, there is a genuine desire on the part of many honourable senators on the Opposition side to speak on the Bill. We have done a rough calculation which shows that the Government would not get the Bill of Rights through even if we sat four days of every week between now and November. A sensible decision has to be made about that. We put up the suggestion that the Bill go to a committee or that there be some other action taken on it. However, I plead with the Government in particular, because it is in charge of the business of the House, to take a sensible and sensitive view about what is ahead of us and the number of days left in the sitting. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.04) —In the absence of Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I say that we have concerns, as does Senator Chipp. There is a tremendous amount of business that has to be processed by the Senate before it rises for the winter break. Like the Australian Democrats, the Opposition believes that sitting for four weeks straight is impossible. We have indicated that we are not prepared to sit four weeks straight but that we would sit for three weeks straight and then break and come back again. That would mean that we would sit for quite a considerable way into June. This is where the matter rests now. I add that we have been inquiring of the Government for perhaps two weeks as to its intentions regarding the sitting days needed to clear up the legislation. Does the Government wish to sit extra hours during the sitting week? What period does it want to sit on after the planned rising of the Senate on 5 June? Does it want one week or two weeks? As we have said, while we perhaps see the necessity for sitting extra time, we will not sit for four weeks straight. We will sit for three weeks, have a break and, if necessary, sit for another week after that. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.10) —I came into the chamber just on the tail end of this debate and I heard somebody mention sitting extra time. I am against it. If we are going to sit extra time, when do we get time to do our constituency work? I will give an example. Next week we are off, so called. I have two days in Brisbane on a joint parliamentary committee and two days in Melbourne on a select committee. Then we have Anzac Day and we are back here the following week. I think we then have a two-week sitting. The week after that I am in Perth for two days-going over on the Monday for a Tuesday committee hearing-in Sydney on Thursday for another committee hearing and in Brisbane on Friday for another committee hearing. When do we get an opportunity to carry out our commitments in our constituencies? I understand that we have a legislative function and we all attempt to play our particular roles in this chamber. It may be asked: Why do I not come off a number of committees? I can understand that question being asked but I also believe that I have a responsibility to carry out a representative function and the committees serve that function. If there are going to be extra sittings, I ask for one week's break so we do not have a four week straight sitting. Apart from the effect it is going to have on us physically here in the Parliament, I believe our constituents do deserve a fair go if their seeing us is to be so regarded. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.12) —I am sorry that I was not in the chamber for the early part of this debate. I understand that the Opposition Whip (Senator Kilgariff) has already put a view for the Opposition. I merely wish to confirm a view I have put here before, namely, that I think extended periods of sitting are highly undesirable from a legislative point of view and certainly from a health point of view. I have the support of my Party Room in saying that we do not believe that the May-June session, which is proposed to be some three weeks, should be extended to four weeks. If the Government does have a legislative program that cannot be met by that third week of sitting, we would expect the Senate to lift for one week at least so that there can be some break, and that we would resume sitting if that was the Government's wish. The Opposition has given support to the two weeks on and two weeks off proposal. That does not suit many senators from either side of the chamber. I think, if anything, it does suit governments because it gives them a chance to have a break from this place and to get on with the business of governing. We have not in any way sought to frustrate the Government's desire to spread the sittings over a longer period of a year and to operate on the two weeks on and two weeks off proposal. However, I think it is very bad if the two weeks on and two weeks off becomes suddenly four or five weeks sitting in a stretch. I am totally opposed to that. I would be delighted if we had the support of the Australian Democrats, not in ever refusing to return for sittings-I think that would be quite wrong-but in maintaining some breaks between periods of sittings so that we do not place everybody's life and health at risk. I know it shocks the public sometimes to think that members of Parliament should complain about sitting for five weeks in a row but there is simply no public comprehension of the hours of work, which for many extend from seven or shortly after seven until midnight and after-Ministers, of course, most of all. As one who sought to see the two weeks on and two weeks off pattern established when we were in government, I am now satisfied that it advantages governments and not oppositions. I would say in the interests of the Senate-I am delighted that the Democrats have a made a view known on this-that we should say that, except for a one week addition to the two week period at the end of a session when we can clean up business, we should maintain a pattern of sittings which is basically two weeks on and two weeks off, or at least gives us a week's break after two weeks of sittings. We are prepared to use our vote to achieve that. I simply stress that we are not seeking to avoid our legislative responsibilities. We will come back later in June if the Government wishes us to. We will not continue to sit for a fourth week. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.15) —I rise to join this debate briefly because I feel there is a process of gradualism here back towards some bad old days. I can recall the days some years ago when only Senator Chipp and I were here representing the Australian Democrats. During the period of the Fraser Government I can recall sitting here at half past four one morning questioning Senator Durack on the Estimates. I do not feel that either he or I could give that justice under those circumstances. He is a tough character. I should not say that about him. He probably felt fine at that hour of the morning. I did not feel all that good. It was not a healthy situation and relating to it I would like to make a couple of points. The first point is that I gather that the Government, for reasons of its own, has decided that the House of Representatives may well sit an extra week in May. That, presumably, is so a lot more legislation can be pushed through at that stage. Senator Gareth Evans —That is for your reasons, so we can get the legislation by 30 May, damn it. Senator MASON —I am aware of that. When Senator Gareth Evans gets up to speak he may be in a position to address us-for the sake of all of us I think he ought to-on whether the Government proposes that the Senate sit for an extra week at that time? I do not think the Government should because we have a situation coming up-- Senator Gareth Evans —We are not, so you can sit down. Senator MASON —Senator Gareth Evans is not a masochist. That is good. I am delighted to hear it. In other words, we will have the one week break, then we will come back for two weeks and we will maintain that. I am glad of that and I thank Senator Gareth Evans for that assurance. The second point I make is a general one but I think it is of considerable importance to us. I think we are living in something of a fools paradise when we discuss all of this. It is natural enough. All of us want to get the work done. The Government wants its legislation and things of that kind. However, there are more senators here and a lot more time has to be taken up in debate. Naturally, the newer senators want to speak in debates. That is understandable. I suggest what we are going to have to look at-I think it could be done with complete justification and perhaps the Senate Standing Orders Committee could consider it-is a reduction again in the times for debate. When Senator Chipp and I first came into this place I recall that we got up and spoke and people came around and said: `You did not take your full hour'. It was scandalous if a senator did not take his full hour of debate. Since that time, of course, we have got the periods back to half an hour. Is that necessary? I admit that in some cases it probably is. Senator Gareth Evans —Just right now it is. Senator MASON —Senator Gareth Evans should just listen. There is no hurry over things. He is unduly impatient by temperament. It is not good for him. It is bad for his health. Perhaps we can consider that 20 minutes is sufficient time-- Senator Gareth Evans —Every time you get to your feet I have a sense of impatience welling up inside me acutely and overwhelmingly. You are absolutely right. Shut up. Senator MASON —The point I was trying to make when I was rudely interrupted by the Minister was: Why can we not consider a 20-minute maximum period in second reading debates? Many senators do not exceed that now. There could be the right of extension obviously where there is an important point, where a senator is in full flight and wants to go on. We could have that. I suggest that would reduce the time involved. Even quite small reductions in the time permitted in Committee debates would save a lot of time over a period of days or weeks. The problem we face is that of not enough time and there is only one answer to it. The answer is that we either go through a system of gags and guillotines, which I know the Government would love but we do not propose to allow that, or we have to reduce the amount of time which is devoted to individual people in debate. I suggest that is a form of discipline which would improve the speaking and oratorial qualities of the Senate rather than otherwise. Very few people speak for half an hour without repeating themselves, on any subject. Where the subject is important enough, let us have a situation in which the extension could be moved. I ask honourable senators to consider those points, because it seems to me that only realistically can we solve our problems into the future. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(6.20) —To show an example of being allowed to speak for 30 minutes and in fact speaking for 30 seconds, I can perhaps console Senator Mason by saying that these matters were considered by the Standing Orders Committee last night. Proposals will be going to parties very soon-next meetings; I hope-relevant to the length of speeches-- Senator Robertson —No leaks from our Standing Orders Committee, Senator. Senator HAMER —I am only consoling Senator Mason. There will be proposals. I shall not say what they are. Senator Robertson —I think you are leaking. Senator HAMER —Proposals will be going on these matters and a number of other matters devoted to reducing the length of time of speeches. Incidentally, Senator Robertson's interjection is a perfect example of why speeches go over time. I was going to speak for 30 seconds. In fact, I have spoken for a minute. Action is going on. It is up to the parties, particularly the Australian Democrats, to decide whether they want to cut down procedural time in the Parliament. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.21) — This is a splendid example of the way in which legislative time gets cut into. If I am demonstrating a little impatience on this occasion, it is not least on behalf of my half dozen officials present here from the Attorney-General's Department, who are making, they tell me, their twenty-second visit across to Parliament House to deal with the trade practices Bills, which were, of course, scheduled to come on 25 minutes ago. Perhaps I can quickly respond on behalf of the Government to say this. First, it is the Government's intent to introduce into the Senate all the legislation that we want debated this session on or before 30 May, in accordance with the resolution rammed down our throats recently in this place, so there is no need for further alarm on that score. Secondly, the Government acknowledges the need for further consultation on the legislative program and the way in which debates can be ordered in the time available, and we fully expect that that will occur at a leadership level in the way proposed by Senator Chipp and endorsed by Senator Chaney. Thirdly, we acknowledge in particular the need for some understandings to be reached in relation to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. I am not sure whether every honourable senator is aware of it but, on the figures that have been pulled out by the Clerks at the table, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and the accompanying Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bills have now been debated in the Senate for what is a record time for the whole period since Federation. Senator Durack —No, they don't make that claim. They go back only to 1970. Senator GARETH EVANS —We are now up to 35 hours and two minutes. Senator Durack —That is since 1970. Senator GARETH EVANS —My understanding was that it was since Federation. The second longest debated Bill is that National Health Bill in 1970, which took 31 hours and 49 minutes, and the third longest the Family Law Bill, which took 28 hours and 29 minutes in 1974. The Freedom of Information Bill was a positive hare by comparison, taking only 13 hours and 22 minutes. Senator Durack —What about the ASIO Bill in 1979? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know. I am just relying on the information from the Clerks. If there has not been a filibuster by Senator Durack and his colleagues on this matter, it has been a pretty fair imitation of one. This is important legislation. The Government wants it. The Government is disposed to press on with it. Senator Durack —What about proposing a referendum? Senator GARETH EVANS —Clearly, we shall need some understandings, and a little more sensitivity than that which is currently being demonstrated in this chamber by Senator Durack, if this legislation is to pass. Finally, I acknowledge what has been said about the difficulties of sitting for a four-week period straight, or for even more than four-week periods, in terms of everyone's stamina and morale in this place. We must acknowledge, however, that both the weeks of sitting and the hours of sitting are still relatively short by any international standard-Britain, the United States, Canada or elsewhere. That is a pretty horrendous prospect to contemplate when we have a minority party with only six or seven members having to deal with a whole range of Bills. It is also a horrendous prospect to contemplate sitting for these sorts of overseas session times when we have only six Ministers in this place responsible, between just six of them, for the entire legislative program and, indeed, having a presence in this chamber for the entire duration. No similar system operates anywhere else in the world in those chambers which sit for longer hours. If we get very ratty towards the end of a session, as well as-- Senator Durack —You are ratty at the beginning of the session. Senator GARETH EVANS —That might be true for some of us, Senator. Some of us get stirred into life by inanity rather more easily than others. All of these things are considerations with which we must at some stage come to grips. There has been an ever-escalating legislative load upon this Parliament. It has been for good reason. Life gets ever more complex. I do not think that simplistic solutions in terms of shortened speaking time will solve the problems. I simply acknowledge in response to what has been said in this debate that there is a sequence of interrelated problems here with which we must deal. Let us try to deal with them in good faith and with some element of mutual tolerance and understanding in the hope that we can get this legislative program through by the time we get up. Senator Chipp —We need leadership from the Government on that exercise. We will co-operate. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is all around me. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. The CHAIRMAN —When progress was reported today, the Committee was about to consider clause 22. I gave instructions then that I would take the amendments in the following order: Opposition amendment No. 2; Senator Vigor's amendment No. 2; and Senator Vigor's amendment No. 3. I understand that agreement has been reached to defer consideration on the Opposition's amendment, so I call Senator Vigor, to move his amendment No. 2. Clause 22.- Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.26) —I move: (2) Page 11, clause 22, proposed new section 52a, at end of proposed section, add the following new section: ``(7) A reference in this section to the supply or possible supply of goods or services includes a reference to the purchase or possible purchase of goods or services.''. The Government has put forward a very important piece of legislation for business and for consumers. They need this legislation to get a fair deal. I want to go a little further and appeal to honourable senators' senses of justice and equity. What I am asking in this amendment is: Why should we allow large economic interests, especially those in a monopoly or cartel position, to engage in unconscionable behaviour when selling or when buying? Basically, the Government's current clause handles the unconscionable behaviour during the process of selling goods, and this particular amendment is aimed at extending that to apply to the buying of goods. If we want a market-place that is free and open in practice and not just in name, we shall have to restore some balance between the relative weights of various parties who are involved in the transactions of commerce, and that is exactly what I am trying to do with this amendment-make an even handling of buyers and sellers. Monopolies that have cartel powers can be used to impose conditions that are in the short term interests of only the monopolies or cartels. These conditions can be totally against the public interest. These conditions can shore up economic inefficiencies and managerial incompetence in the cartel or monopoly itself. So I believe that it is also an advantage to the monopoly or cartel to have this type of legislation, which sets the boundaries of good corporate citizenship on both buying operations and selling operations. I should like to look, at a later stage when we have more time, at the sorts of distortions that can occur in the market-place because of large buying cartels. The obvious distortion is where a small business contractor is supplying goods to a large conglomerate, and that is one of the situations in which it is possible for the large conglomerate to indulge in unconscionable behaviour, and it is because of this that I urge the Senate to support my amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.30) —I shall reserve my reply until the Committee next meets. Progress reported. The PRESIDENT —The question is: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.30) —I wish to refer briefly to an article last Thursday on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. It was written by David Jenkins, the Foreign Editor. It was entitled `After Marcos, now for the Suharto billions'. I seek leave to incorporate this article in Hansard. The PRESIDENT —Has it been shown to the Minister? Senator TEAGUE —No, I will show it to him. While I believe strongly in the freedom of the Press, I also believe equally strong that this freedom should be exercised responsibly and not in a manner wantonly negligent of Australia's national interest. One fair and essential test of Press responsibility is that a newspaper should be able to sustain its reporting with evidence. A second test is the benefit or otherwise that would be expected to arise from any Press initiative. I refer to these important issues in response to the scandalous impact of last Thursday's article in the Sydney Morning Herald alleging misconduct in the business dealings of Indonesia's President Suharto. The Australian Parliament has no evidence to verify any of the allegations that have been made. But what is known in Parliament is the enormous and constructive contribution President Suharto has made to the benefit of the Indonesian people and the whole region since his leadership began 20 years ago. Certainly the author of the article, David Jenkins, has not sought to document the allegations. The allegations are not new and have surfaced from time to time in the form of gossip. I object strongly to any journalist or publisher printing material based on gossip that does not cite hard evidence. The author, David Jenkins, is a very experienced journalist with an extensive knowledge of Indonesia. He also has a detailed knowledge of the positive developments in Australian-Indonesian relations over the past year. He also knew details of the fourth annual Australian-Indonesian consultative conference held in Jakarta last week, which was disrupted by last Thursday's article. Mr Jenkins, with his thorough knowledge of Indonesian affairs, must have known what the reaction to his article would be. May I add with regard to other interested Australian journalists that I have considerable sympathy for the editor of the Australian Financial Review, who was at the conference, and his colleague, Michael Byrnes, who has one of two temporary work visas held by Australian journalists in Indonesia. They have been directly embarrassed by the Jenkins Press initiative and their good work is now likely to be severely disrupted. In fact, it is already severely disrupted. I support the Australian Financial Review's constructive approach over the past six months to ensure there is independent Australian reporting of events in Indonesia, which has now been put in jeopardy by a senior journalist of another Fairfax newspaper. It is easy for us to speculate as to what David Jenkins's motivation may have been in writing the article. It appears his intention may have been to cause a stir simply to gain widespread Press coverage through the reverberations that would inevitably follow. It has been my conclusion, and it gives me no cheer to observe this, that the article was deliberately designed to upset the growing good relations emerging between Australia and Indonesia. Certainly that has been its effect. It may also have been intended as some kind of payback for the tragic deaths of five Australian journalists in Timor more than 10 years ago. Of course, we must look for and encourage a more understanding response by Indonesian leaders to the nature of the Australian Press and hope for Indonesian acceptance that a Press event such as was created by the article in the Sydney Morning Herald is completely unconnected with the Australian Government and the Opposition and is unrepresentative of the Australian people. We will not be moved by this totally unhelpful and apparently unsound Press event to fetter in any way our Press freedom, but we cannot escape from the political repercussions of Jenkins's article. It is our resolve to continue to strengthen the basis for friendly and constructive relations between Australia and Indonesia. The PRESIDENT —Order! Earlier Senator Teague sought leave to incorporate in Hansard an article which has since been shown to the Minister. Leave granted. The article read as follows- AFTER MARCOS, NOW FOR THE SOEHARTO BILLIONS By DAVID JENKINS, Foreign Editor As Philippine investigators peel back the covers on the hidden Marcos millions, Indonesians are asking new questions about assets of between $US2 and $3 billion piled up by the family and business associates of President Soeharto. Though the president's name does not appear to be inscribed on any stock holdings or land deeds, the names of his brothers and half-brothers, his sons and daughters and assorted other relatives and business associates are listed prominently on the share registers of some of Indonesia's most profitable companies. Overnight tycoons, they have waxed fat on government capital, credit and concessions. And when, as on at least one occasion, their businesses have faltered, they have been bailed out, some Indonesians charge, by government aid. President Soeharto has little in common with former President Marcos, he has rebuilt a nation which was on the verge of bankruptcy and given it a new direction and sense of purpose. He has built schools-tens of thousands of them-and hospitals and roads, given the nation huge new oil refineries and hydro-electric power plants and more than doubled rice production, from 9 million to 23 million tonnes. He has ruled a large and complex nation with skill and subtlety, notching up any number of important achievements. But corruption is the Achilles heel of his regime. And over the past two decades many of those around him have been almost breathtakingly successful in the business world, often with little or no prior experience. The President's wife, Madame Tien Soeharto, has participated in so many questionable business dealings that she has long been known as ``Madame Tien Per Cent.'' (Some Indonesians, despairing of what they see as her increasingly acquisitive tendencies, have dubbed her ``Fifi''-short for Madame Fifty Per Cent.) Jokes about the Indonesian First Lady being in the mining business (``that's mine, that's mine'') were around long before they were told about Mrs Imelda Marcos. Amongst other things, Mrs Soeharto chairs several large charitable foundations. In theory, these are private non-profit bodies. However, it is widely believed in Jakarta that they serve not just as an instrument for the carrying out of good works but as vehicles for the enrichment of those associated with them, and as slush funds which launder money and sustain semi-official patronage network. Mrs Soeharto is also said to have extensive logging interests in Irian Jaya. The President's son, Sigit, and daughter, Siti, have acquired a one-third interest in the nation's largest domestic private bank, an institution with assets of $US277 million. Sigit is also said to have made handsome profits on the lucrative spot oil market. The President's long-time financier, Indonesian-Chinese businessman Liem Sioe Liong, has built up a business empire which is conservatively valued between $US2 and $US3 billion. Mr Liem, who has been handed an extraordinary range of government monopolies in such key industries as flour milling and cement manufacturing, is described by the Indonesian press as one of the six richest men in the world, far outstripping the Rockefellers. The President's brother, Probosutdedjo, has shared with Mr Liem, a government monopoly in importing cloves, a virtual licence to print money in a country where cloves cigarettes are a national addiction. He also has interests in a building company, a glass factory, a bag company, a compost plant, a hardboard company, a cooking oil company and a chicken farm. Sigit and his brother, Bambang, have become so bitterly competitive in the grab for business spoils that Mr Soeharto has had to step in and separate them. According to a well-placed Indonesian source, he has suggested that Sigit go to London, ostensibly to seek medical help for a sick child, but actually to cool his heels. The President's foster brother, businessman Sudwikatmono, has acquired a 4 per cent stake in the giant Liem company which has been awarded a monopoly in flour milling and a 5 per cent stake in a $US1 billion cement company managed and half-owned by Liem. Sudwikatmono has also gone into partnership with Mr Liem in the film-making business. Yet another relative, Sukamdani Gitosardjono, has become involved in a $US300 million investment in a cement factory and has extensive interests in hotels, timber, textiles, publishing, and fertiliser distribution. That some individuals should have become so spectacularly wealthy in a nation with a per capita annual income of barely $US500 is deeply troubling to a growing number of Indonesians, even if few dare openly question the fact. That Mr Soeharto has virtually created such a system and permitted his relatives to profit from it so handsomely, is to them not just a sign of political miscalculation but a serious blot on an otherwise impressive presidency. PAGE 7: How Soeharto's family made its millions. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2 at 8 p.m., Estimates Committee C will meet in committee room 6 at 9 p.m., and Estimates Committee E will meet in the chamber at 8 p.m. Prior to the sitting of Estimates Committees A and E, the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 6.36 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 April 1986, unless otherwise called together in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this day. The following papers were tabled: National Health Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 47. Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Marine Orders 1986- No. 1-Part 5-(Marine Qualifications-Engineer Officers) Amendment. No. 2-Part 29-(Emergency Procedures and Safety of Navigation) Amendment. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 Nos 48, 49, 50. Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendments Nos 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 40. Telecommunications (General) Amendments Nos 42, 44, 45. Telecommunications (Staff) Amendment No. 47. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 595) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. Following upon the statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to question 1 and 2. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based in part on information provided by the statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio: (1) (a) Department of Communications $8,000. (1) (b) Australian Broadcasting Corporation $104,744. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal $2,000. Australia Post $250,000. Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) $89,490. Special Broadcasting Service $40,000. Telecom Australia $140,000. (2) (a) Department of Communications. The guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from hospitality/entertainment account appear in Department of Finance Directions 13/1 and 13/2. (2) (b) Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Department of Finance Directions 13/1 and 13/2. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Department of Finance Directions 13/1 and 13/2. Australia Post Authorised managers within Australia Post, including Postmasters, may incur business entertainment or other expenses as necessary or authorise such expenses being incurred, within budgetary limits. Staff are required to be prudent in incurring expenses and should ensure that expenditure is directed to the best effect in advancing the interests of the Commission. Entertainment expenses are regarded as those relating basically to retention or extension of customers' business, those relating to advancing the interests of the Commission and those associated with appropriate entertainment of important visitors or business contacts. Delegates are authorised to incur entertainment expenses or authorise such expenses provided they are not incurred for normal day-to-day exchange of hospitality between colleagues or arising from normal social activities. Overseas Telecommunications Commission Prior approval of expenditure is required. Expenditure beyond minimal levels requires the approval of the Managing Director. Special Broadcasting Service The Executive Director or the Acting Executive Director are the delegates appointed by the SBS Board to approve and incur expenditure or Official Entertainment up to (a limit of) $1,000. Telecom Australia The use of business entertainment expenses is to enable the Commission's staff to inform influential members of the community of Telecom's aims and objectives and to retain and promote Telecom's business levels. Officers must be prudent in incurring such expenses, ensuring that expenditure is directed to the best effect in advancing the interests of Telecom Australia. Authority is vested in certain officers who can incur and/or authorise expenditure for hospitality/entertainment within budgetary limits. Claims for reimbursement against the budget are supported by receipts above a value of $5. (3) In line with Department of Finance Circular 1985/18, entertainment expenses are being monitored and recorded by the Department and the Authorities so that when the rules governing the liability for the new tax provisions are settled, the necessary transfer of funds to revenue can occur. (Question No. 772) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) Is it the stated intention of the Government of the Philippines to contravene the moratorium on commercial whaling imposed by the International Whaling Commission, to which both the Philippines and Australia are signatories. (2) What action will the Australian Government take to indicate its disapproval of this decision of the Philippines, and what action will the Australian Government take to attempt to influence the Government of the Philippines to alter its decision. (3) Does the proposed `pirate' whaling operations by the Philippine Government entail a breach of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, which prohibits trade in whale meat and whale products. (4) What action will the Australian Government take to persuade the Governments of the Philippines and Japan from permitting this illicit trade in whale meat. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) On 26 September 1985 the previous Government of the Philippines presented a statement to the Secretary of the International Whaling Commission outlining why the Philippines consider it ``appropriate to continue its whaling of the western stock of Bryde's Whale until 1988.'' At its 34th Annual Meeting in 1982, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) agreed to a moratorium on commercial whaling to commence in the 1985/86 pelagic and 1986 coastal seasons. The Philippines attended that meeting and did not subsequently lodge an objection to the moratorium decision. Under the terms of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the Philippines is therefore bound to abide by the amendment to the Schedule which set the zero catch limits of the moratorium. (2) Australia has expressed, through diplomatic channels, serious concern to the Government of the Philippines with regard to its intention to carry out commercial whaling operations during the moratorium. Australia has also expressed its dismay that the Philippines, not having lodged an objection to the moratorium, intends to whale in breach of the ICRW. Australia reiterated its concern to the Philippines Government most recently on 12 March 1986. In stating its opposition to all forms of whaling, Australia has asked that the Philippines Government take no further action to resume commercial whaling pending consideration of the matter at this year's Annual Meeting of the IWC. Australia will remain in consultation with the Philippines on this important issue. (3) The Bryde's whale, Balaenoptera edeni, which the Philippines intends to take, is listed on Appendix I of the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). However, the provisions of CITES which might apply to trade in whale products between the Philippines and Japan are complex, particularly as Japan has lodged reservations to the listing of cetaceans in CITES appendices. Australia is seeking further advice on the application of CITES to such trade. (4) Australia will endeavour to dissuade the Governments of Japan and the Philippines from authorising trade in whale products between the two countries. (Question No. 773) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Have 2 Australian citizens been forced to nominate the Queensland Tropical Rainforests for World Heritage Listing on behalf of the Australian people. (2) Is the Government prepared to support the people of Australia who wish to preserve this unique rainforest area. (3) In what ways will the Government support this nomination. (4) Why has the Government itself not initiated such nomination, in light of the Report commissioned by the Australian Heritage Commission and submitted in June 1984, which concluded that: ``the wet tropics region of north-east Queensland is one of the most significant regional ecosystems in the world. It is of outstanding scientific importance and natural beauty and adequately fulfils all four of the criteria defined by the World Heritage Convention for inclusion in the `World Heritage List'.'' (5) What studies has the Government undertaken to ascertain its legal rights and obligations in this matter. (6) Do these studies show that the Government is legally obliged to take action to place the Queensland Tropical Rainforests on the World Heritage List. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Dr Aila Keto, President of the Rainforest Conservation Society of Queensland and Mr Michael Rae, Campaign Director of the Wilderness Society sent a document to the Director-General of UNESCO on 5 December 1985. The document related to possible inclusion of Australia's wet tropical rainforests on the World Heritage List. However, this document did not constitute a nomination for World Heritage listing, as it was not authorised by the Commonwealth Government which is the State Party to the World Heritage Convention. This fact is recognised by both Dr Keto and Mr Rae. The last page of their document says: ``In presenting this nomination, we realise that the World Heritage Committee will not be able to accept the wet tropical rainforests for World Heritage listing as the nomination does not come from a State Party.'' This situation has also been confirmed by UNESCO. On 18 December 1985 the Director of UNESCO's Division of Ecological Sciences wrote to Mr C. S. Harris of the Wilderness Society, noting that: ``this nomination is not receivable for the World Heritage Secretariat since it has not been endorsed and submitted by the Australian Government.'' (2) The Government is firmly committed to the preservation of both Australia's cultural and natural heritage, including rainforests. It is considered, however, that these aims can best be achieved through cooperation and consultation with State and Territory Governments rather than through conflict and confrontation. The recently released report on `Rainforest Conservation in Australia' which was prepared in collaboration between groups holding strong and diverse opinions on a complex environmental issue, exemplifies the value of this approach. (3) There is no nomination for the Government to support. (4) Under an agreement reached by the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM), the Commonwealth Government has written to State and Territory Governments inviting them to submit suggestions for places to be examined with a view to possible future nominations to the World Heritage List. Queensland has responded and advised that it does not wish to have any places in Queensland nominated for the World Heritage List. In this connection, the Commonwealth Government has indicated that it will not take unilateral action to nominate areas for World Heritage listing. (5) to (6) The Government believes that its policy and actions in relation to this matter are in conformity with its rights and obligations under the World Heritage Convention. (Question No. 797) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) What was the wording of a determination made by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on 4 November 1985 relating to the temporary variation of Children's Television Standards (CTS) to allow the broadcast of sports events to displace `C' time. (2) Which television stations availed themselves of this determination during the period of the variation and for each station: (a) on what dates were `C' time programs displaced; and (b) on what dates and times were the displaced programs made up. (3) Were the television stations required to observe CTS 4 (3) for the period of the variation; and if not, why not; if so, were the requirements of CTS 4 (3) properly followed on each occasion. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: (1) The temporary variation of Children's Television Standard 4 (3) (i) and (ii) determined by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on 4 November 1985 was worded as follows: `For the period from 1 November 1985 to 29 February 1986, Children's Television Standard 4 (3) (b) (i) and (ii) will be varied to allow for displaced `C' time to be made up within 21 days of the day on which `C' time is varied to allow live coverage of a major sports event.' (2) This information is not yet available to the Tribunal. The position is that CTS 4 (4) requires stations to provide each July details of variations to `C' time for the previous statistical year. This information includes the dates and time periods affected, the circumstances involved (including details of any live coverage), when `C' programs were rescheduled and details of publicity of the changes. The Tribunal will provide the relevant information direct to the honourable senator when a full analysis of the station returns is completed later in the year. (3) Stations which availed themselves of the arrangements in the Determination were required to observe CTS 4 (3) in respect of the variation. Information as to the extent to which the requirements were observed will be included in the analysis mentioned in (2). (Question No. 832) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) How did the Registrar of Aboriginal corporations establish the authenticity of the background of the Kalkadunga Tribal Heritage Association Aboriginal Corporation (KTHAAC) and what information was supplied to cause him to believe that all the members were of Kalkadoon heritage when the Registrar received the application from the KTHAAC to be incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. (2) Why would the Department of Aboriginal Affairs consider registering the KTHAAC as a body to receive Government funds, since the KYHAAC has the same aims, objectives and a similar constitution to the Kalkadoon Tribal Council, thus duplicating funding, when it is known that the Kalkadoon Tribal Council are the recognised and funded body representing the Kalkadoon people. (3) Do several directors of the KTHAAC live and work in Brisbane; if so, how much does it cost for them to attend monthly meetings of the KTHAAC. (4) Does the Chairman of the KTHAAC live and work in Katherine, Northern Territory; if so, how much does it cost for him to attend the monthly meetings of the KTHAAC. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The decision to incorporate the KTHAAC was one for the Registrar, or Acting Registrar, acting pursuant to sections 43-49 of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs was consulted, but the decision was not its decision. Nor is the decision in any way related to any question whether the incorporated body would receive funds from the Department. (1) While the Registrar made inquiries of the Department as to whether the members of the KTHAAC were believed to be descendants of the Kalkadoon tribe, no attempt was made by the Registrar to establish the `authenticity of the background' of members. No genealogical assessment of applicants is required of the Registrar under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. Indeed, in cases where records have not been kept, such assessments would not be possible. (2) The Department did not register KTHAAC for the purpose of receiving funds. Kalkadunga Tribal Heritage Association applied to the Registrar and was granted incorporation because the association satisfied the provisions of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. The Act does not preclude proposed objects being similar to those of another corporation. The fact that the Kalkadoon Tribal Council is at present in receipt of Government funds in no way implies that it is the only body recognised as representative of Kalkadoon people. In fact, the constitution of the Kalkadoon Tribal Council-unlike that of the KTHAAC-does not restrict membership to Kalkadoons; membership is open to any Aboriginal or Islander. (3) and (4) The Minister has been informed that two of the members at present live in Brisbane and that the Chairman at present lives in Katherine. As their organisation is not in receipt of Government funding, the activities of any members and the expenses these may entail are the office-holder's own private concern. (Question No. 914) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) Is it now the policy of the Northern Territory Government to allow Energy Resources of Australia Ltd to release contaminated water from the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Northern Territory into Magela Creek in Kakadu National Park, a World Heritage listed area; if so, when was this policy formulated, and was the Federal Government consulted before any decision was made. (2) How much contaminated water has so far been released into the creek, and what is the level of the contamination. (3) What effects has the release of the water had on the environment, and in particular marine life. (4) Is it intended to repeat and continue the practice of releasing contaminated water into Magela Creek, or other waterways. (5) Did the Fox enquiry into the Ranger Uranium Mine specifically recommend that a policy of total freedom from containment be followed by the mine. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) No water has been released from the Ranger restricted release zone to the Magela Creek. Since 1979 the Northern Territory Government, with the agreement of the Commonwealth Government and Aboriginal groups, has approved the release during the wet season of runoff water from outside the mine's restricted release zone subject to, amongst other things, the water meeting quality criteria. Such controlled releases continue to be made with the agreement of the supervising authorities. In 1985, in the course of monitoring an authorised release, staff of the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region observed short term breeding impairment of mussels in the vicinity of the discharge point and some avoidance of the area by fish. The significance of these events is unclear. No such effects have been observed this year. (5) No. The Report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recommended that the water management system be established initially as a no release system and that this system be maintained until it was shown that releases of contaminated water would have to be made. The Report also made recommendations as to the manner in which water should be released and proposed the broad principles to be applied in the development of water release standards. (Question No. 952) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) Have the negotiations on revised contractual arrangements between Australia Post and the 2 major domestic airlines now been concluded; if so, under precisely what circumstances will penalty provisions apply should Express Courier or Priority Paid mail not be uplifted to destination on flights nominated by Australia Post. (2) Can penalty provisions be applied for failure to uplift ordinary Air Mail articles on either specified flights, or within a certain period of time. (3) What resources does Australia Post intend to apply on-the-spot at various airports in order to achieve better uplift and on-time delivery rates. (4) What has been the cost to Australia Post of the services provided by the domestic airlines in each of the past 5 financial years. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) Yes. A penalty, in the form of substantially reduced rate of payment, applies to any failure to uplift Express Courier mail and convey it to its destination within time parameters nominated by Australia Post, except in circumstances beyond the control of the airline concerned (for example, where a flight is delayed by adverse weather). There is no penalty provision in respect of Priority Paid mail. (2) No. (3) Australia Post has its own staff based at airports in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. These staff liaise closely with airline representatives and play a major role in monitoring the performance of the airlines and securing timely uplift and conveyance of mails to destination. They also initiate action to apply the penalty provision in cases of Express Courier uplift failures. (4) 1980-81-$12.624m; 1981-82-$15.482m; 1982-83-$19.533m; 1983-84-$22.867m; 1984-85-$27.096m. Source: Australia Postal Commission Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 1985 (Page 56, Table 2). Senator Ryan —On 19 February 1986 (Hansard, page 603), Senator Macklin asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the following question without notice: I refer to the report of the Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications, which was tabled in October 1984, which recognised the desperate need for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to control radio and television, and to the Government's response in November 1985 endorsing the urgency of that framework. I ask (1) Why was the meeting with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister for Communications and senior representatives of the Island Co-ordinating Council planned for this Friday cancelled? (2) Why were the Aboriginal people and the Torres Strait Islanders on the islands of north Queensland not given the opportunity to involve themselves in the inquiries into the commercial television licence issue, as were the Aboriginal people in Alice Springs? The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Senior officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Communications have received a number of requests for a meeting between the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister for Communications and senior representatives of the Island Co-ordinating Council from a Mr R. Cantley claiming to represent the Council. The Chairman of the Island Co-ordinating Council wrote to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs suggesting a meeting on 19 February. The letter requested that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs pay the air fares for the representatives to travel to Canberra. The Minister replied advising that 19 February was not convenient because senior officers of his department and the Department of Communications would not be available in Canberra as they were participating in the official opening of the High Frequency Inland Radio Service transmitter in Alice Springs. Mr Cantley had been advised of this when he spoke to the Minister's office. The Minister also advised the Chairman of the Council that most of the matters he wished to raise had been addressed in the Task Force Report on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications. He said that he would welcome a meeting with the chairman during one of his regular visits to Canberra. There was no meeting planned for 19 February. (2) The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has advised the Minister that the following steps were taken in relation to advising groups and communities about the north east region Remote Commercial Television Service licence hearings: ``The Remote Commercial Television Service (RCTS) Inquiry for all four regions, including the north-east region which covers Queensland, was announced by the Minister for Communications on 10 October 1984. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) published a notice dated 24 October 1984 in all major metropolitan and regional newspapers seeking Expressions of Interest, Applications and Submissions for all four regions. These papers included the Country Life in Queensland, the Courier Mail in Brisbane and the Daily Bulletin in Townsville. On 31 October 1984 the Tribunal wrote to Federal members of the House of Representatives covering remote constituencies asking them to bring the RCTS Inquiry to the attention of their constituents, particularly those who could be affected by the establishment of such services. The Queensland MPs contacted by the Tribunal represented the constituencies of Nambour, Mackay, Dalby, Rockhampton, Cairns, Mt Isa, Townsville, Toowoomba, Maryborough and Southport. In addition, copies of all applications were lodged in Municipal and Shire Council offices throughout Australia, as well as with District Radio Inspector and State Australian Broadcasting Tribunal offices, to enable the public to examine them. There were 18 locations in Queensland where copies of the RCTS Applications were available for public inspection. A notice for the north-east region hearing, dated 4 July 1985, was published in the Courier Mail inviting the public to attend the hearings. The Tribunal made several attempts to contact the Torres Strait Aboriginal and Islander Media Association by telephone to invite their participation in the north-east region hearing. No one answered the phone on any of the five occasions an attempt was made to ring through. However, the applicant (QSTV) for the licence did call Mr Robin Yarrow, Executive Officer with the Queensland Department of Community Services (which includes Aboriginal Affairs). Mr Yarrow gave evidence on Aboriginal needs in the north-east region. In addition, QSTV is currently undertaking research into the needs and interests of Aboriginal communities in the State. Throughout the Inquiry process, the Tribunal heard a lot of evidence relating to Aboriginal needs. The Tribunal had regard to the evidence presented by the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs to it during the General Hearing, as well as that of the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association. This was reflected in the Report of the North East Regional Inquiry''.